20th February 1814: The Town Clerk of Nottingham advocates the use of the spies in Nottinghamshire

Confidential.

Nottingham 20th February 1814.

Sir

I have the honour of your letter of a highly confidential Nature dated the 18th Instant written to me by direction of Lord Sidmouth in regard to some information communicated to his Lordship as to some Societies which are stated to have been formed in Nottingham professedly to obtain Parliamentary relief without avowing the nature of the Grievance for which relief is sought.—Without being in possession more precisely than I now am of the nature and extent of Lord Sidmouth’s Information I can not form any Judgement how far these Societies by their constitution violate the existing laws of the Land, but I can have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the opinion which Lord Sidmouth entertains upon this part of the subject. I am decidedly of Opinion that there can be no more proper or adviseable mode adopted than that of employing a confidential person to become a member of one or more of these Societies with a view to obtain a thorough insight into their Constitution, organization and object and the means they use to carry their objects into execution.—In my Official situation some time ago I received some imperfect hints which very much appear to bespeak the existence of Societies of a similar Character with those of which Lord Sidmouth has received Information, but I have never been enabled to come at any distinct Account upon which it could be inferred that there was a probability of establishing such facts as would form a ground of legal Proceedings. Altho’ I judge it proper that some person should be, if possible, procured, to enter into these Societies with a view to obtain a correct and certain detail of their interior and thereupon to decide as to the propriety of instituting a Prosecution against them. I am by no means prepared without much further consideration, if Lord Sidmouth intends to consult me on the subject to suggest any person as proper to be employed on my business.—The person retained on this business, may enter into these Societies either with a view merely to obtain precise information on the subject with a distinct understanding that he is not be called upon as a Witness against the Society, or he may be employed, in the same manner and for the same purpose with a previous settled determination to call upon him as a Witness to prove on oath the facts he may be enabled to ascertain in relation to these Societies. If the person employed is to give evidence against the Societies I should find it difficult to find such a Person, I should therefore most strongly advise that the first employment of a Person to gain any information should be confined to that object, and that he should be retained upon a most distinct understanding with him that he was not to be employed as a Witness: we shall thus [what] over maybe our future difficulties, in obtaining evidence to convict, have the source of our information pure and uncontaminated. The Information wanted I think it will not even in this manner be very easy to obtain.—I imagine that these Societies have a main relation to and connection with the Frameworkknitters, and are the remnant of the System of Luddism and the body of men who applied last year to Parliament. I have kept my eyes steadily upon them, and no one will more chearfully assist in opposing their Attempts to control their masters in the conduct of their Business. In the mean time the Trade of the Town is reviving to an extent which is truly wonderful.—The Increase of work and of wages will I should hope take from the Workmen all cause of discontent and all occasion for combining to increase their wages. I have answered your letter without any communication with any one but I will apply myself to get more information, and if Lord Sidmouth should wish it I will endeavour to fix upon and procure some person to obtain Information on the Condition.

I am, Sir,
with the utmost respect,
your most faithful & obdt. Servt.

Geo Coldham

The curious case of Marsden Haddock's 'Androides, or Animated Mechanism'

Leeds Mercury, 24/12/1813

On this day 200 years ago, an interesting exhibition finally departed Leeds after a stay that had been extended due to heavy snow over the winter months. The Christmas Eve 1813 edition of the Leeds Mercury had carried an intriguing advertisement for the exhibition featuring one word in particular that leaps out at the modern reader: ‘Androides’.

The ‘Androides’ were a number of mechanical automata that an impresario called Marsden Haddock had been exhibiting in England and Scotland over the past 12 months. Haddock was a self described ‘organ builder’ (and in other earlier adverts a ‘machinist’) originally from Cork, who had exhibited much the same exhibition in London over 16 years earlier. Curiously, evidence of the exhibition being present in Britain in the intervening period seems to be thin on the ground until December 1812, when Haddock began displaying the automata in Edinburgh. We can only speculate why Haddock had chosen the moment that West Yorkshire Luddism was snuffed out to begin to display his exhibition again, reaching York by August 1813. At the very end of 1813, he had made his way to the heart of the cloth districts, and had set up his show at the ‘Mechanic Theatre’ (as he christened all of the venues he used), a concert room on Albion Street in Leeds.

Whilst it's possible that Haddock’s arrival in the West Riding, on almost the first anniversary of the York Special Commission, was a coincidence, on another level his visit was almost a natural consequence of the outcome of the trials. The suppression of Luddism in the West Riding had arguably cleared a large ideological space, leaving plenty of room for Haddock’s seemingly frivolous curiosities that actually masked a far more serious intent.

Many of us would be surprised to learn that mechanical automata are far from a recent invention, and have a history going back over 300 years. Automata had a history of being playthings for the rich, being conceptually driven by their view of an idealised utopia of obedient and automated subjects. With entrance prices of starting at 1 shilling, Haddock’s show was certainly not aimed at working people, although the automata on display had at one point no doubt been created by highly skilled but poorly paid artisan workers.

It was of little coincidence then that the ideology that lay behind automata could find a natural home in the West Riding – perhaps more than any other place in England at the time – in an environment where the croppers had been well and truly beaten by a capital given the full backing of the state, and where a manufacturing class and bourgeoisie had felt bold enough to publicly declare ‘may the Manufacturers and the Machinery of Yorkshire ever be uninterrupted’ in a toast to William Cartwright & Joseph Radcliffe some 5 months previously. In the same place whose ruling class had established that an intact machine was more valuable than a human life by a rough ratio of 2:1.

What is less well-known is that automata had directly influenced one of the leading figures amongst the manufacturers promoting automation in the cloth industries. Wolfgang von Kempelen’s ‘Turk’ chess player had inspired Edmund Cartwright (the brother of the reformer, Major John Cartwright) to create the power loom, an ‘innovation’ that had spelt misery for workers in Lancashire and Cheshire, and had met fierce resistance there during the Luddite disturbances of mid 1812. Ironically, the ‘Turk’ was a hoax – a confidence trick which was operated by a concealed human being – it could not have been built and also could not have worked without the direct application of human skill. On the contrary, Cartwright’s invention could only serve to displace human labour and make life more miserable for workers.

But while Edmund Cartwright had been influenced to create his power loom after an encounter with an automata – hoax or otherwise – others had earlier made more explicit links between the displacement of human labour and the use of automata. The eighteenth century French inventor & artist Jacques de Vaucanson had started his career as a builder of astonishingly complex automata, after schooling in anatomy. Vaucanson even tried to replicate biological functions in automata, being convinced there was little essential difference between his creations and human beings. He later turned his attentions to the textile industry, creating the first completely automated loom in 1745 which pioneered the use of punch cards to automate pattern control, an invention that would be refined much later by Jacquard and developed later still to input dates into early computers.

Haddock’s show had also previously contained an automata that was very much ahead of its time and squarely facing the future. His ‘writing automaton’ was ‘the size of a boy of five years old’ and could ‘write any word, words, or figures, in a round legible hand’. This description, from a flier of Haddock’s shows in London in the late eighteenth century, sounds exactly like Jaquet-Droz’s ‘The Writer’ (see video below). Droz’s automata had 6000 parts and utilised a wheel which controlled cams, enabling any word or sentence to be composed – according to Simon Schaffer, ‘The Writer’ was another ancestor of the programmable computer. But by the time Haddock had started touring his exhibition again, this particular automata was strangely absent from the show.


Marsden Haddock seems to be an elusive figure, about whom little is known. Indeed, the flier for his London show has been the only evidence cited in one or two books that mention his exhibition, and in those works, he remains firmly rooted in the late eighteenth century rather than the time of the Luddites and their resistance to automation. The automata themselves must have been expensive items to purchase, never mind display and tour. But then Irish trade directories from the late eighteenth century reveal that Haddock was a versatile capitalist, involved in the glassware trade, and owning a shop on Castle Street in Cork. Yet there was much more to Haddock than this and the automata meant for display. And although it’s possible he had consciously pulled the automata out of storage to exhibit them in an environment where the capitalist class were keen to see the products of automation – because he knew that the ideological struggles of the last two years could make them a sure fire hit with the victors – his commitment to automation much ran deeper than that. In 1820, we find Haddock and his son Edward bound for New York. Later still in 1828, Haddock registered a patent in New York for a sheet paper manufacturing machine – utilising  a mode of dipping ‘faster than by the old hand process’.

It’s entirely likely that Haddock had found the West Riding of Yorkshire an ideal place to display his current machines and to find inspiration for his future ones.

17th February 1814: The Deputy Constable of Manchester writes to the Home Office about remuneration

Sir

I hope you will pardon the Liberty I have taken in addressing you Respecting the Money I have paid in taking the Rioters in this neighbourhood, and the witnesses going to Lancaster &c Mr. Haye has wrote to the Solicitor of the Treasury several Times and I have sent up Two Accounts and have never Received any Answer. The Reason I cannot tell but if you will peruse the annexed Account you will see if there has been any Business done and in Addition I went over to New Mills in Derbyshire and apprehended Ten took them to Derby, next Time I went I took up six and sent them to Derby, and I went to Middlewich in Cheshire two different Times and apprehended two, they were all of them tried before Sir Vickery Gibbs last Spring Assizes at Derby five out of the number were capitally convicted and three were hanged two transported for Life, I heard that this Gang had gone together to Rob John Drinkwater's House of Bugsworth in the County of Derby, no one in that neighbourhood durst take them, I took the Greys one of the Times and the Bays the other, I did get bare Expences but in that Case not one penny for Loss of Time or extra Duty, when the Riots existed peace Officers were scarce. I must either take the Dragoons or go myself, I have been a Servant to the public 25 years, and I do think myself very coolly treated. I again have to apologize for my troubling you and I do trust if in your power you will assist me in getting my Expences

I am
Sir
your Humble Servant
Joseph Nadin

Manchester
police Office
Feby 17th 1814

17th February 1814: Scribbling Mill in Ossett destroyed by fire

On Thursday morning, 17th February 1814, a Scribbling Mill belonging to Messrs Hallas of Ossett was destroyed by fire, causing £10,000 of damage. The cause of the fire was not reported.

15th February 1814: Government legal advice on workers organisations in Nottinghamshire

Further Case 

Since the inclosed Opinion of the Attorney and Solr General was given on the 22nd of December last one of the Tickets or Diplomas alluded to in the 12th Article has been obtained It bears a Coat of Arms which are stated to represent an Union of Ireland Scotland Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Leicestershire & Yorkshire with a Loom and by way of Crest & Arm holding a Hammer (which was the Implement principally used last year by the Nottinghamshire Framebreakers) and the Motto says Taisez vous. Another Copy of the printed Articles has also been obtained from Mansfield in Nottinghamshire.—

As it appears by the Articles that a General Meeting was to be held in May last Enquiry has been made relative to it and also for further General Information respecting the Societies and the following is the result of those Enquiries—

"There are at Nottingham about 20 Societies many of them consist of more than an hundred Members each some of a smaller number—The Business transacted before the General Members professes to have for its object the ensuring to them Employment at what they call fair prices The Societies hire all the unemployed Frames and engage all the Work they can which they let out to their Members but to no other person If a member has Employment elsewhere with which he is dissatisfied the Society make him a weekly allowance until he finds better Employment either from the Society or other persons. When the Funds of the Society exceed a certain sum the surplus is sent to what my Informant calls the Head Committee which he believes to be in London. The Officers of the Society sometimes retire into a Room apart from the General Meeting Room to transact Business. My Informants Society have paid out of their Funds the expences of defending Criminal Prosecutions against its Members but he understands this has been objected to by other of the Societies—New Tickets have been issued to the Members in the stead of those which I gave you [the one above alluded to] one—In the new ones the material alteration is the omission of the Arms which it was understood had caused some suspicion—These Societies consist (as you may suppose) principally of desperate Characters who express themselves very freely—The General Conference was held in May last at Nottingham but my Informant does not know the Business of it—"

Lord Viscount Sidmouth has directed the Opinion of the Attorneys and Solicitor General to be taken.— 

How far they consider these Societies to be a fit subject of Criminal Prosecution. And what directions they think necessary to be given with the view of procuring additional Information as to the real object to which the Articles relate?—

We think the Constitution of these Societies, each of which has a president and other officers; as connected together, first, by the central Committee, and then again by a superior head or executive Committee are illegal by the 39th. Geo 3rd: C.79; for the whole Class of Societies taken together thro’ the medium of these connecting links form one Society of which the minor Societies are branches, or divisions, or parts, "which in a manner act separately from each other; and have each a separate and distinct President and Secretary. This Constitution is one prohibited, and enacted to be an unlawful combination and confederacy, whatever may be the professed or real object of such Society." 

But tho’ this illegality in the constitution of the Societies may be fairly inferred from the Article stated, and the account given by the Informant; yet it would not be right to institute any prosecution against any of the members as being guilty of an unlawful Combination and Confederacy, unless we were assured of some regular chain of Evidence proving positive facts of the actual conduct of the Societies in their connection each with the other, and of their acting together in pursuance of the Articles so as to form one whole body, composed of various parts, constituted by the different Societies. The Statement is at present vague and great part of it from the Information of others, and not from the actual knowledge of the person communicating his Information. 

It would be very desirable, if any persons could be found who becoming members of one or two of these minor Societies, could ascertain that the articles are read and adopted by them, that they do depute Members or each a Member to the Central Committee, that the head or Executive Committee takes upon itself the ordering the funds of the minor Societies, or in other words that the regulations pointed out by the articles are acted upon in each of those Societies one of which the party to be charged is a Member. It would indeed be necessary to ascertain what facts could be positively proved before we could advise a prosecution, which if successful would be beneficial, but which if defeated might increase the mischief intended to be obviated

W Garrow
S: Shepherd
Linc. Inn Feb. 15. 1814.

14th February 1814: A Horbury Constable is rewarded for suppressing Luddism

On 14th February 1814, the Leeds Intelligencer reported that a Constable from Horbury, John Race, had been rewarded by 'the inhabitants of Horbury' (i.e. the bourgeoisie of Horbury) with an inscribed silver bowl for his role in suppressing Luddism. The inscription read:

"a tribute of gratitude for his distinguished services as Constable of that place, during the disturbances of 1811 and 1812"

7th February 1814: Foster Roach, the last prisoner from the 1812 trials, arrives in Australia

'View of Sydney Cove from Dawes Point' by Joseph Lycett, c.1817/1818

On Monday 7th February 1814, the transport ship General Hewitt arrived at Port Jackson, Sydney, Australia carrying 266 male convicts.

Among them was Foster (or Forster) Roach, a young weaver from Ireland, aged 18 at the time of his trial in May/June 1812. Roach had originally been sentenced to death for unlawful assembly and theft in Etchells, Stockport on 15th April 1812, but the trial jury had recommended mercy and the sentence was respited, meaning Roach was transported for life. Roach was the last of the prisoners convicted at the 1812 Special Commissions to be transported, more than 20 months after he was sentenced.

Roach and his fellow convicts had left England on board the General Hewitt on 26th August 1813, and had arrived at Rio de Janeiro on 17th November before continuing to Australia. Conditions on board were so appalling, that by the time the ship arrived at Sydney, 34 of the convicts who had originally boarded the ship had died.

Also aboard the ship was Joseph Lycett, an artist who had been convicted of forging a bank note in 1811 and is well-known for his pictures of Australia, one of which is above.

5th February 1814: The Treasury Solicitor forwards Benjamin Walker's letter to the Home Office

Private

Lincolns Inn
Feb. 5. 1814.

Dear Sir,

The inclosed is I think a very impudent Application from one of Horsfall’s murderers, who ought to be very well contented with saving his Neck. Our Answer to it is easy, as you will see by referring to the Gazette for 1812 page 805, viz. that the Crown did not promise the Reward. But I do not see, what Defence Mr. Peace of Huddersfield, by whom it was promised, would have to an Action at the suit of this worthless Scoundrel. For this reason I think the Answer to be given to this Application should not encourage a Demand on Peace.

I am Dr. Sr
Yrs. faithfully
H. Hobhouse

J Beckett Esq

29th January 1814: The informer, Benjamin Walker, writes to the Prince Regent to secure a reward

May it please your Royal Highness

To bear with one of the most Unworthy of all your Subjects who has already shared in your mercyfull Clemency for which I whish wish forever to be profoundly greatfull tho at the present I am A distrest object of Universal contempt and Disgrace – from April 28th to May 2nd 1812 the London Gazette Announced his Royal Highness the Prince Regent in behalf of His Majesty Promised to the person that would give information that would lead to the conviction of those fellons who in open day Malishously put an End to the life of Mr Wm Horsfall of Marsdin Near Huddersfield in the County of York cloth Merchant — The Kings most Gratious Pardon and A reward of Two Thousand pounds – I Benjamin Walker who to My Shame was one of the four fellons Voluntarily came forwards to divulge the awfull [evil] which did more than Convicted my fellows and Equals it was the first [illegible] leading to disclose the terable conspiricy which directed its forse against you and the tolerant Government under which we live but as yet I have not Got any reward I have apply’d to Mr Peace the Treasurer of the committee of Huddersfield and he has allways Evaded the demand I am at a loss now where to apply Except where the promise was made and the want of an Education and Qualified maners allmost confounds me and I umbly request your attention to my Case and sincearly pray you will overlook the Audatious offencis which may be seen in these times I have represented my Case in the Best way I can and would Umbly subscribe myself

Your most obedient
Servant
Benjn Walker

Newsom Near Huddersfield
Jany 29—1814 —

18th January 1814: The Treasury Solicitor suggests denying an informer a reward because he was a Luddite

Mr. Hobhouse presents his Compliments to Mr. Beckett, and in answer to his Note of yesterday, inclosing the written Petition of George Ward, begs leave to acquaint him that the Petitioner is the same man who on 10th April & 15th May last wrote a Lord Sidmouth two Letters on the same Subject, which were then referred to Mr. Hobhouse, & which he returned with his general Report of 23d June last, upon the Subject of the Rewards due for the apprehension of the Nottinghamshire Frame breakers. In Explanation of the Passage in that Report relative to Ward’s Claim, Mr Hobhouse takes the Liberty of stating, that Ward’s legal Right to the Rewards in question failed, inasmuch as he did not apprehend or cause to be apprehended the Felons whom he names, as he ought to have done to bring himself within the Prince Regents Proclamation. It further appeared that Ward’s losses had been in great measure reimbursed him by a private Subscription; and that his Character entitled him to no particularly favourable Consideration from the Government, since there is strong reason to believe that he was engaged in framebreaking on the very day when his own Frames were broken, & there is no doubt of his having been so engaged on a previous Day, and the Evidence which he gave on the Trial was extracted from him with the greatest Difficulty.

Mr. Hobhouse has further to inform Mr. Beckett at the beginning of November last Ld. Ellenborough sent to Mr. H. a Letter which he had received from Ward of the same Tenor as his present Petition, in consequence of which reference Mr.H. stated fully to his Lordship the matter above detailed.

A few days after, Mr. Justice Bayley transmitted to Mr. H. a similar Letter to which Mr. H. made a concise Reply to the same Effect.

Lincolns Inn
Jan. 18. 1814

January 1814: A Nottinghamshire Framework-knitter, George Ward, petitions the Prince Regent for relief

To his Royal Highness, George prince of Wales
Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—

The humble petition of George Ward Sheweth, Having had the misfortune during the late disturbances at Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, to have had two wide frames broke, the one a lace frame and the other a Stocking frame my property which cost me £73—10—and earned by the dint of industry, likewise part of my shop windows broke which has reduced me to the greatest distress, and as such am not able to get the same repaired. How at the same night I apprehended two of the rioters George Jeffries, who impeached and was admitted evidence for the Crown against Benjn Hancock and Gervase Marshall who was transported and John Bradbury with several others that was delivered by proclamation and George Green who I apprehended and was transported and I also identified the person of Robert Poley in prison who pleaded guilty and was transported, Moreover I was repeatedly down at Mansfield before the Magistrates Coll. Need and Major Boothby Esqr. for examination to the above, and on the following March Assize I was nine Days at Nottingham and at Midsummer Assize following I was four days for which I have never recd one farthing for the loss of my time or any thing else, and moreover my shop windows remain boarded up not being able to get the same repair’d, one frame I have got repair’d but the other is in the hands of the framesmith deposited in his hands for payment for his charge for repairing the other, he informs me if he is not immediately payed he will sell it to the best bidder. Having mentioned the above to Coll. Need he tells me he does not act as Magistrate this year being sheriff— and sent me to Thos Maltby Esqr having told the same to Thos. Maltby and Genl Hall the Magistrates for the division they said they was not there at the time or would have seen me righted before now, and Major Boothby is removed from this neighbourhood. Some time back I laid my case before Coll. Elliott, Thos Evans and __ Longdon Esqrs Sitting Magistrates in Nottingham, they all of them told me I was entitled to the rewards offer’d and it was at home I had nothing done for me before this but they could do nothing for me it was out of their division but they gave me a Letter to Mr. Woodcock of Mansfield the Solicitor for him to precure the rewards offerd in your Royal proclamation for me, And Mr. Sculthorp informs me that the rewards are paid into the hands of Mr. Woodcock some time since but I have not as yet recd one farthing for nothing.

In last November where before the Sitting Magistrates in Nottingham Mr. Evans told me that the Secretary of State had gave all the rewards offerd to Mr. Stevens of Mansfield, and that the Committee had closed and they could do nothing for me —

If your Royal Highness will have the goodness to see justice done to an unfortunate poor sufferer who took two of the first Ludds that was taken even one in the very act of breaking my frame (George Jeffries) your Royal Highness will keep me from the parish, and if your petitioner will ever pray—

[To his Royal Highness George Prince of Wales etc]

3rd January 1814: Subscribers to the portrait/engraving of Joseph Radcliffe

William Owen's portrait of Joseph Radcliffe

On 7th June 1813, the West Riding bourgeoisie had given an Address of Thanks to Joseph Radcliffe at his residence, Milnsbridge House. They also invited him to sit for a full-length portrait, which was to be funded by a private subscription. 

On Monday 3rd January 1814, the Leeds Intelligencer carried a notice of the last subscriber, William Wilberforce MP, having published a full list of subscribers in the 27th December 1813 edition of the paper. This list is a veritable who's-who of the enemies of Luddism in the West Riding and beyond, although some names are particularly noticeably absent: the Huddersfield solicitor, John Allison; the manufacturer William Cartwright; the Stockport Solicitor John Lloyd; and the manufacturer Francis Vickerman.

A copy of the text of the advert is below (with the list of subscribers after the break).

PORTRAIT

Of Sir Jos. Radcliffe.

THE SUBSCRIBERS to the PORTRAIT and PRINT, are respectfully informed, that Mr. OWEN, R.A. Portrait Painter to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, has nearly completed a striking likeness of Sir Joseph Radcliffe, Bart. and Mr HEATH, R.A. Historical Engraver to His Majesty, has engaged to execute a Line Engraving from it, in his best and most finished style.

Subscriptions for Proof Impressions at 5l. 5s. for Common Ditto at 2l. 2s. to be delivered according to the Date of Subscriptions, will be received by the principal Booksellers in Town & Country.

28th December 1813: The Duke of Montrose writes to Francis Raynes about remuneration

In late December 1813, Captain Francis Raynes was still corresponding with the hope of obtaining some kind of remuneration from government. His commander-in-chief took over a month to respond to this letter of November:

I was answered through the Lieutenant-Colonel, that £200. would be allowed me; and, in the course of a post, received a receipt to sign, which I fancied might be construed into this sum having been given as a final remuneration, instead of an allowance for the expenses I had been at.—I accordingly wrote to the Duke of Montrose, asking if it might not be so interpreted: the answer I had the honor to receive is annexed.

London, 28th Dec. 1813.

SIR,               

I was nearly answering your letter, that the £200. Could not be considered as a final remuneration; but I thought it better to write to Lord Sidmouth, who answers that he is sorry that such a supposition should have been excited. He regrets the difficultly in finding the means of further remuneration; but will endeavour to surmount it with  as little delay as possible. I return the receipt, that you may obtain the money without delay. Lord Sidmouth’s answer to me was missent, which has occasioned delay, as I have but just received his letter, which is dated the 24th instant. I remain, with esteem, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

MONTROSE.

20th December 1813: The 1813 Frame-Breaking Act

An Act to repeal an Act of the Fifty Second Year of His present Majesty, for the Punishment of Persons destroying Stocking or Lace Frames, or any Articles in such Frames, and to make other Provisions instead thereof.

[20th December 1813.]

Whereas an Act was passed in the Fifty Second Year of His present Majesty's Reign, intituled An Act for the more exemplary Punishment of Persons destroying or injuring any Stocking or Lace Frames, or other Machines or Engines used its the Framework Knitted Manufactory, or any Articles or Goods in such Frames or Machines; to continue in force until the First Day of March One thousand eight hundred and fourteen: And Whereas it is expedient that the said Act should be repealed and other Provisions made instead thereof; Be it therefore enacted by The King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That, from and after the passing of this Act, the said recited Act shall be repealed, and the same is hereby repealed, save and except as to any thing done before the passing of this Act, with respect to which the said Act shall remain and be in full Force and Effect as if this Act had not been made.

II. And be it further enacted, That, from and after the passing of this Act, if any Person or Persons shall, by Day or by Night, enter by Force into any House, Shop or Place, with an Intent to cut or destroy any Framework Knitted Pieces, Stocking or Lace, or other Articles or Goods, being in the Frame or upon any Machine or Engine thereto annexed, or therewith to be used or prepared for that purpose, or with an Intent to break or destroy any Frame, Machine, Engine, Tool, Instrument or Utensil, used in and for the working and making of any such Framework Knitted Pieces, Stockings, Lace or other Articles or Goods in the Hosiery or Framework Knitted Manufactory, or shall wilfully or maliciously, and without having the Consent or Authority of the Owner, destroy or cut with an Intent to destroy or render useless any Framework Knitted Pieces, Stockings, Lace or other Articles or Goods, being in the Frame or upon any Machine or Engine as aforesaid, or prepared for that Purpose, or shall wilfully and maliciously, and without having the Consent or Authority of the Owner, break, destroy or damage with an Intent to destroy or render useless, any Frame, Machine, Engine, Tool, Instrument or Utensil, used in and for the working and making of any such Framework Knitted Pieces, Stockings, Lace or other Articles or Goods in the Hosiery or Framework Knitted Stocking, or Framework Lace Manufactory; or shall wilfully and maliciously, and without having the Consent or Authority of the Owner, break or destroy any Machinery contained in any Mill or Mills used or any way employed in preparing or Spinning of Wool or Cotton, or Other Materials for the Use of the Stocking or Lace Manufactory; every Offender being thereof lawfully convicted shall be adjudged guilty of Felony, and shall be transported for Life, or for such Term of Years not less than Seven Years, as the Judge before whom such Offender shall be tried in his Discretion shall adjudge and direct.

III. And be it further enacted, That this Act may be altered, amended or repealed by any Act or Acts to be passed in this Session of Parliament.

54. Geo. 3. Cap. 42

17th December 1813: Lancelot Bellas writes to the Home Secretary for the third time about the spy, Joseph Taylor

Marsden Decr 17th 1813

My Lord

In Your Letter dated the 11th of October [last], you referred me to Mr. Lloyd respecting the Advances which have been paid to Taylor &c by him and Mr. Allison.

At that time I was indisposed, and consequently neither wrote to, nor waited on Mr. Lloyd – Since then I have received a Certificate from him, a true Copy of which I beg leave to insert for Your Lordships Inspection—

Copy

"I certify that the Bearer Joseph Taylor has not specifically received any Sum of money by way of reward from the Government or any others to my Knowledge for his Services in the disturbed Counties

J Lloyd Solr

Stockport 7th Decr. 1813."

My Lord it appears evidently from the above, that all that Taylor has received just covers his Expences, and those who employed in this arduous Enterprize and that no Remuneration has ever been made him from any Quarter for the loss of his Time and those undaunted and signal Services which he performed at the Risk of his Life for the Restoration of Tranquility &c not only in this County but in several parts of Lancashire.

My Lord. I am sorry to observe, that this Business has for sometime been veiled in a State of Obscurity, and hid from your Lordships Eye—But now it is made manifest; and I have not a Doubt from Your Lordships Integrity and uprightness in transacting the Officers of this great Nation, that you will immediately Order Taylor to be recompensed for those great Services which he has performed, and for which he has not been requited.

In humble Expectation, of receiving Your Lordships favourable Answer I beg Leave to subscribe myself on the other side

Your Lordships most faithful and
obedient Servant

Lancelot Bellas

[To Lord Sidmouth]

16th December 1813: Colonel Fletcher sends a report and a claim for expenses to the Home Office

Bolton 16th December 1813

Dear Sir

So very little has occurred amongst the Seditious for these several months last past, deserving of any particular Notice, that I have not thought it necessary to forward any of the reports of the persons employed. The Jacobin Leaders, during the prosperous State of affairs, with which it hath pleased the Almighty to bless this Country, cannot find many followers, nor dare they now, (as, during Bonaparte's Career of Conquest, they used to do) openly express their malevolent Sentiments against their Country and its Government, for Fear of their immediate Chastisement, which would be likely to follow from the Hands of that order of men (the lowest) which in some Instances, they had before too successfully cajoled.

In Conversation with the persons employed, they confess, that the prosperous State of the Trade, enabling men, with common Industry, to earn a comfortable Subsistence for themselves and their Families, has considerably diminished their Hopes of Revolution, which yet, however, they affect to think will ultimately be accomplished, by the Catholics of Ireland. Indeed, whilst Bonaparte shall remain in Power, so long there will be Danger from his machinations, and particularly, in that Quarter of the United Kingdom.

In this part manufacturing part of Lancashire there is reason to apprehend that the mischievous Activity of the seditious will be principally exerted in promoting Turn Outs (what in Town you call Striking’s) for a further advance of Wages, in different Branches of the Manufactures. In matters of this Sort, men of this Description, generally take the Lead, thereby keeping up some consequence with the working manufacturers, who are but too prone to request those Persons as Benefactors, who even pretend to procure for them more Wages for their Labour.

B. has been informed by one John Green, a resident in Town, that a Committee frequently meets at the Fox & Goose, King Street, Seven Dials, and that this Committee corresponds with the Hampden Club, and various other Societies in different parts of the united Kingdom.

The money have advanced to the persons employed, from May 11th (to which period, my Accounts as per my Letter of 27 May, extended) to 13th December instant, is as under

L.F.    Time & Expences 31 Weeks 26.7.0
T        Time & Expences 31 Weeks 6.15.0
B        Time & Expences 31 Weeks 46.13.0
                                                                     79.15.0

Adjt Warr    Time & Expences same period 27.06.0
A B              Time & Expences same period 24.06.3
S. Senr         Time & Expences same period 4.7.6
S Junr           Time & Expences same period 4.4.0
Incidental Expences                                       2.4.6
                                                                           62.8.3

Total            £ 142.3.3

Four which Sum 142.3.3 I have taken the Liberty to draw upon you at Seven days Sight, payable to Mr Abraham Winterbottom.

I beg to return you my thanks for your kind attention, in sending me the Gazette Extraordinary of the glorious Victories obtained both by the Arms of His Majesty and those of His Allies. May Heaven continue to bless their Efforts, untill the dreadful Tyranny, founded on the Infidel Revolution of France shall fall to rise no more.

You will probably have seen the offer of the Bolton Regiment of Local militia under my Command, to extend its Services, according to the Bill (then pending) since passed into a Law. This was addressed to Lord Castlereagh, as the mover of the measure, and his Lordship has very politely returned his Thanks, observing at the same Time, that he will hand the Offer to Lord Viscount Sidmouth

with great Sincerity
I have [etc]
Ra: Fletcher

[To] John Beckett Esqr

16th December 1813: The Stockport solicitor, John Lloyd, sends details of a case of seditious language to the Home Office

Stockport 16th Decr 1813

Sir

I have the honor to transmit to you copies of Informations taken against a man of the name of George Bowring some little time ago respecting some seditious Expressions uttered by him at a public house in this Town, and which, owing to the presence of military characters, it cou’d not and ought not to be overlooked.

He was consequently taken up under a Warrant obtained from the revd. C. Prescot, our resident magistrate, who directed him to find Bail – and not being able to do so, he was committed to Chester Castle where he now remains; and, if you direct it, may be indicted at the next Assizes, or required by the may consent in court to enter into Recognizance for his future good behaviour, but certainly some notice must be taken and the reasons I have stated.

I was aware it wou’d be required of me to state further circumstances for you to form your Judgement upon, and I have therefore made such enquiries, as struck me to be necessary.

Bowring followed the Trade of a master Butcher in a small way, at a populous village in Derbyshire called New Mills 8 miles from this Town — a place notorious for profligacy of manners and formerly for disaffection to the Government. (but which latter I shod hope cannot generally now prevail even there.)—I have been informed he has been in the habit of drinking the Toast charged agt him altho’ he has been cautioned & warned of the impropriety & the consequences—It seems he had hitherto been encouraged by the impunity—He has a Brother, keeping a public house here who refused to bail him He (the Prisr) is not a very drunken man—but was somewhat in liquor at the time he uttered the words—however he was at that time cautioned by those present that anticipated the words of the intended Toast to be seditious; and upon the whole I have found that he is an object for chastisement — and shod the great Government Law Officers not recommend the prosecution at the public expence I will take some steps to keep him under alarm, till with a view to his being placed under a Recognizance at least. I have the honor

to remain Sir
Your very obedt & hb Sert
J Lloyd

[To] J Beckett Esq
&c &c

10th December 1813: The Frame-Breaking Bill reaches the House of Lords

On Friday 10th December 1813, the Frame-Breaking Bill reached the House of Lords:

The House resolved itself into a committee, on the Frame-breaking Bill.

Lord Holland: observed upon the absurdity of the wording of the Bill, which stated. "that whereas it is expedient to amend and render perpetual the said Act (the former Act), be it therefore enacted, that all the provisions of the said Act shall cease and determine."

Lord Redesdale: proposed amendments to obviate this incongruity, by inserting words to the effect, that the former Act should be repealed, and other provisions substituted in lieu thereof.

These amendments having been agreed to,

Lord Holland: expressed his satisfaction at the repeal of the former Act, and that ministers had found it effectual in putting down the evil. That it had been so effectual, however, was owing, to the activity, the intelligence, and zeal, of the corporation of the town of Nottingham, He mentioned this, because it would be recollected, that some time since a Bill passed the three branches of the legislature, for depriving that corporation, to a considerable extent (unjustly, as he contended), of their corporate 276 rights; and if that subject should again come under the consideration of the legislature; he trusted the observations he had now made would be borne in the memory of their lordships.

The Bill passed through the committee, with the amendments.

The 1812 Act was now repealed, being replaced by the new Act, which achieved Royal Assent on Monday 20th December 1812, before Parliament was adjourned on the same day.

8th December 1813: The Frame-Breaking Bill is read in the House of Commons for the final time

On Wednesday, the Frame-Breaking Bill was read for the final time in the House of Commons:

The Attorney General moved the third reading of this Bill. 

Sir S. Romilly: stated, that an Act of the 28th of the King, making the same offence, or nearly the same offence, felony, was already on the statute book; and asked whether there was any intention to repeal that Act on passing the present? 

The Attorney General: said, the same objection might have been urged last year to the temporary measure, which was then made to the permanent one. He had no objection to the repeal of the former Act, which he believed, however, was not the same as the present. 

A Member, whose name we could not learn, said, that in the case of the King v. Cator, where the offence was seducing artificers out of the country, it had been decided that a subsequent Act against any offence virtually repealed a former one. 

Sir S. Romilly: thought that this might be true, where the offence was altered from a misdemeanour into a felony; but not where a more severe punishment was demanded against the same description of offence. 

The last speaker replied, that the case he had alluded to was of this description. The punishment had before been 100l. fine, which was increased to 500l.—The Bill then passed.

6th December 1813: The Frame-Breaking Bill is discussed again in the House of Commons

On Monday 6th December 1813, the Frame-Breaking Bill was discussed once again in the House of Commons:

On the farther consideration of the report,

Sir S. Romilly: was sorry that the learned and hon. gentleman persisted in this Bill, for which there appeared to be no existing necessity. The conspiracies and disturbances which had occasioned its passing into a law had ceased; and it seemed a strong measure in legislation to make that felony, for which, as a simple act, no legal punishment had, he believed, before existed. The sentence for this offence was to be transportation for life. Now, whatever reasons there might be for preferring transportation for life to transportation for a limited time, in cases of habitual depravity, they could not apply to the present crime, which was the effect of ignorance and momentary delusion. As an instance of the loose and incorrect manner in which the Bill was drawn, sir S. Romilly observed, that the punishment was denounced against all those who entered a dwelling-house with intent to break frames, either by day or by night. How they could enter it, except by day or by night, he was at a loss to conceive.

The Attorney General: said, that though the judges could not themselves avoid pronouncing the sentence of the law in cases of felony, yet they could recommend the prisoner to the clemency of the crown, as was always done where there were circumstances of mitigation. He had no objection, however, to have the punishment altered from transportation for life to transportation for a term of years not exceeding fourteen, nor less than seven years. He thought the crime was punishable by law before the present Bill—not simply, but as an act of conspiracy. The learned gentleman then made a distinction between the idle or mischievous apprentice who should merely break his master's frames, who would not be punished, and the apprentice combining for the same purpose with the Luddites, who would be amenable to the law.

Mr. Horner: said, he believed no other person in the House had misunderstood his learned and hon. friend in the same degree as the learned and hon. gentleman who spoke last. He had totally misconceived, not only his expressions, but the whole scope of his argument. He had represented him as palliating the crime of the Luddites. No such thing. He had merely stated that it was a crime arising out of temporary circumstances and temporary irritation, and which might be effectually prevented by temporary punishment. As to the distinction between the idle apprentice, acting wantonly in violation of the law, or in concert with the Luddites, there was no such distinction laid down in the Bill. The question respecting the punishment to be inflicted by the Bill became the more important from the nature of the general doctrine on which it had been supported by his Majesty's Attorney General. The specific punishment denounced by the Bill was transportation for life. But the hon. and learned gentleman contended that the diminution of their punishment would be at the discretion of the judge. The House knew but too well the practice that had prevailed on this subject. The recent discussions on the proposed repeal of some of the old statutes had put them in possession of it. In the times when those statutes were passed, a more extended discretion might be necessary; but was it to be endured, when passing a new penal law, that parliament should be told, "Make the punishment as severe as you can; the judges will take care that it shall seldom be inflicted?" He had always thought that it was the peculiar praise of the British law, possessing as we did judges of great wisdom and unimpeached integrity—that, nevertheless, their discretion in cases of a criminal nature should be narrowed as much as possible. In the best works on jurisprudence it had always been laid down as a principle, that although the quantum of punishment might sometimes be left to the discretion of the judges, the description of it should always be regulated by the law. By contending that the mercy of the court would be so frequently exercised as seldom or ever to expose the offender to the highest punishment of the Bill, the hon. and learned gentleman substituted the exception for the general rule. The prerogative of mercy ought to be applied only to cases of rare occurrence; but, according to the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman, it should be put constantly in action.

The Attorney General: explained. What he had said with respect to apprentices was, that if an idle apprentice wantonly destroyed the frames of his master, he would not come within the operation of the Act; but that if he wickedly and maliciously did so, either alone or in concert with others, he would be subject to its punishments.

Mr. Bathurst: supported the necessity of enacting a severe punishment to prevent the recurrence of scenes, the terror attendant on which in the neighbourhood in which they had occurred was much greater than that occasioned in London and its neighbourhood by the riots of 1780. The question was, whether or not it was fitting that such a law as that before the House should be on the statute-book? The decided opinion was that it was fitting. He trusted there would be no occasion for its exercise; but if, unfortunately, there should, it was more likely to call for the utmost severity of the law than for its utmost mitigation. The capital punishment was gone from the Bill; and the least that could be substituted was the punishment of transportation for life; and under circumstances in which the gradation of crime must be so extensive, the judge ought to have the power of inflicting the highest punishment on the most atrocious offenders, and of obtaining a milder punishment for those whose guilt was not so extreme.

Mr. J. Smith: expressed his great satisfaction at the abolition in the Bill of the punishment of death. He was fully convinced that it had deterred many persons from prosecuting offenders. Nor would this be surprising, when it was considered that many of those offenders were boys and girls of 16 or 17 years of age. He confessed that he wished the term of transportation had been limited to seven years. However, he preferred adopting the Bill as it stood, to leaving such valuable property as the lace frames unprotected; he declared, that the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, had by no means overstated the terror and dismay which, at the time of the disturbances, had spread over the counties in which those disturbances had occurred; and he trusted, that the measure now in progress would prevent any repetition of such outrages.

Mr. Abercrombie: observed, that the object of his hon. and learned friend's proposition to postpone for six months any further proceedings on this Bill, was by no means to leave the property of the lace manufacturers unprotected, but to give time for a more ample consideration than they had hitherto received of two most important questions in the Bill; namely, the quantum of punishment, and the description of the offence. He protested against the doctrines of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (the Attorney General), which he confessed appeared to him to involve the most severe censure on the existing laws of the country that had ever been uttered within those walls. That hon. and learned gentleman had contended, that no person ought to be transported save for life. If so, where was the justice of annually sending, as we did, so many persons to New South Wales, for seven and fourteen years? Adverting to the condition of that colony, he felt happy, from the inquiries which he had been enabled to make in the committee on the subject, and from other sources, to bear testimony to the progress of that colony in improvement, and to the vigilant attention of government with respect to it. The result of all his examinations was, that the two great purposes of the prosperity of the colony, and the improvement in morals of the inhabitants, were commensurate. This fact afforded an argument against the hon. and learned gentleman, who wished that all transportation should be for life, because, as he contended, in cases of transportation for a limited period, the individuals so transported were restless and unhappy; nothing but the exclusion of all hope of a return to their native country being able to reconcile them to their exile. To the description of offence contained in the Bill he had great objection. The original cause of the measure was the combination of offenders, and to combination alone ought the punishment to apply.

Mr. Serjeant Best: denied that his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) had said that transportation ought in all cases to be for life. What he had maintained was, that unless the hon. and learned gentleman opposite could show that no offence of the kind described in the Bill could by possibility occur, to which the punishment of transportation for life ought to be applied, that punishment ought to be left as the highest punishment in the power of the judge to inflict, leaving it to his discretion and that of the executive government, in other cases, to reduce the quantum of punishment in proportion to the diminution of the guilt. It had been contended, that the crime described in the Bill ought not to be made a felony, because it was not so immoral an act as the acts which were usually termed felonious. For his part, he could not conceive any act much more immoral than a malicious destruction of the property of others. There were other acts not more atrocious in their character comprehended among felonies. To destroy a turnpike was a felony. With respect to the discretion to be vested in the judge, he maintained that it was not too great. The judge was obliged to pass a particular sentence; transportation for life. But no bad consequence would thence result to the individual, if there had been any favourable circumstances in his conduct; because a representation of those circumstances to the executive authority, would reduce the quantum of punishment. He did not understand, however, that his hon. and learned friend would object to the introduction in the Bill of a clause, giving to the judge, instead of to the executive authority, that discretion, if such a clause would satisfy the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. He would like to know what view the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite took of the crime? Some punishment they would undoubtedly affix to its perpetration. Would that punishment be transportation for seven years? Why in that case, and if that punishment, on the principles of the hon. and learned gentleman, were to be inflicted indiscriminately on all offenders, by far the greater part of them would be in a much worse situation than under the inflictions of the Bill as it stood. He confessed that he, for one, should have been better pleased had the capital punishment not been abolished in the Bill: not, he trusted, because he had any disposition capitally to punish, but because he was persuaded that, had it been retained, it would have operated not cruelly, but mercifully, by deterring from the commission of the crime; and by preventing the recurrence of those disturbances which had separated so many individuals from their friends, and deprived their native country of their services. As to the question respecting combination, to require that proof should be given of the existence of a combination, would be to make the Bill comparatively inoperative. All that it was necessary to prove was, that the offender acted maliciously.

Mr. H. Addington: argued against the substitution of the punishment of transportation for seven years for the punishment of transportation for life.

The Amendment was then negatived without a division, and the report was taken into consideration.

The Attorney General: proposed an amendment to the clause comprehending the punishment—namely, after the words that "the offender should be transported for life," to add the following, "or for such a term of years, not less than seven, as the judge before whom he may be tried shall think fit to pronounce."

Mr. Horner: declared that it was not in conformity to his opinion that this clause was proposed. He objected to a discretion so large being vested in the judge. It was true, that transportation for life seemed to him to be an unsuitable punishment for the offence described in the Bill; but if it were deemed by parliament suitable, he would much rather it should be absolute, than that the judge should possess such an extensive discretion as the amendment proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman went to give him. If it were not irregular to move an amendment on an amendment, he would move to leave out all the words of the clause after the words "the offender shall be transported," for the purpose of substituting the following, "for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or less than seven."

The Attorney General: repeated his objections to striking the punishment of transportation for life out of the Bill. If no case could exist in which a greater punishment than transportation for 14 years ought to be inflicted, he would adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman. Besides, that which was called transportation for life, was not, as it had been in the infancy of the colony of New South Wales, actually so; of this there were many instances. One of a very recent occurrence, in which the inhabitants of Cambridge had been thrown into great astonishment by the re-appearance of a person who some years ago had been transported from that place for life. On investigation, however, it appeared that he had conducted himself in a manner so exemplary, that the governor of the colony had exercised the power which he possessed, of granting him a free pardon.

Mr. Lockhart: thought, that when there must necessarily be so many shades of guilt, discretion was indispensable to the judge.

The Amendment proposed by Mr. Horner was then negatived, and the original Amendment proposed by the Attorney General adopted.

Several other amendments of an unimportant nature were introduced, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday.