9th August 1816: The Judge at Bury Assizes gives death sentences to 'Bread or Blood' arsonists

The Bury St Edmunds Summer Assizes commenced on Friday 9th August 1816, and saw a number of prisoners face trial for offences committed during the previous months in Suffolk.

A number of cases failed, or were postponed, as noted by the Bury & Norwich Post of 14th August 1816:

No true bills were found by the grand jury against Thos. Baker, for setting fire to a barn at Kettlebaston, or Susan Bruty, for setting fire to a building belonging to J. Skelton, of Clare.—The trials of the nine Brandon rioters were traversed to the next Assizes.

However, the main spectacle was reserved for the trials of two arsonists, and the same edition of the paper gave extensive coverage to these:

Trials of the Two Incendiaries.

James Pleasants, a boy of 15 years of age, was indicted for having feloniously set fire to a barn in the parish of Lawhall, in the occupation of Mr. Thomas Bradley, a farmer, by which the same and other buildings were destroyed by fire on the 12th of May last. The only witness in this case, in addition to the prisoner’s confession, was a little girl about 15 years of age, in the service of Mr. Bradley. She stated that during the divine service on the 12th of May, she was left at home with the prisoner and her mistress, who was ill up stairs, her master being on a visit to Mr. Reman, a neighbour adjoining.—The witness had been cleaning knives, and doing dirty work, for which she had occasion to put some water on the fire in a back kitchen, for the purpose of washing her hands: the prisoner was then present by the fire, when he observed to the witness, "why don't you go up stairs and put on your cloathes."—Witness replied it was wet and she should not change her dress that day. She took the water from the fire to the sink in the same apartment, and on turning her back, the prisoner left the kitchen; she did not see that he had any thing in his hand, but soon after he returned, saying, "the barn is on fire." This the witness was soon enabled to perceive from a great quantity of smoke issuing, and immediately after she observed the place all in flames. She instantly ran out and gave the alarm. The boy ran towards the church, thinking his master was there. He, however, accidentally met his master by the way, who by this time saw with great alarm the situation at his premises. There were several good and valuable horses, together with several cows and calves, besides other stock, which were totally consumed. The flames, however, did not reach the dwelling-house, from the timely assistance of the neighbours. When the prisoner was apprehended, he voluntarily confessed that he had conveyed in his glove a coal of fire from the back kitchen to the barn, where he threw it amongst some wheat in the straw. This confession was recorded by the magistrates, who thereupon committed him for trial.—It further appeared, that an anonymous letter containing threats to three persons in the neighbourhood had been previously picked up by the prisoner. That letter said, "the Magistrate was no Justice, and that he should be the first to suffer." But by whom that letter was written had never been discovered.—The prisoner being asked what he had to say in his defence, wept bitterly, and in a low voice which could only be heard by the gaoler, stated that this confession had been extorted from him under a threat from some person, that if he did not confess the crime, or say who did it, he should be scalded to death, and that it was under an impression of fear that he had so confessed. The magistrates being examined whether any such disclosure or threat was made at the time of his commitment, completely negatived that statement.—The prisoner was found guilty, but on account of his youth, recommended by the Jury to mercy. 

Joseph Bugg was capitally convicted of setting fire to a barn and a cart-lodge, in the occupation of Mr Jas. Glanfield, at Martlesham-hall. The prosecutor stated, that he rented the farm and premises under the Rev. Geo. Doughty, of Hoxne. He left his house on the 23d of April, with his wife, on a visit to a neighbour, and returned at 12 o'clock at night, when the premises were all safe. As he had walked from home, and did not expect to return very early, he left directions with the servants not to sit up for him. About an hour after his return, he was awakened out of his sleep by a cry of "fire!" and, looking out of his chamber window, saw the barn on fire. He immediately went down stairs, and saw that the cart-lodge was also on fire, and the roof was just falling in. These outbuildings were distant about 150 yards from his house. The night was calm, and the flame from the buildings, which were considerably apart, arose in an upright direction.—There were 80 coombs of barley in the barn, chiefly in the straw, and most of his farming implements in the cart-lodge, the whole of which were destroyed. Eliz. Hammond, who lived servant at Waldringfield Cliff public-house, was next examined. She stated, that the prisoner was there on the night the fire happened; he came about 6 o'clock in the evening, and drank with several others, all of whom went away before him. He staid until a little time after a quarter past 12, and went away then, upon her refusing to let him have any more beer. She had supplied the prisoner with a half-quartern of rum, 2 pints of old beer, five or six pints of other beer, with a half-quartern of gin in each. On cross examination, she admitted that, altho’ the prisoner had had part of this in the first instance, subsequently they had all drunk together. The next witness was ____ Rouse, who stated that he lived at Martlesham, and have known Bugg ever since he was a boy. On the night of the fire, the prisoner called at his house between twelve and one; his wife, who heard the prisoner call out to know whether he was at home, awoke him. On his getting up, the prisoner asked him if he could lend him a tinder-box and steel, which he at first denied, as he should want it himself in the morning; on a promise, however, that it should be then returned, he gave them to him. When the prisoner had gone three or four yards from the window, he called out to the witness, "don't tell any body!"—Directly upon hearing of the fire, he went and acquainted Mr. Glanfield of this circumstance. Witness’s house is nearly three-quarters of a mile out of the direct path from the Cliff public-house to the prisoner’s. The tinder-box was returned in the morning. He thought the prisoner wanted a tinder-box because there were gipsies in the neighbourhood. A young man, servant to Mr. Cattermole, next deposed, that when in conversation with one John Barber, on a Sunday, upon a stile, near the Lion at Martlesham, the prisoner came up to them; and in talking about work, the prisoner observed, that the farmers in the parish were all damn’d rogues, especially Mr. Glanfield; he would do them a kindness, and he (Mr. Glanfield) should be the first.—Mr. John Cook, a farmer, residing at Bucklesham, about four miles from Martlesham, but occupying a farm in that parish, stated that Bugg had formerly worked with him; that in March last, on being sent to work in the roads, he complained of Mr. James Glanfield, saying, it might bethank him that men were posted about from parish to parish. He thought Mr. G. the worst of them all; and he should not wonder if something were to happen to him before long.—The prisoner, on being called upon for his defence, said, that he drank all the liquor himself.—The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, remarked, that in the species of crime with which the prisoner stood charged, it was by circumstantial evidence alone, that conviction could be founded; it was not likely that a man having such a diabolical purpose in view, should have any accomplices in the act. His Lordship took great pains to point out the connecting chain of evidence upon which the guilt of the prisoner might reasonably be presumed; and, after some pertinent remarks on the heinousness of the offence, and the necessity of preventing its recurrence, by example, he left the case for the consideration of the Jury. He concluded by noticing, that, as he had hinted before, the evidence was only presumptive, and in such a case, could only be so, the Jury would therefore give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt which really existed in their minds.—It was not, however, the province of a Jury, with the view to exonerate themselves from such a painful duty, to fabricate doubts, but to deliver such a verdict as the evidence of the case, in all its bearings, might lead them to. The Jury returned a verdict—Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy.

The paper also recorded Sir Vicary Gibbs' sentencing:

Sentence passed on Prisoners capitally convicted.—Chief Justice Gibbs, in passing sentence, addressed the prisoner Bugg, expressing his regret at the situation in which this unhappy man was placed, by the heinous offence of which he had been convicted, on such clear evidence as that which had been adduced against him.—The learned Judge said he could not see the slightest hope which the prisoner could entertain of any thing like reprieve or pardon, from the awful severity which the law had denounced against his crime by way of punishment; and, for the sake of example, to deter others from committing the like offences; that sentence, however painful, yet towards a criminal like him, it was his Lordship's duty to pronounce. From the depravity and wickedness which the nature of the crime evinced, it was justly ordained that it should be expiated by the death of the culprit. The pretence of not knowing right from wrong could not avail the prisoner, whose years and experience must have taught him to view the extent of enormity which belonged to the crime of which he was convicted by a Jury. 

His Lordship next addressed James Pleasants, whose youth excited a great degree of compassion in the mind of the Judge, being under the necessity of passing sentence of death upon him for the same offence. His Lordship said, it was astonishing that such a degree of malignity should have entered the heart of a boy at his early age, whose depravity on that account was the more to be lamented. The Jury, on this consideration, and in hopes he might yet live to repent, the more sincerely as he advanced in years, were disposed to rescue him from an ignominious and untimely death, by recommending him to mercy; and although it was the Judge’s duty to pronounce the sentence of the law, corresponding with the magnitude of the offence, his Lordship was in hopes that by conforming to the recommendation of the Jury his life might be spared, in order that he might become a penitent, and at some future period, a useful and industrious member of the community, by seriously reflecting, that death was the least punishment which must await the commission of an heinous offence.

Before he left Suffolk for Norfolk, Gibbs reprieved Plesants, but left Bugg to hang.

28th June 1816: The Treasury Solicitor writes to the Home Office about prosecutions for rioting at Brandon

Lincolns Inn
28th June 1816

Sir

In answer to your note of yesterday, transmitting a note from His Grace the Duke of Grafton, in which His Grace requested to be furnish with a List of persons the county of Suffolk, who are to be prosecuted by Government, together with a Specification of their respective crimes; I beg leave to acquaint you that I have not received any Depositions from County, Except with respect to the persons implicated in the Riot at Brandon on the 16th & 17th May, whose names are contained in the inclosed List; and from those Depositions it does not appear, which are the persons implicated remain at large, have been admitted to Bail, or have been committed for Trial.

I beg leave therefore to suggest that if there are any other prisoners whose offences may be presumed by the Magistrates to fall within the description of those, which Lord Sidmouth has directed to be prosecuted at the Expence of Government, it is highly desirable that the Depositions against them should be transmitted to this Office without further delay, for the consideration of the Attorney and Solicitor General.

I have [etc]

H.Hobhouse

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

Offenders charged with Riot at Brandon
16 & 17. May. 1816.

Arnold
Clarke William
Crane
Dyer Helen
Field Robert
Peverett Willm
Rampling Mingay
Spendlove Henry
Talbot Porter
Wigger James
Folkes Ann

12th June 1816: A Brandon magistrates responds to John Moseley's letter to the press the previous week

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BURY POST.

SIR,

AS the resident Magistrate in Brandon, I feel myself called upon to express my concern, that reports are not only industriously spread, but accredited, to fix the origin and existence of all the riots in this neighbourhood, and even in the more distant parts of Suffolk and the Isle of Ely, upon the inhabitants of this town, because they impute a neglect of duty to the Magistrate residing here.

I believe the Assize Calendars will not shew more crimes to have been committed in the town of Brandon of late, than in any other parishes in the county.—But the strongest refutation of those reports, injurious to the Magistrate and the principal Inhabitants of the parish, is, that although charges are brought generally against the inhabitants of Brandon, for instigating and abetting the pre-existing and subsequent riots, and although I have used every means in my power to investigate and ascertain the truth of the reports, no proof has yet been substantiated before me, or information yet laid, against any individual of this town, which might on conviction of such offender, have led to the suppression of the riots in other places, and the prevention of them in the town of Brandon, by the immediate application and exercise of the Civil Authorities.

I am, Sir, your obedient humble Servant,

J. R. BURCH.

Brandon, June 7th, 1816.

5th June 1816: A Suffolk magistrates expresses concerns about the legal implications of John Moseley's letter to the press

My Lord;

I call your Lordship’s attention to a letter, I this day see published in the County of Suffolk Bury Newspaper, from Mr Mosely of Tofts in Norfolk, to the Duke of Grafton.

If Mr. Mosely is correct in his assertions as to the people of Brandon remaining quiet & that they dispersed upon the riot act being read, (which if I recollect does not appear by the depositions we had the honor to submit to your Lordship by our clerk Mr Wootton Isaacson), I take the liberty of putting it to your Lordship whether or not Mr. Mosely does not remove the felonious part of the charge against the persons committed to Gaol.

I wish your Lordship to understand I by no means want to lessen your confidence in the depositions you have seen upon this subject, but merely to inform you of every particular relating to it at comes within my knowledge. Had I a Bury newspaper I would have forwarded it to you

I have [etc]

J Barker

Newmarket 5 June 1816

5th June 1816: A Norfolk magistrate writes to the press about his role in suppressing disturbances at Brandon

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BURY POST.

SIR,

Tofts Hall, June 2d, 1816.

AS the conduct of the Magistrates at Brandon has been censured by some of the public Newspapers, you will much oblige me by inserting in your next paper my letter to the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Suffolk; wherein are narrated all the transactions at Brandon, so far as they implicate the conduct of your obedient servant,

J. MOSELEY.

MY LORD DUKE,

Mr. Borton yesterday shewed your Grace’s Letter to me; and, as it refers to the reported conduct of the Magistrates, acting for Brandon, where my assistance, as a Magistrate for the county of Suffolk, is occasionally required; I here state all that was done by me towards suppressing the riot there on Thursday the 16th instant, till five o'clock on the following morning.—On Thursday evening, between 8 and 9 o'clock, a constable of Brandon arrived in a chaise at Tofts, in order to convey Mr. Burch to the former place, to suppress a riot: which the constables were unable to subdue. I accompanied Mr. Burch to Brandon: on our arrival we swore in all the inhabitants, that we could collect, special constables; they (to the amount of about 25) reported themselves quite insufficient to quell the tumult, or to detain any rioter in custody. We went into the mob; read the King’s Proclamation, and explained the penalty; upon which the people dispersed.—At 10 o'clock we sent an express to Thetford for military aid; a Cornet and 11 men arrived about 5 or 6 hours afterwards. The town remained quiet; and between 5 and 6 o'clock of the morning I left it to return home, and to act for my own Hundred of Grimshoe, in which I am the only resident Magistrate; and where various disturbances have prevented my offering any further assistance to Mr. Burch; except by signing a letter, which Mr. Burch wrote on Saturday evening (18th inst.) at Tofts (by desire of the inhabitants of Brandon) to request that Lord Sidmouth would afford immediately a military force to support the Magistrates in Brandon and its vicinity. As the Hundred, which is peculiarly under my direction, is in Norfolk, it is unnecessary to trouble your Grace with the transactions therein; however it may be agreeable to you to learn, that with the assistance of the Yeomanry, tumult is for the present suppressed.

I have the honour to subscribe myself,
Your Grace’s most obedient and very humble servant,
JOHN MOSELEY.

To His Grace the Duke of Grafton, Lord
Lieutenant of the county of Suffolk, &c.

31st May 1816: Sir Henry Bunbury informs the Home Office about Brandon prisoners & suspicions about a Civil Servant

Private

Milden Hall May 31st: 1816

My dear Beckett,

Having qualified myself properly on Wednesday to act as a magistrate, I went with Mr. Barker to Brandon yesterday. We collected all the Evidence which could be obtained on the subject of the Riots in that Town:—and in consequence of what came out we issued warrants against two more men & two women (in addition to the five men committed on Tuesday) and we succeeded in securing one of each viz: Mingay Rampling, & Helen Dyer. The other two (Willm Clark, & Anna Folkes) have fled.—It appears that Peverett, one of those committed on Tuesday, is the most dangerous Character of the Party. He was the Leader and perhaps the mover of the whole business. The day before the first Riot he was seen to have many Bank notes in his hand and was boasting of the money he had at command—next to him we may rank Talbot, Wiggan, Rampling, Spendlove, & Helen Dyer—The fair Sex were very active, and both Helen & Ann Folkes are very good looking young women.—The Townspeople of Brandon have recovered from their Panick, & are now ready enough to give their testimony. We are much obliged to a Gentleman, Mr. [Toomey], who has returned from Benfield to his house at Brandon since the Riots, for his personal Exertions in seizing Peverett himself, in spite of a desperate resistance.—Mr. Barker & I have sent up our Clerk Mr. Wootton Isaacson to lay the Depositions before the Duke of Grafton & with his approbation before Lord Sidmouth. Mr Isaacson and was at Brandon with us, & give you further information.

I am inclined to believe that Spendlove repents hastily of his Share in the Riots, and might would give information of all &c he may know.—And now I must introduce to your notice a fresh Character, named James Smythe:—he is a petty Attorney at Brandon:—Clerk to Justice Burch:—and, as it would seem, leading the Justice by the nose. Mr. Smythe is moreover a little dissenting Preacher. He mixes  constantly with all the poor & profligate Characters of Brandon, and unless He be grievously belied is deeply connected with them. This fellow very imprudently attempted to oppose Mr. Barker's first proceedings on Tuesday, but was very properly put down. There are many grounds for suspicion against this Mr. Smythe; & I wish to have the [track] closely & skilfully followed.—Mr Burch’s misconduct as a magistrate has certainly been flagrant, nor has it been confined to the instance of these Riots.

I have been sitting seven hours again today on minor Justice-business with my two Colleagues—I have been particularly anxious to get insight into the provision made for the Poor round this neighbourhood & the treatment they have experienced. I feel no hesitation in saying that in general the Provision has not been what it ought & might have been;—& in many cases the Poor have been treated with great harshness or great neglect

P.S. Since writing the above the aforementioned William Clark & and Anne Folkes have been brought before me; and I am about to commit them to Bury Gaol.

[illegible] my dear Beckett
Very truly your’s

H.E. Bunbury

28th May 1816: Sir Henry Bunbury informs the Home Office that arrests have been made for the Brandon disturbances

Mildenhall. May 28th 1816

My dear Beckett,

The business of Brandon has been left of late years (from motions of Courting or Convenience) to the direction of Justices living in & near this place. But nearly the whole of the Town stands in the Hundred of Suffolk for which I am about act in conjunction with Mr. Barker of Newmarket & Mr. Eagle of Lakenheath. We had some conversation yesterday at Bury on the question of meaning the proper Authority of the District magistrates over Brandon; and as we found the Duke of Grafton considered it to be desirable & proper, we have determined to waive the point of delicacy towards Mr. Burch & to take cognizance of proceedings in the said Town. Mr. Barker had previously received information of two Fellows who had been the principal Leaders of the Riots;—and after our meeting at Bury, he set off with great alacrity for Brandon. From the intimidation which had prevailed in that place, Mr. Barker found much difficulty in getting Persons to give Evidence; but at length his perseverance & good management were awarded by such swift Depositions as [moved] him to take up in the course of this morning the five Ringleaders of the late Disorders. Three Fellows were I understand the Delegates of the mob, and prominent in the Tumults & [illegible] which took place. They are all sent to Bury Jail; and I conceive it will be very desirable that, if the Evidence is found sufficient for the conviction of these Offenders, your Special Commission should come into Suffolk & afford some salutary Example to this quarter.—Mr. Barker is deserving of very every commendation for the Spirit, Zeal, & Promptitude he has manifested in this Business.—The Capitulation which had been made with the mob at Brandon, & in conformity with which they are now paying but [two shillings sixpence] a Stone for Flour will explain on Saturday, and we shall then see what course the populace will be inclined to take. But I am strongly persuaded that this Arrest of their Ringleaders coupled with the knowledge of what has passed at Littleport, will prevent their [illegible] the Tumults. However, you must [illegible] Troops in this Quarter & in Cambridge for some time:—during that time exertions will probably be made on all sides to alleviate the distresses of the Poor, and to contrive a means of carrying them through till the Harvest.

Ever, very truly yours
H.E. Bunbury

24th May 1816: A Brandon magistrates expresses concern that the military may be withdrawn from the town

Brandon May 24, 1816

Sir

I wish I write to you in consequence of the letter received this morning from Mr [Denny?] one of the Magistrates in the Downham district “stating that you had made an intimation to Mr [Hare] another of the Magistrates there — the Troop of Dragoons stationed at Brandon may be removed there.—if quiet is restored in this neighbourhood to request of you to submit to Lord Sidmouth that I cannot answer for the continuation of quiet in this neighbourhood (which is only partially restored) of the Military force which is now stationed on Brandon is allowed to be sent from thence to suppress Riot, & tumult elsewhere—

And Mr Moseley requests me to add that the Parishioners of Feltwell & Hockwold cum Wilton have expressly declared they dare not lay any information before him against the Ringleaders (who have proceeded so far as to commit Robbery) if the regular force is removed from Brandon because the yeomanry cannot be collected in sufficient time to save them from the vengeance threatened by the Rioters in case of any one of them being arrested

The Revd Mr Newcombe who is now with Us - & a Gentlemen possessed of considerable property in Feltwell and Wilton states he has had information - and has good grounds to believe an organisation of the lower class of the People is now on foot for commencing another riot on Monday next

We trust therefore from the foregoing Statement Lord Sidmouth will see the necessity of continuing the present military force at Brandon, & under our direction

I am
Sir
Yr very obedt
humble Servt

JR Burch

To
J. Beckett Esq
Undr Sec: St:
for the Home department
Whitehall

20th May 1816: Magistrates formally agree to the demands of Brandon labourers

On Monday 20th May, the magistrates at Brandon formally agreed to the demands the labourers had asserted by force over the past 3 days. Peacock (1965, p.81) commented:

According to the newspaper reports, the magistrates met again on Monday and confirmed the agreement they had made with the rioters. The Courier said they had "guaranteed the price of flour at 2s. 6d. per stone, with an advance of wages to 2s. per head for a fortnight, and unless the millers reduce their prices by that time, the officers of the parish will purchase their grain at the cheapest rate, and furnish the poor with provisions at prime cost".

The magistrate, J.R. Burch, wrote to the Home Secretary on the same day to confirm the arrangement, couching it as a success for the local authority:

Brandon May 20—16 

My Lord 

In compliance with your wishes I write to inform You with feelings of the greatest satisfaction that order & lasting quiet (I hope) are restored in the town of Brandon & the two adjoining parishes of Weeting & Sandon Downham & without the necessity of being compelled to resort either to the Civil, or Military powers to effect them but by a return to reason on the Rioters who this morning peaceably submitted their grievances to the principal Inhabitants convened at a Town Meeting & who finding nothing on them unreasonable but founded on the low price of Labor compared with the relative price of Corn & other articles of Subsistance & Cloathing met their requests with a ready compliance & on ground it is I found my hopes that no recurrence to Riot can or will take place 

As it has been reported that the Brandon Rioters have been the chief Movers of the disorders in the adjacent towns I trust as they are the first to return to order — it will not only rescue them from the imputation but that their example will be immediately followed— 

I shall address myself without delay to the Magistrates at Bury with the feelings I have expressed Your Lordship & informing them of the happy result of this day 

I parted with Mr Mosley early this morning who went to Feltwell in consequence of Riot there — I fervently hope the issue of his errand will have as favourable a conclusion—& that we may be allowed to put ourselves again in correspondence with Your Lordship & to communicate I trust more favorable information 

I beg of You to excuse haste
I am
My Lord
Yr Lordships
most obedient humble Servt 

JR Burch

19th May 2016: Troop movements

In the first signs that the government was now beginning to intervene in the crisis in East Anglia, on Sunday 19th May 1816, units of the 1st Dragoon Guards arrived in Bury St Edmunds, bound for Brandon. Units would continue to arrive throughout the following day.

18th May 1816: Brandon Magistrates request help from the Home Secretary

My Lord

Conformable to the instructions of the Duke of Grafton [Lord-Lieutenant] of the County of Suffolk—

We state to your Lordship the very riotous state of Brandon & its Vicinity & that the force civil & military are totally inadequate to suppress them.

We will refer your Lordship for particulars of what have passed to the Bearer – but We are decidedly of opinion that our efforts will be unavailing in restoring order, or keeping the Rioters from continuing their excesses unless we are immediately assisted by your Lordship with some of the London Police Officers to find out and & apprehend The Ringleaders, & a troop of Cavalry (at least) sent to Brandon from the nearest quarter without delay which may contain their Station there untill we have the happiness of informing your Lordship that Peace & Order are again restored to a district, containing a population of thirteen parishes in Norfolk—& several other large parishes in Suffolk

JR Burch J.P
Jn Moseley

Magistrates are the Counties of Norfolk & Suffolk

Brandon
18th May 16

To Ld Visct Sidmouth
Sec: of State for the Home department
&c &c &c

18th May 1816: Despite concessions, further disturbances occur in Brandon

Peacock (1965, pp.80-81) continues his description of the events in Brandon on Saturday 18th May 1816, as they now drew to a close:

Although they had been promised concessions the day before, the crowd reassembled on Saturday. This time they were alleged to have numbered 1,500 and many were armed with sticks, "the ends of which, to the extent of several inches, were studded with short iron spikes, sharp at the sides and points”. They also had a flag emblazoned "Bread or Blood" and threatened to march on London. Willett, from whom they had demanded prime joints of beef at 4d. a pound on the earlier days, was once again the main object of attack, and on this occasion his shop and house were completely destroyed. The mob then went off to Halesworth, but there are no reports of trouble either there or en route. Meanwhile, Willett and the Sheriff of Suffolk had hastened to London to ask the Home Secretary for military assistance to quell the rioters. 

17th May 1816: "Bread or Blood in Brandon this day"

Peacock (1965, pp.79-80) continues his description of the events in Brandon on Friday 17th May 1816:

The following day, John Kendle, a deputy overseer, met, on the bridge over the river, a crowd of about fifty labourers led Porter Talbot, a labourer armed with a gun "which had a handkerchief tied round the lock". Kendle asked what they wanted and they replied that Mr. Norman, the miller at Weeting, a half mile away, “had not kept his word and they were going his mill down". Kendle argued with them and promised to see Norman on their behalf, if they would hold their hand. They agreed and the overseer rode off. When he returned with the news that Norman had not put his prices up, however, the labourers had already moved into the town.   

A crowd had started assembling in the market place at about nine o'clock that morning. About an hour later some women came along who announced that their men were following them but had stopped along the Thetford road to collect sticks. Eventually fifty or more, all armed, and led by William Peverett, a labourer, marched into the square carrying white and red flags. Willett, the butcher, who was amongst the crowd, told Peverett that the parish would let them have flour at 2s. 6d. if they would disperse, and asked for a deputation to go along with him to meet the magistrates. Helen Dyer, a married woman, had earlier told Willett that, although she could not read, she had a paper containing the crowd's demands, which she wanted shown to the magistrates. On it was written "Bread or Blood in Brandon this day". 

Lieutenant Goodenough at The Chequers had sent for Burch, the magistrate, as soon as the crowd began to assemble. He asked some of the special constables to go out and arrest Talbot, but they replied that they were too, scared of the mob. When Burch arrived, the Lieutenant asked for permission to go take some of the labourers into custody himself, but this the frightened magistrate refused to allow. Instead, he agreed to see the deputation brought to him by Willett, which included Peverett, Talbot, Henry Malt, John Crane—all labourers and William Arnold, a shoemaker. 

Burch asked John Crane why the crowd had assembled again and what their demands were. Crane replied that "they did not mean any injury but that he could not live with his large family as things were, and they must have flour cheaper". They also asked for the military to leave, saying that they did not like the “Redcoats". The magistrate, by this time scared out of his wits, appeared ready to make concessions, although Goodenough warned him that he was acting improperly. He promised that the military would leave, and saved some face when the Town Clerk of Thetford opportunely arrived with a message from the Mayor of that place demanding the return of the troops because “a mob was assembling there”. Goodenough left and Burch, saying that the crowd's demands would be met, arranged a meeting of "the principal inhabitant” for six o'clock at The Chequers. All this time stones were being thrown outside in the square. 

The crowd began to reassemble outside The Chequers around five o'clock and once again women were very prominent and vociferous. The meeting decided that the poor were to have 2s. a day allowance and flour at 2s. 6d. a stone as Willett had suggested. Burch announced this decision to the labourers and agreed to their demand that it be put in writing. Smythe, Burch's clerk, took the agreements along to the Town Cryer. This was the first time demands of this kind had been formulated and the first time that the magistrates had given in. It was to form the pattern for future incidents. 

The crowd announced that they were satisfied with the concessions, and it does not seem to have occurred to any of them that, having got them by violence, they might not be kept. They told Burch, however, "We must have beer or worse will come of it", and in spite of cries from the women saying, "do not give them any", this was agreed to also—provided they had it in the Ram Close, a field belonging to The Ram Public House. They drank and danced and eventually went back to the square and demonstrated their belief in victory by pathetically singing God Save the King and Rule Britannia outside The Chequers. A section of them committed some acts of violence, nevertheless, and the Riot Act was read for the second time. Henry Spendlove was once again prominent, "forming the men into a rank opposite the windows of the Chequers Inn...". Burrell's windows were broken, John Ablett was stoned, and between twenty and thirty people assembled outside Willett's shop and broke his windows. This was the limit of the damage on Friday, however, and the crowd "did not commit any more riot or disturbance".

16th May 1816: Labourers demanding higher wages assemble in Brandon, Suffolk

On Thursday 16th May 1816 began three days of disturbances in the Suffolk village of Brandon. Labourers demanding higher wages used mass assemblies and property destruction to win higher wages and cheaper prices, a model that was to be repeated elsewhere in the coming days.

Newspaper reports of the disturbances are inaccurate, and because he had access to government documents that we do not, the words of A.J. Peacock, from his 1965 book 'Bread or Blood', will be used to describe what occurred at Brandon:

A crowd of about 200 people, mainly women and boys assembled in a riotous mood in the market place at Brandon at about four o'clock in the afternoon of Thursday, 16th May.  Mr. Burch and J. Moseley, two magistrates who were at the latter's home at Toft's Hall, some five miles away over the border in Norfolk, were sent for by frightened constables unable to quieten the crowd. They arrived during the early evening and immediately proceeded to the Chequers Inn. They sent out for a number of people—some twenty-five in all—like Matthew Burrell, the proprietor of the White Hart Inn, whom they swore in as special constables. Burch then went out to address the crowd. He asked them what they wanted and they replied, "Cheap Bread, a Cheap Loaf and Provisions Cheaper". By this time they were in an ugly mood, amusing themselves by breaking the windows of a house belonging to a Mrs. Brewster, and were being urged by Henry Spendlove, a labourer who was armed with a stick, to even greater deeds of violence. Burrell and Thomas Willett, a butcher who was an object of great hatred to the crowd, went out to make some arrests but thought better of it and returned to The Chequers amidst a hail of stones. Burch then told the crowd that, unless they dispersed, he would have to read the Riot Act, and sent the clerk for "the volume of Buries Justice which contains the proclamation directed by the Riot Act". This had the desired effect and the crowd, which had dwindled to between thirty and forty, dispersed quietly after hearing Burch read his piece at about a quarter to eleven. 

The magistrates by this time had lost their nerve and Moseley sent to the Commanding officer of some Dragoons stationed at Thetford, five or six miles away, "where a riot had lately been". Lieutenant Stephen Goodenough and eleven men of the First Royal Dragoons arrived in Brandon between two and three o'clock on the morning of 17th May to find the town perfectly quiet. Burch and Moseley, who was later quite unjustly accused of running away went home during the night.