2nd May 1817: Simon Orgill loses the appeal of the award of damages in his favour

On Friday 2nd May 1817, 18 months after the hearing had been ordered, the Hundred of West Goscote successfully appealed the verdict of damages awarded against them for the attack on Simon Orgill's lace frames in 1814. The Times of the following day carried a law report about the case (erroneously dubbing the location of the attack as 'Castle Dunningford'), which is reproduced below:

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, MAY 2.

ORGILL V. SMITH.

This action, under the 52. Geo. III. c. 130, was brought by the plaintiff, a lace-maker, at Castle-Dunningford, against the hundred, to recover compensation for "twelve lace frames, being engines," which were destroyed on the night between the 10th and 11th of April, 1814, by divers persons riotously assembled. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, damages 400l., subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case which, after mentioning the destruction, stated that the plaintiff carried on his business in a factory adjoining to his dwelling-house, and that each of the frames or engines in question weighed 600lb. being made of wood and iron; that they formed no part of the factory, but could not be removed from it without being taken to pieces; and that they were fastened to the window-sill by an iron bar, and to the floor by two pieces of board. The question for the Court, upon these facts, was, whether these frames within the meaning of the above-mentioned act.

Mr. BALGUY, in support of the verdict, first called the attention of the Court to the Riot Act (1 Geo. I. c. 5.), to the Black Act (9 Geo. I. c. 2.), and to the 9 Geo. III. c. 29. which were statues in pari materia; the two first giving a remedy, in case of demolition by tumult, against the hundred in the statutes themselves, and the last having the same remedy communicated to it by 41 Geo. III. c. 24. At the same time the act in question passed, 52 Geo. III. c. 130, [1812], instances of destruction of stocking and lace frames, by riotous mobs, were of daily occurrence, and the object of the Legislature was to afford protection to property of that description; the title was "An Act for the more effectual punishment of persons destroying the property or His Majesty’s subjects, and for enabling the owners of such property to recover damages," & c; and it went on to recite, that it was expedient and necessary, that more effectual provision should be made for the protection of property not within the provision of former acts, viz.1 Geo. I. c. 5.; 9 Geo. I. c. 2.; and 41 Geo. III. c. 24. In consequence, it proceeded to enact, that, thereafter any person or persons who shall unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assemble and "demolish or pull down, or begin to demolish or pull down, any erection, building, or engine, which shall be used or employed in carrying on any trade or manufactory, or any branch or department of any trade or manufactory," shall be guilty of a capital felony. The clause immediately following the above gave the party injured his action against the hundred for compensation. It would not be denied that these lace-frames were used and employed in a trade or manufactory; and it was quite as clear that they came within Dr. Johnson's definition of engine, the word used in the act—"any mechanical complication in which various movements or parts concur to one effect." The statue contained nothing to limit or restrain the engines there mentioned to those employed for any particular purpose. Thus these lace-frames came within the strict terms of the clause; or if they did not, the case of Hide v. Cogan (Doug. 699) had settled, that under the riot-act the injured party was entitled to a liberal construction of the words.

Mr. READER, on the other side, impressed upon the Court the very great importance of this question to a large district of country, where many actions of the same kind were still pending. In order to show that a lace-frame was not an engine within the meaning of the 52d Geo. III. c. 130. he examined the statues recited in the preamble: neither the Riot-Act nor the Black Act mentioned engines, a term first employed in the 9th Geo. III. c. 29. explained by 41 Geo. III. c. 24. What then was the meaning of the word engine? A spinning-wheel, and even a pair of scissors, came within Johnson's general definition; and to prove it, the Doctor quoted two lines from Pope:—

"He takes a scissors and extends

"The little engine on his fingers ends."

The true explanation of the term in this case was, therefore, to be sought in the act under consideration, and in other statues of the same subject. It deserved attention, that wherever this word engine was used (with one exception) it was accompanied by "demolishing, or pulling down," which could not apply to a lace-frame, though it would to "an erection or building," the two words preceding engine in the 52d Geo. III. c. 130.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—To satisfy the word demolish, there must be a moles, the part of which must be separated. Can that be said of a lace-frame?

Mr. READER added, that the primary sense of the word demolished, given by Dr. Johnson, was "to throw down a building, to raze," though "to destroy" was added as a secondary signification. Lace-frames were never called engines in Nottinghamshire.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—The word engine may mean a larger or a less thing, according to the subjecta materia: thus, in statues we have engines for mines, and engines for killing game: but does it not mean, in this case, something capable of demolition?

Mr. READER.—The words preceding in the act are erection and building; and it would be a miserable bathos indeed to say, that the word engine, which followed, was satisfied by a lace-frame. He farther argued, that this statute was not meant to protect the mere instruments of trade like lace-frames; because the 52d Geo. III. c. 16. Had passed only a few months before the 52d Geo. III. c. 130. for the express purpose of inflicting the penalty of death upon the destroyers of them. No remedy was there given to the owner against the hundred, because the destruction would probably be a private act of malice, and not the consequence of a public riot or tumult. The stat. 28 Geo. III. c. 55.the first on the subject "for the better protection of stocking-frames, and the machines or engines annexed thereto," clearly proved that the frames themselves were not considered engines by the Legislature. He cited Reed v. Clarke (7 T. R.496.) to show that the hundred would be liable, unless the act by which the house, &c. was destroyed, amounted to a capital felony.

Mr. BALGUY replied.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—In the course of the argument my mind has fluctuated, and has now undergone a change: for I am clearly of opinion, that the word engine does not properly apply to all the moveable means of carrying on a trade—to the utensils, tools, & instruments employed in it. It is true, that engine is to be found in both the 52 Geo. III. c. 130; and in the previous statue of 52 Geo. III. c. 16: but the meaning of words is often to be ascertained from the company they keep: the two acts have different objects—the first for the protection of "erections, buildings, and engines;" and the last for the preservation of the engines, utensils, tools, or instruments of trade: this double or equivocal application of the same word has occasioned the difficulty, but it requires a different interpretation, and coupled as it is in the act immediately before the Court, with "buildings and erections," it must be understood as engines connected with the soil, and not merely moveable from from one part of a room to another, like a bed, which, as a lace-frame, must be taken to pieces before it can be got out of the house: the word engine must be understood in both statutes as ejusdem generis with the terms by which it is accompanied.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY concurred.

Mr. Justice ABBOTT observed, that the words "demolish, or pull down," could not, in their correct and sober sense, be applied to the destruction of a piece of mechanism like a lace-frame: but the at went farther, and said, that it should be felony "to begin to demolish or pull down;" so as plainly to indicate, that the operation must take time, and be upon some engine much larger and stronger than that in question. The terms of the other acts strongly confirmed this construction.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD, who entered the Court while Mr. Balguy was speaking, expressed his assent as far as he been able to form an opinion.

9th November 1815: Simon Orgill case is brought before the Court of King's Bench

On Thursday 9th November 1815, the appeal of the Hundred of Westgoscote against the awarding of damages to Simon Orgill, whose lace frames had been destroyed in a Luddite attack in 1814, was heard at the Court of King's Bench in London. The Nottingham Review of Friday 17th November 1815 carried a report about the hearing:

Court of King's Bench, November 9. 

ORGILL v. SMITH.

Mr. Clarke moved for a rule to shew cause why the verdict for the Plaintiff in this case should not be set aside, and a non-suit entered. It was an action brought on the statute of the 52d of the King, chap 130, and was tried before Mr. Baron Graham, at Leicester. The action was brought against the Hundred, and the declaration stated, "that certain persons had riotously and in a disorderly manner assembled, and unlawfully demolished and destroyed twelve frames, the property of the Plaintiff, and some frames being ENGINES employed in carrying on his manufactory of framework lace." The objection which he (Mr. Clarke) made at the time, was, that these frames did not come within the meaning of the statute under which the action was brought. The Learned Judge however, directed the Jury otherwise, but gave him leave to move the Court upon the subject. In consequence of which permission, he now addressed their Lordships. It was proved that a number of persons had entered the shop of the Plaintiff, and had destroyed the frames in question. 

Sir S. Le Blanc—"There was no doubt as to the manner in which these frames were destroyed!" 

Mr. Clarke—"None, my Lord; the only doubt is, whether the frames come within the meaning of the Statute." 

The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the Statute in question, which, after reciting various Acts, which had been previously passed, enacted, that any person destroying or demolishing engines, &c. should be guilty of felony, and upon conviction thereof, the person whose engines, &c. had been destroyed, would be entitled to a remuneration for his loss, from the hundred or county in which he resided. He now had to contend, that the frames, which formed the subject of the present action, were mere movable machines, six or seven of which might stand in one shop, and be removed from room to room at pleasure, and therefore not such engines as contemplated by the Act, which he considered ought to be fixtures. 

Lord Ellenborough—Is there nothing to steady them? 

Mr. Clarke—They are heavy enough to steady themselves. They are not fixed to the floor. 

Lord Ellenborough—With reference to the subject of this Act of Parliament, you consend that an engine must be fixed. Now I think ex vi termini, an engine not be fixed. The engine one is best acquainted with, namely a fire-engine, is movable very rapidly. It is said this particular frame is fixed by its own weight. I remember an incident of an ingenious engineer who proposed to erect a bridge at Hexham without piles. He succeeded in his plan, but the very first flood that occurred, carried his bridge away. This, to be sure, proves the necessity of fixing some engines. 

Mr. J. Dampier—Mangles are seldom fixed. 

Lord Ellenborough—I think the point deserves some consideration, but if you can agree upon the facts, with the assistance of the Learned Judge's notes, it had better be turned into a case. 

Mr. Clarke acquiesced in this suggestion, but for the present took a Rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a Non-suit entered.

It would be another 18 months before this case would return to the Court.

29th July 1815: Simon Orgill's compensation case comes before Leciester Assizes

On Saturday 29th July 1815, Leicester Assizes heard the case of Simon Orgill, a manufacturer from Castle Donington, whose Mill had been attacked by Luddites the previous year. He had brought a compensation claim against the relevant local authority. The Nottingham Review of 4th August 1815 carried a report of the case:

LEICESTER ASSIZES, July 29.

Orgill v. Smith and Draper.

At these Assizes came on the trial of an action brought to recover a compensation in damages, to the amount of £512, by the Plaintiff, Mr Simon Orgill, resident at Castle Donington, in the County of Leicester, from the Defendants, Smith and Draper, as two of the inhabitants of the hundred of Westgoscote, in that county, for the injury done to the lace machines of the Plaintiff, by a number of persons called Luddites, on the night of Easter Sunday, 1814.

Mr. J Balguy opened the pleadings.

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, leading Counsel for the Plaintiff, in an energetic and energetic speech to the Jury, went through the whole of the facts, and in very strong terms reprobated the frame-breaking system which had so long disgraced the town and neighbourhood of Nottingham. The learned Counsel then called evidence to prove, as in the first instance, the observance of the formal requisites of the statues, then the particulars of the demolition of the Plaintiff’s property, and afterwards the amount of the damages; these were established to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, leaving some very respectable witnesses un-examined, and the case, on the part of the Plaintiff, closed.

Mr. Clarke, in addressing the Jury on the part of the Defendants, wished to impress upon their minds that the machinery in question did not come within the meaning of the Act; and he also called evidence in mitigation of damages. The first witness called on part of the defence was Thomas Wagstaff, whose evidence was confined to the value of the frames; the next was Benjamin Clarke, a resident of Nottingham, but who had formerly been in the employ of Mr. Orgill for eleven years; when cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Copley, he was obliged to disclose the cause of his leaving the Plaintiff’s service, his having been apprehended on suspicion of breaking the machines, &c. and he evinced great reluctance to answer such questions as were put to him, but the Court directed them to be answered, as being relative to the cause in question. The next evidence called on the part of the Defendants, was William Tunnicliff, a resident of Castle Donington, and also formerly in the employ of Mr. Orgill. This witness was called to state his opinion of the amount of the damage done to the machines. He underwent a severe cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s Counsel, as to the cause of his leaving Mr. Orgill’s service, his signing a paper addressed to Mr. Orgill, demanding an advance of wages, &c. and his further cross-examination was prevented by his suddenly fainting away. This closed the case on the part of the Defendants.

Serjeant Vaughan then, in a speech fraught with his usual eloquence, addressed the Jury on the part of the Plaintiff, and animadverted most keenly on the nature of the evidence produced on the part of the Defendants. He took occasion to observe, that had his Learned friend, Mr. Clarke, chosen to have posted up a notice on the nearest toll bar to the town of Nottingham, he might have been supplied with shoals of evidence equal to such as had been called in on the part of the Defendants.

His Lordship, in summing up the evidence, expressed the Jury, in very strong terms, his decided opinion that the case on the part of the Plaintiff had been fully established in point of law, and that the Plaintiff had a clear right to recover from the hundred the amount of his damages.

The Jury retired a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 400l.

However, the case did not conclude here: the judgment was appealed by the local authority, and would re-appear at the Court of Kings Bench later in the year.

29th April 1814: The Nottingham Review Editor, John Blackner, responds to Simon Orgill

JOHN BLACKNER,

TO MR SIMON ORGILL, OF CASTLE DONINGTON.

SIR―As you have thought well, by "hypothetical inuendos," to couple my character with the outrage lately committed upon your property, in an advertisement in the Nottingham Journal of last week, without committing the same to the Nottingham Review, for which you was an agent; and the columns of which you knew were open to your "hypothetical inuendos," without the expense of an advertisement, as far as is consistent with the conducting newspapers. I will, before commenting upon your intemperate letter, re-insert the article, of which you so complain, which appeared in the Review of the 15th instant; and then insert your advertisement, which appeared in the Journal; that the readers of the Review may have a fair opportunity of forming a proper estimate of your honor, and candor as a man.

EXTRACT FROM THE REVIEW OF THE FIFTEENTH INSTANT.

"On Sunday night last, about twelve o'clock, Mr. Orgill’s patent lace manufactory, at Castle Donington, Leicestershire was forcibly entered by a band of desperadoes, supposed ten or twelve, and the entire machinery, consisting of twelve warp lace frames, converted into heaps of ruins, with the exception of one, which received only a partial injury. The writer of this article being at Castle Donington at the time, was called from his bed, at two in the morning, to witness the outrageous scene. The factory joins Mr. Orgill’s house; and the door into it, which leads into a back yard, was split, in the act of being forced open with a rail. The depredators then forced their way through an inner door, and, not content with committing havoc on the machinery, they cut or burnt all the valuable cotton yarn, and lace pieces within the premises, except one of the latter which they chanced to miss, and two others which they carried away. The dry timber materials they attempted to fire; and had their scheme succeeded, the whole building might have presented one vast mass of flame. But the worst part of the business is to come―Mr. and Mrs. Orgill being around from their sleep, and hearing a noise, the import of which they knew not, the latter threw up a sash, and put her head out at the window to learn what the matter was; but, before a word was exchanged, one of the depredators that stood sentry, discharged a pistol or musket at her head, the contents of which she distinctly felt pass by her; but from which she received no personal injury, except the affright. And, after the work of destruction was over, during which the damage was done to a very considerable amount, one of the wretches exclaimed: "Old Simon, before we leave you, I will have another peg at you," when two pieces were immediately discharged, the heavy shot from which perforated the glass of the bed room window, in more than twenty places; but Mr. Orgill, though in the room, received no personal injury. Several persons who worked with him some time ago, and who left him in consequence of a dispute about prices, have been seized; but whether any circumstances come out which is likely to lead to a discovery, we are entirely unacquainted. We are since informed, that all of them, except one, are liberated.

"It now becomes our duty to state our marked disapprobation of this atrocious crime; a crime which carries with it the seeds of ruin, as well to the perpetrators as to the trade at large. The supposed reason for the commission of this outrage is, Mr. Orgill’s giving considerably less for the making of his net, than is given in Nottingham; and that in consequence thereof he undersells the other manufacturers. This may be the case; but the fault lies with the workmen who continue with him; for at the present time there is plenty of employment elsewhere. Mr. Orgill justifies himself on the ground of the superior expedition of his machinery; which again is denied by those who pretend to understand the whole of the business. How this may be we know not, nor have we any concern with the matter; suffice it to say on our part, THAT THESE CRIMES MUST BE SUPPRESSED."

EXTRACT FROM THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL

OF LAST WEEK.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL.

[Simon Orgill’s letter/advert to the Nottingham Journal was inserted]

NOW, Sir, I should have ended here, were it not that my duty to the public demands of me an exposition of your sophistical Inenbrations, for my character stands too well with my neighbours to be injured by your "hypothetical inuendos"—those numerous and respectable characters, that have been our joint friends during the last twelve years, now pity or despise you; while my political enemies, or rather opponents, laugh you to scorn. You admit my having given a tolerably accurate account of the outrage committed on your property; saying, at the same time, "he tells his readers, that he was at Donington when this violent outrage was committed; he was, but why he was there is best known to himself; about this I make no enquiry." Now, Sir, in thus divulging your splenetic slander in "hypothetical inuendos," you have murdered friendship, as the monster Macbeth murdered sleep—you have commenced the warfare; and if you should receive a few mental wounds in the conflict, I will recommend you to the celebrated Dr. Delahoyde. You insinuate, that you know not why I was at Donington; but what will your friends say (if your follies and tyrannical conduct have left you any) when they have read the following narrative:—I was solicited by Mr. Wm Page, my worthy neighbour, to accompany him, and a respectable young man of the name of Allen, to Donington, as a journey of pleasure; his business being to visit a dying friend; and as my holidays been very few since I commenced the business of a victualler, I consented, though with some reluctance. We arrived at the Bell and Crown, in Donington, a little before two in the afternoon, where we dined; and, as you had frequently invited me to your house, if ever I went that way; and as our friendship had been long and uninterrupted, I immediately wrote you the following billet:—

"Castle Donington, two o'clock, P.M. April 10,

[Obscured by crease]

a pipe with Mr. Orgill, at the above house, this afternoon, where they are now waiting."

This billet you immediately answered by appearing in person; when, after mutual congratulations, you were told by Mr. Page, the occassion of our visit―at your suggestion we went to the Turk’s Head, to read the news of the day; and when I found its importance, it being nothing less than the abdication of Napoleon, my anxiety for returning home immediately, became very great, from rightly concluding, that a great press of company would attend my house that night. But, Sir, you prevailed on me to stop till morning; and also to take tea, along with Mr. Allen, at your house, while Mr. Page went to visit his sick friend. We all returned to the Turk’s Head, where we engaged beds for myself and friends; you distinctly saying afterwards, that had there been only two of us, we should have slept at your house; but that you had only one spare bed. You never quitted our company till eleven o'clock; and Mr. John Carr, who professedly came to spend the evening with me, staid half an hour longer; when I pay the landlady our reckoning, and then we immediately retired to rest, Mr. Page and myself in one bed, and our friend, Mr. Allen, in another, all in the same room.—At two o'clock you came in and aroused us from our beds, exclaiming, "Blackner! come and see what your townsmen have done!" at the same time pouring out the bitterest curses upon Nottingham indiscriminately. The landlord, myself, and two companions were with you to your house; and, by attentively surveying the devastation which had been committed, and hearing what yourself, family, and neighbours had to say, I was enabled to give a statement in the Review, which you call "tolerably accurate". At half-past five in the morning we left your house for Nottingham, with mutual expression of friendship between you and myself; and yet after all this; after being well acquainted with every circumstance I have related; and after hearing me declare, if I had been your house when the outrage was committed, that I should have risk my life in defence of your property—after all this, you are base enough to implicate my character in the outrage! But this is not all. During the morning, you frequently charged me, as the price of our friendship if I failed, to give every circumstance, relating to this outrage, full publicity in the Review; and expressed yourself well pleased that chance had brought me there. Now, after this exposure, the reader will wonder what can have brought your malignity upon me; or rather upon the Review itself, whose credit is too invulnerable to be injured by your ire; and therefore you cast your rancorous darts at me. The reader will find the reason in the few following lines. When I presented the manuscript article to Mr. Sutton, which related the outrage committed on your property, he informed me, to my great astonishment, that you had sent a letter desiring him not to mention the circumstance in his paper. I immediately declared it as my opinion, that private friendship should not stand in the way of public duty―that hundreds already knew that I was there—that the public expected a narrative of the outrage at his hands—that the credit of his paper stood pledged on the subject, and would be injured if he failed in his duty—and that, if the paper were mine, nothing should induce me to withhold the article. "Has Mr. Orgill assigned any reason why he wishes the circumstance to be kept out of the paper?" I inquired. "None at all," was the reply. Neither, Sir, did you drop the smallest insinuation against my character in that letter. I also informed Mr. Sutton, that I had already sent the account to the Statesman, in which I knew it would appear that day, and from which you would find its way into most of the papers in the kingdom; and, therefore, the withholding it from the Review could not be attended with any good to Mr. Orgill; and would only tend to show that Mr. Sutton was guided more by private favor than public good. In this, he hesitated not, his views agreed with my own—the article was inserted; and the consequence has been your casting up the agency of the paper, and commencing assassin upon my character. I might ask you, Sir, why you did not write to Mr. Sretton, desiring him to withhold from his paper, the news of your misfortune? Do you think his Journal beneath your notice? and, if so, how came you to send him your article the following week, without sending it to the Review; a paper which you had patronised from its commencement, professedly on account of its principles?—Your mandate was not obeyed―Mr. Sutton consulted his duty to the public, rather than a submission to you―your pride became wounded; and here is the source of your new series of follies and inconsistencies.

You accuse me with wishing to entice your workmen from your employment, because I said there was plenty of work elsewhere. Than this, a more silly or [kenyish] conclusion was never drawn, from words, whose meaning is directly conveyed to their construction. After saying, that the mischief might have been occasioned by your giving a less price of your net than is given in Nottingham, a conclusion which you yourself admit, when you appeal to the workmen on the score of their ingratitude, I stated, "this may be the case; but the fact lies with the workmen who continue with him; for at the present there is plenty of employment elsewhere." Weak and silly man! art thou no better acquainted with thy mother-tongue, than to draw conclusions directly opposite to what the words import? Or is thy mind become so jaundiced as to cause thee to see, as through an inverting glass? The meaning of the words was neither more nor less than this—if workmen find themselves aggrieved, by any treatment they meet with from their employers, the remedy is in their own hands, without having recourse to lawless violence, by seeking employment elsewhere. But, you seem extremely sore at my having attempted to assign a probable cause for your having been visited with mischief; while you yourself admit the conclusion to be just, as observed before, when you appeal to the workmen on the score of ingratitude. But, to the generally understood charge of paying less for making your net than is paid in Nottingham, you plead not guilty—you have put yourself upon your trial, and the jury must decide. You say, "This is false; I assert, without fear of refutation, but for one kind of work I pay more by ten per cent, then they do." By they I conclude you to mean the lace manufacturers of Nottingham. How happens it, after this sweeping plea of "not guilty" to the general charge, that you mention only one kind of work which you are not paying less for than is given in Nottingham? Pray, Mr. Orgill, be kind enough to let us into this little secret! I have, however, taken a little trouble myself on the subject this week: I have had five of your late workmen together, one or two of whom had not even been suspected by you, and to the rest, not a shadow of guilt could be attached. I have examined them before other reputable characters who understood the business, and the [illegible] testimony of your old workmen is, that you did pay three shillings and nine-pence less for a rack yard, than is paid in Nottingham for Mecklin net, comparing widths and gauges; and thirteen-pence a yard less for two course hole net; and this when all the advantages are cast in your favor, of your charging no frame-rent, finding coal in winter, and allowing a certain sum for mending. Now, Sir, there require something more than your mere ipse dixit, your round manner of pleading "not guilty," before you will be acquitted of the charge. You ask, who accuses you of paying less for your net than others pay? I will tell you! you are accused by public opinion; and further, if I may be allowed this expression, you have accused yourself. You used to make it your common public-house boast, the truth of which I can bring many witnesses to prove, that you went to Donington for the express purpose of giving your net made cheaper; for there, you said, you would get men from the plough-tail, who, when out of the atmosphere of Nottingham, would be contented with moderate earnings. And further, the last time you was at my house you stated, that you had had some disagreement with your workmen, on account of their wanting the Nottingham prices, which, (as you was pleased to say,) had been put into your their heads by that ********* John Richards, who was then residing in Donington.

There is one sentiment in your advertisement which is perfectly consistent with yourself; and if you had confined yourself to it, you would have saved me much trouble, and have prevented the greater part of this exposure. You say you will not be accountable to any man, or set of men, for the manner in which you conduct your own affairs, while you steer clear of the laws. This might do in Turkey; but in England another system is pursued. Now, know you not, that there is such a thing as custom in England, to which, under certain circumstances, however great you may think yourself, a magistrate would compel you to submit. I have it from the testimony of five of your old workmen, given, as said before, in the presence of respectable witnesses, that part of the conditions which you propose for their government in your service were, that they should not name Nottingham in the shop―that only two should warm themselves at the stove at one time; and not more than two should walk together in the fields!! William Pitt, in the heat of his political phrenzy, permitted five persons to convene together; but Sultan Orgill, less tolerant than the Tory apostle, thought, if more than two were permitted to assemble together, that they would plot mischief against his government.

There is one subject in your advertisement of a delicate nature; and my doubts are, that you have been pirating fame, at the expense of the dead. You say, that you discovered the mode of applying wheels to the common horizontal warp frame. Now, Sir, you know that these wheels were the invention of the late ingenious and much-lamented William Dawson, whose servant you was at the same time; and the question is, did he not apply them himself? At all events, you have not acted like the man of Ross, who, "Did good by stealth, and blush’d to find it fame."

JOHN BLACKNER

Nottingham, April 29.

P.S. It may not be improper here to state, that I never knew either person, name, or character, of any of Mr. Orgill’s workmen, till after his frames were broken, except Benjamin Clarke, a very respectable character, and Joseph Briggs, who now works with Mr. Orgill.

23rd April 1814: Simon Orgill attacks the Nottingham Review's report about the raid on his factory

TO THE PRINTER OF THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL

SIR,

Not doubting but that you will give a much injured man the opportunity of defending his character against an attack made on it in a weekly publication, viz. the Nottingham Review of last week, I have presumed to solicit the admission of the following into your highly respectable paper. After having named the attack made upon me and my property, he tells his readers he was at Donington when this violent outrage was committed; he was, but why he was there is best known to himself, about this I make no enquiry. He then proceeds to narrate the particulars, which he has done with a tolerable degree of accuracy, except in one instance, where he says one machine is but slightly injured; in this he is much mistaken; the injury having been done with a broad, thin, and sharp instrument, was not so apparent. Not content with having done this, he proceeds by an hypothetical Inuendo to assign a reason why this dreadful Evil was inflicted on me, and which it is impossible to construe into any thing short of an apology for the perpetrators. He accuses me, or rather says I have been accused, of paying less wages than are paid at Nottingham. This is false; I assert, without fear of refutation, that for one kind of work I pay more by 10 per cent, than they do. He then goes on to say, that I justify myself by pleading superior speed in my machinery. I ask who has accused me, and to whom have I set up this justification; I owe obedience to none but to my country and its laws,―against them I am unconscious of having transgressed: I am accountable to no man nor set of men for the manner in which I conduct my own affairs, nor will I ever be called to an account by them. This writer proceeds to give a direct invitation to the persons now in my employment, and assures to them plenty of work elsewhere. How kind!!! It is not enough that my life must be attempted and my property destroyed, but this insidious attempt must be made to prevent me from repairing the damages; but on this score I trust he will now be satisfied.

The miscreants who have visited me with their vengeance, have added ingratitude to the black catalogue of their crimes. But perhaps they do not know it. I will tell them; and I believe I shall not be charged with vanity or Egotism when I say, that it is to me that they owe all the facilities of which the warp frames are now capable. After considerable study, and considerable expence too, I discovered the mode of applying wheels to the common horizontal warp frame; this discovery I gave up to the trade without reward, or hope of reward. For the truth of this statement I appeal to William Vickers, Broad-marsh, and to Mr. Smith, framesmith. How well I am recompensed, the Editor of the Review can tell.

Yours, most respectfully,
SIMON ORGILL.

10th April 1814: Attack on a lace factory at Castle Donington

Number 3-5 Borough Street, Castle Donington - numbers 7-9, which compromised Simon Orgill's factory, are to the right of the picture (Google Street View, January 2009)

Simon Orgill was an entrepreneur in the Leicestershire lace trade. He was notable in the lace trade for pioneering the adoption of the 'Dawson Wheel' into warp lace frames around 1807, essentially mechanising operations that had previously been undertaken by hand.

By 1814, he was the sole owner of a business that rented a number of former farm buildings off Borough Street in the Northwest Leicestershire village of Castle Donington, for use as a factory. No doubt as a consequence of his innovation, the prices (or wages) that Orgill paid his workmen were much less than was the norm in neighbouring Nottinghamshire, and unsuccessful attempts had been made by the Framework-Knitters Union members in Nottingham to enrol Orgill's workmen into the Union and shut down Orgill's business.

In the evening of Easter Sunday 10th April 1814, Luddites had decided to use other methods to achieve these ends, and mounted an attack on Orgill's premises. Arriving around midnight on the 11th, they forced their way into the back of Orgill's house, and went through an internal door into the workshop. Once there, they completely destroyed 11 of the patent warp lace frames kept inside, and partially damaged another. Expensive cotton yarn and most of the lace already completed in the workshop was either cut, burnt or stolen by the Luddites, and they tried to start a fire with the remnants of the yarn on the warping mill, but this did not take hold before it was extinguished later.

Meanwhile, Orgill and his wife had been woken by the noise, with Orgill's wife being first to open the bedroom window and look outside. A Luddite keeping watch on the outside spotted her, and fired a pistol straight at her, the shot missing her by inches.

At the end of the raid, and as the Luddites left, one of them called out "Old Simon, before we leave you, I will have another peg at you" and 2 shots rang out, penetrating the bedroom windows and lodging in the ceiling. There were no injuries.

The value of the lace stolen by the Luddites, and possibly other goods in the house, was estimated at £70, with the damage to the frames being estimated to be between £400-1000. Orgill's business never subsequently recovered.