16th January 1816: The Leeds Cloth Dressers Union case comes to court

On Tuesday 16th January 1816, the case of the Union Officers arrested and charged with aiding and abetting an illegal combination (i.e. Trade Union) by Leeds Magistrates in December was heard at Leeds Borough Quarter Sessions. The Leeds Mercury of 20th January 1816 gave a good summary of the proceedings:

TILLOTSON, SUNDERLAND, & OTHERS, Appellants, REX, Respondent. 

The Appellants, who are cloth-dressers, were convicted on Tuesday, the 19th of December last, by Whittell York, Esq. Mayor, and Thomas Ikin, Esq. on a charge of combining to hinder Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, cloth-merchants, of this town, from employing Thomas Marshall, as a cloth-dresser. Mr. Williams, who came from Preston for the purpose of sustaining the appeal, had been especially retained by the Appellants at a very considerable expence. His assistance, however, turned out to be unnecessary, as Mr. Maud, who was Counsel in support of the Conviction, stated to the bench that it was impossible the conviction could be legally sustained, as the Magistrates before whom the the conviction had taken place had no jurisdiction in the case, the act having especially provided, "that no Justice, being a master in any trade or manufacture, concerning which any offence is charged to have been committed should act in execution thereof." On this ground Mr. Maud said, the conviction must necessarily be quashed, for if that Court should affirm it, the Court of King's Bench would, would, under the circumstances of the case set such conviction aside. He concluded with moving that the conviction be quashed, to which the Court of course assented.—Conviction quashed.

30th December 1815: Leeds Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary writes a corrective letter to the Leeds Mercury

Following the report of his arrest in the 23rd December 1815 edition of the Leeds Mercury, John Sunderland - the Secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') - wrote to the paper, who published the letter on Saturday 30th December 1815:

TO the EDITOR of the LEEDS MERCURY.

SIR,— I beg that you will correct a Paragraph in your last Paper, by the Insertion the following Statement:—On Monday Night, the Eighteenth Inst. John Sunderland, Clerk to the Cloth Workers’ Brief Institution, was apprehended in the Act of reading a Letter, paying the Sick, &c. and himself and Twenty-Four other Persons searched, along with Five Women, who were applying for Relief for their Sick Husbands. At the same Time the Books and Papers were seized, and all taken away. John Sunderland and others were immediately conveyed to the Black Lion, Mill-Hill, at Nine o'Clock, and there remained till Two the next Day in the Afternoon, without being examined by any Magistrate. The said John Sunderland, Joseph Tillotson, William Anderson, William Hampshire, and Samuel Wheatley, after being examined, were held to Bail, for persuading Thomas Marshall, (the Informant,) to leave his Employers, Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, contrary to the Statute in that Case made and provided.

I am, Yours, &c. 

J.S.

18th December 1815: Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary arrested in Leeds

In the evening of Monday 18th December 1815 John Sunderland, the secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') was arrested in Leeds. The two local newspapers carried reports of the arrest.

From the Leeds Mercury of Saturday 23rd December:

On Monday night last, John Sunderland, Secretary of United Cloth-Dressers’ Society, was apprehended at a public-house in this town and committed to prison, on a charge of aiding and abetting an illegal combination for preventing the use of Machinery in the dressing of woollen cloth, and at the same time the papers of the Society were seized and inspected by the Magistrates. On the following day Sunderland and three other persons were held to bail to appear at the Quarter Sessions to answer to the said charge.

From the Leeds Intelligencer of Monday 25th December:

Monday last, five men, members of a Committee of Cloth-dressers, were convicted at our Rotation Office of having entered into an illegal combination for preventing or their fellow-workmen from following his trade, unless he paid the sum of five pounds, which this Committee thought itself entitled to demand of him. They have appealed to the Quarter Sessions. It might have been hoped that the awful example at York, would have been a sufficient warning to workmen of every description, of the danger of entering into illegal combinations. Though any Class of workmen may set out with a resolution not to give way to such daring acts of outrage, as drew down that terrible infliction of the law, they ought to be aware that, having once entered upon an unlawful career, it is impossible for them to foresee where the evil may terminate, and that, however guarded they may be in their proceedings, detection, must, sooner or later, overtake every deviation from that course which the laws of the land, as well as every principle of policy, of necessity, and of justice, have marked out. The object of dislike to the present combination, is that species of machinery, employed for the dressing woollen cloth, called Gig Mills. By this machinery, some are of opinion that the manufacture can be finished, at the same expence, in a style much superior, to that which the Cloth-Workers are either able or willing to affect by manual labour. Several manufacturers, therefore, exercising that opinion, (which is their undoubted right) have determined on employing such machinery. Against this system, it appears, the Cloth-Workers have combined; and having demanded, as we have above stated, five pounds from an individual who had worked with machinery in Ireland, before they would allow him to earn his subsistence here by his wonted avocation, he gave information of the system, and the Committee, with their books and papers, were taken into custody. An extensive correspondence and combination have in consequence been discovered. As the next sessions must determine the business, it would be improper here to dwell further on the subject.

7th July 1814: George Coldham updates the Home Office on the conviction of the FWK Union officers

Nottm 7th July 1814.

Dear Sir,

In consequence of the hurry occasioned to me personally by many circumstances connected with Conviction of George Gibson & Thomas Judd two of the Committee of the existing Combination amongst the Frameworknitters I was not enabled to write to you yesterday to inform you of their Conviction. On Tuesday Evening late the Magistrates heard their Cases the third Person implicated in these Charges Samuel Simpson not having been apprehended & they convicted them both upon the Evidence of William Robinson the Warehouseman of Messrs Ray & Joseph Brookhouse Frameworknitter working for Mr Ray who had been employed by the Committee in collecting for receiving Money of the said Joseph Brookhouse for these illegal Purposes. As this was the first Prosecution under the Combination Act it was not thought politic to push the Conviction up to the full Extent the Law would have warranted either on the part of the Prosecution or the Magistrates & they were accordingly sentenced to 1 months Imprisonment to hard Labour. in the House of Correction. The papers are undergoing Examination & the Committee to whom I am Secretary would be glad to know whether Government or Lord Sidmouth would wish to see the originals in short have any Opinion to express respecting the Disposal of them. I do not think we have all the Papers belonging to this Society but what we have will enable a pretty good Guess to be formed of the Extent of their present Funds.

I hope a great Deal of good has been Done altho’ the Combination does not yet seem prepared to dissolve itself.

I am dear Sir

Yours very truly
Geo Coldham

[To John Beckett]

18th May 1814: Combination laws used against scythemakers in Derbyshire

On Wednesday 18th May 1814, nine scythemakers were convicted under the Combination Acts of organising in Derbyshire with a view to an increase in wages. Two Derbyshire JPs, Sir William Chambers Bagshaw & Joshua Jebb sentenced them to three months in the County Gaol. Their names were John Fox, Joseph Martin, John Reaney senior & John Reaney junior & George Richardson (all from Norton, Derbyshire), John Fox & Samuel Fox (from Gleadless in Yorkshire), James Turner (from Sheffield) and John Bingham (of Greenhill in Derbyshire).

28th March 1814: The Rev WR Hay tells the Home Office that Master Printers are scared to act against the Union

(Private)

Ackworth 28 March (Eveng) 1814.

Dear Sir,

Having written the only official answer which it is in my power to give to your letter of the 14th instant, I think it right privately to enclose an extract of such part of Mr. Evans’s letter to me, this day received, as refers to the subject of Lord Sidmouth’s enquiry, & to transmit some particulars connected with it.

In immediate answer to my letter, Mr. Evans (who was convening the Magistrates, & had sent a copy to the Sollicitor for the Master Printers) held out little prospect of any advantage to be expected. This was no surprise to me, as I had occasion to be aware the difficulties might occur in respect to the procuring information.

I will now state to you as surely as I can what had passed on the subject prior to my writing to Lord Sidmouth.

The Magistrates in Sessions, before whom the rules were laid, thought them of too serious a complexion, more especially after all they had witnessed, not to be sent to Government. This Order was unanimously made.

The Master Printers hearing of the determination of the Sessions, seemed pleased with what we had resolved on; and, by their Sollicitor, intimated to me that they were ready to communicate with me on the subject, if I wished it. I instantly fixed the time, & met them—After hearing the state of the combination & other particulars my advice was given as strongly as I could present it, that without loss of time, & laying aside all minor considerations, they should proceed to put down the combination, then sufficiently strong, but which would every hour become more formidable, for that delay and indecision must operate in favour of the men, & against the masters—Their sollicitor was a strongly of the same opinion. I found however (as is too often the case) that present advantages were an obstacle to some of the masters. In fact, they were unanimous as to the grievance; but not united as to the mode of resistance, if any were to be made. A Plan they had; not strictly legal perhaps; but under the circumstances probably justifiable. I proposed that, whatever plan they might think proper to pursue, they should instantly by delegation from their own body inform Government of the combination; because the question was too general in its bearing to be considered merely as respecting their own branch of trade. They stated to me some of the instances of outrage, & from what passed, I had every reason to believe that they would furnish me with a summary of several grievances already experienced by the masters; some of which, as I have stated, were the subjects of conversation. I called for this whilst I was in Manchester—On not receiving it, I requested that it might be sent after me; stating to the Sollicitor that I would withhold my letter to Government for some days, that I might have an opportunity of receiving it: but none came—I therefore could no longer delay writing on my instructions from the Sessions.

Amongst many other grievances was one which I conceive Mr Evans to refer. A Gentleman (whether or no he had been in the trade I am not sure, tho I believe he had) went to dine with a Master Printer. The journeyman heard of it. They insisted to the master that his guest should leave his house—a considerable parley ensued; and it was not till after a thorough explanation of the relation of the parties, an assurance that the guest was not in the situation of a master printer, and that his visit had nothing in its object that respected their trade—that he was suffered to remain.

In another instance a roller for the purpose of printing was in use at some extensive works. The men insisted that, inasmuch as that roller was not made by such persons, & under such circumstances as they approved, it should not be used—The master remonstrated; and, with apparent firmness; but at length he judged it prudent to give up the roller—The men, not satisfied with this, would not continue to work for him (or, probably has the term is, would have declared him in a state of blockade) unless he pay the expenses of the combination: £1.16. 0—this he did,—and I have since been informed that some other demand for expenses was insisted upon and paid.

These would have been two of the cases furnished by me. I need not state to you how important they are. When the Masters with the law in their hands dare not put it into force, the case is very serious. The evil complained of is vital - it will roll through every branch of trade; ultimately it may reach even the interior of private families.

I must request that this letter be considered as private; to be communicated only to Lord Sidmouth. As such I find it necessary to write it. Tho it may contain more perhaps than I have permission to communicate officially, it may be useful to his Lordship by way of explanation, and in respect of my brother magistrates & myself may operate so far as to protect us from censure.

I am, Dear Sir,
Your faithful & obedient humble serv.
William Robert Hay.

To
John Beckett Esqr &c &c

14th March 1814: The Home Office ask The Rev Hay for more information on a North West Printers Union

Sent to
Revd. W. R. Hay
Ackworth
near Pontefract

W.H. 14th of March 1814

Sir

A copy of your letter

Lord Sidmouth having directed a reference to be made to the Attorney & Solicitor General on the Subject of the “Rules for the conducting of the Union Society of Printers Cutters & Drawers in Lancashire Cheshire Derbyshire &c" which you transmitted to His Lordship in your letter of the 20 of last month—I have received His Lordship’s directions to acquaint you that the Law Officers have reported that the articles entered into are illegal by the Statute of 39. & 40 Geo: 3. Ch: 106

The object of these articles is to prevent the masters from using machinery by agreement of the workmen who are parties to the articles not to work for such masters; & also to prevent the workmen from working in certain sorts of work described in some of the different Clauses of the  Articles.

This is a combination for controlling & affecting persons who carry on the Trade or business, & as such is illegal, & any of the persons who can be proved to be members of the Society or to have subscribed their money for the purposes of the Combination are guilty of an offence for which they may be convicted—as however no facts are stated as to any particular case the Law Officers cannot point out on which peculiar Branch of the act any individual should be prosecuted, the peculiar offence meant to be charged on any Individual must depend on the specific facts which can be brought home to him; and the Law Officers are further of opinion that when sufficient evidence can be procured of the Society acting upon the principle of these articles the persons who can be proved to be parties to such acts will be very fit subjects for prosecution.

Under these circumstances it would be very desireable that the magistrates should take measures for ascertaining who are the Individuals composing the Society in question, and that sufficient evidence should be procured so as to bring fact home to one or more of the parties of their being members of the sd. Society or of their having subscribed money for the purposes set forth for in the Rules, in order that a case should may be made out for immd. prosecution; and as soon as you the Magistrates have collected any Information on which they conceive a prosecution may be instituted, Lord Sidmouth requests that it may be transmitted to Him for His information with as little delay as possible.

Case.

Lord Sidmouth having received from the Magistrates assembled at the last Salford Sessions a Printed Copy of certain Resolutions which have been lately published at Manchester entitled ‘Rules for the conducting of the Union Society of Printers, Cutters, and Drawers in Lancashire Cheshire Derbyshire &c.  has directed the Solicitors of the Treasury to submit the same to the Attorney and Solicitor General and Consult them as to,

How far it would be proper to constitute any legal Proceedings against them.?

We are of opinion that the articles entered into are illegal by the Statute of 39 & 40 Geo 3. ch 106.—

The object of these Articles is to prevent the masters from using machinery by agreement of the Workmen who are parties to the Articles not to work for such masters, and also to prevent the workmen from working in certain sorts of work described in some of the different clauses of the Articles. This is a combination for controlling and affecting persons who carry on the trade or business, and as such, is illegal, and any of the persons who can be proved to be members of the Society or to have subscribed their money for the purposes of the Combination, are guilty of an Offence for which they may be convicted. As we have no facts stated to us as to any particular case, we cannot point out on which peculiar branch of the Act any individual should be prosecuted, the peculiar offence meant to be charged on any Individual must depend on the specific facts which can be brought home to him; and we think when sufficient evidence can be procured of the Society acting upon the principle of these articles the persons who can be proved to be parties to such acts will be very fit subjects of prosecution.

W Garrow
S: Shepherd

Lincolns Inn
11th March 1814