7th May 1818: Francis Raynes writes to Henry Hobhouse

No 3 Doughty Place
Lambeth Walk
7th May 1818

Sir,

Presuming on the introduction of Sir Thomas Maitland to you at Huddersfield in the year 1812 I [illegible] to address you. You are no doubt Sir, acquainted with my services at that period, and the light in which I now stand with His Majesty’s Government.

Greatly, infinitely should I be indebted to you Sir, would your benevolence lead you to interfere in my favour with Lord Sidmouth

I should not obtrude my self upon His Lordship or you Sir, if I had not been privately, and publicly attacked in a most cruel and unwarrantable manner

The loss of fortune a man may endure but to be bereft of character is insufferable.

I am driven from my Wife and five infant children to seek redress, which if denied me they must apply for Parochial relief—to witness this would almost turn my hair

My present unhappy situation every one must allow, arises from the service in question—for before my character was unsullied—May I again entreat you will do me the kindness to see Lord Sidmouth in my behalf; and should His Lordship be pleased to take my case into consideration, and rescue me from the impending stain [crossed out text] I shall ever feel most grateful for your charitable interference

I have the Honor to be
Sir
With true respect
Your most obt Humble Sert.
Francis Raynes
Late Captain Stirlingshire
Militia

To,

H. Hobhouse Esqr
&c &c &c

16th February 1818: Jeffrey Lockett writes to Henry Hobhouse about a confession implicating Francis Ward in Luddism

Dear Sir

Enfield has applied to me for the confession made by Woodward, (who was tried with Crofts at the same assizes at Leicester (about 1817) as Savage: & capitally convicted of the offence of Highway Robbery) relative to the intended assassination of Mr Justice Graham at [Leicester] on the road from Leicester to Lutterworth at the preceding assizes—it was not, I fear, reduced into writing,—but I was present with Mr Mundy, when it was made, and had two or three interviews with Woodward afterwards. You know that he was not a Luddite, but having lived at Lambley, was acquainted with the Luddite party, and was at Leicester at the Summer assizes in 1816 when James Towle, Badder, & Slater were tried, and was in the company of Frank Ward and the witnesses and associates of the prisoners during the assizes—He thus became acquainted with the plot which had been formerly Ward principally, for the murder of the Judge at Nottingham, & which was prevented only by the unexpected acquittal of the prisoners (Chettle & ano) He confirmed to the fullest extent, the accounts given by Blackburn, & the Luddite prisoners, of F. Ward’s proposal to effect the murder at Leicester,—of his offer of money and engagement of four or five of the party (of whom Ward was one) to commit it,—and of the part going on the road for the purpose and having been prevented from effecting the assassination by the Judge passing them in company with two other carriages. It happened that a party of barristers went with him to dine at Sir Ralph Noels.

I have written to Mr Mundy (who is at Bath) and have requested him to supply you with all the particulars which he can remember. In consequence of the confession he applied to the Judge (the Chief Baron) and Woodward was reprieved.

I am Dear Sir
Most truly Yours
Wm Jeffery Lockett
Derby Feby 16th: 1818

[To] H Hobhouse Esqr

18th October 1816: Henry Hobhouse sends a furious response to Benjamin Walker's supporter

Hadspen
Oct. 18 1816

Dear Sir,

The inclosed Application on behalf of Benjm. Walker is not the first of the kind which has been addressed to the Secretary of State. He was one of the murderers of Mr. Horsfall, & deserved a Halter just as much as his Colleagues, who were executed at York in January 1813. But he had the good fortune to turn King’s Evidence, by which he saved his Neck. Thus the Promise held out to him by the Crown has been fulfilled. The pecuniary Reward was promised not by Government, but by an Anti-Luddite Committee, which then existed at Huddersfield: and if Walker were by the strict Letter of their Promise entitled to the Reward, it is to them, & not the Secretary of State, that he must look for payment; and certainly he has no merit, which calls for the Interference of Government on his behalf. But if I recollect rightly, Walker is not entitled to the Reward, because his Information was not given until after he & his fellow-murderers were apprehended upon other Evidence. I believe too I am correct in stating that Walker after the Trial was supplied with money through Mr. Lloyd of Stockport to enable him to find an Asylum in some distant part of the Kingdom, I believe in Wales.

I have [etc]
H. Hobhouse

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

21st June 1816: Henry Hobhouse writes his final letter from Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 21.1816.

Dear Beckett

We have brought the Session to a most satisfactory Conclusion.

Being of opinion that Justice had been satisfied, we determined to adopt the same course as at York. Gurney addressed the Court in an extremely neat appropriate & touching Speech, explaining the Grounds on which the Crown was acting, & Mr Justice Abbott exhorted the Prisoners to improve the Lenity, which had been shewn to them, to their own Advantage & the public Peace.

The Court is now about to adjourn till tomorrow for the purpose of taking Bail of the Prisoners, who are discharged, for their appearance when required, & for their good Behaviour in the Interim.

There are 24 capital Convictions, & one for Grand Larceny. If there is time before the Post goes out, I  will send you a Calendar with the general Result.

We this morning convicted 4 of the Felony at Rob. Waddelow’s, on which our Failure took place at the outset of the Session.

I write in great Haste—
Bolland is also writing—

Yrs truly
H. Hobhouse

20th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse summarises day 4 of the Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 20. 1816.

Dear Sir,

After I dispatched my Letter yesterday, we convicted of a Robbery the Prisoner, who has been previously acquitted (as I stated to you) by the Kindness of his Dulcinea of a transportable offence.

Today we have tried an Indictment against 9 Prisoners for Robbery of a Shopkeeper in this Town, & the Jury convicted 8 of the 9.

This makes the present Catalogue of Prisoners finally disposed of as follows. There have been other Acquittals of Prisoners, against whom there are other Charges yet untried.

Atkins, Wm.}
Beamiss, Wm Junr.}
Benton, Mark} capitally convicted
Butcher, Christn. Acquitted—

Chevll, Aaron.}
Cooper, John}
Crabb, Robt.}
Dann, Wm.} capitally convicted—

Dennis, John — [capitally convicted] twice.

Easy, Joseph — capitally convicted.

Freeman, John}
Gaultrip, John} Acquitted—

Hardy, Isaac}
Hobbs, Sarah} capitally convicted—

Jefferson, John}
Jessop, Richd.} [capitally convicted] twice—

Lavender, Joseph — convicted of G. Larceny.
Layton, Aaron capitally convicted.

Newell, Jas.}
Prieke, John}
Rutter, Richd.} [capitally convicted]
South, Thos. [capitalIy convicted] twice—
Stubbard, Joseph—Acquitted—

We are now trying an Indictment for Stevens’s Robbery [against] four Prisoners, already convicted, & two others. This will probably occupy the rest of the day. If it should not, we must select for the [Professor] a case of small dimensions, free (as far as human Foresight can reach) of Difficulty of an Alibi.

I think it is hardly likely that the Business will be finished by Saturday Night.

We were let down so easily on the first Indictment, that you may be assured we incurred no Disgrace. A new Indictment has been found against all the Prisoners included in the first, except those who have been since convicted of other Crimes, and will probably be tried tomorrow morning.

I have not been inattentive to Ld. Sidmouth’s Wish to inform himself of the origin of the Disturbances, & I will continue to collect as much Information as possible on that Point.

I am sorry to hear that a Threshing Machine was burnt yesterday near Mildenhall.

I am Yrs. truly
H. Hobhouse

19th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse summarises Day 3 of the Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 19. 1816.

Dear Sir,

After I wrote yesterday, four Prisoners were tried for a Robbery on Mr. Vachell, all four were clearly proved Guilty, but the circumstances of Aggravation were greater against two than against the other two, and the Jury in their Discretion thought fit to acquit the two former.

Upon the whole of yesterday there were nine capital Convictions.

This day we began with an Indictment for robbing Robt. Edwards of this place of £50, which was clearly proved against five Prisoners, but the Jury only convicted three.

We intended to proceed with the Trial of the other Offences at Ely, but the last mentioned Indictment not having concluded until near three o'Clock, it was thought best to take some shorter Cases.

Mr. Justice Burrough tried an Indictment against two Principals and one Accessory for stealing Spoons at Mr. Vachell’s. One of the Principals was convicted, but the two others were acquitted by the Evidence of a Girl, whom we called as a Witness, and who proved to be a Sweet heart of the Prisoner.

The next case was not unfortunately tried before the Chief Justice. The Indictment was for Larceny at Mr. Vachell’s, & the Prisoner set up an Alibi, with which the Judge did not in the least know how to deal, and the summing up was such, that no one could be surprized at the Verdict of Acquittal.

I am
Dr Sir
Yr obed Servt
H. Hobhouse

19th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse writes an early letter from the Special Commission

Ely
Wednesday morng

Dear Beckett,

I wrote you a short Letter yesterday in Court, stating merely our Progress, & had not time for more. I am happy to tell you that the Trial before Christian well off very well. His summing up was unexceptionable except that it was too [illegible] and too pompous. I hear that the Language he uses to his Confidants here is that he has been most ill used by the Chancellor, but I do not find that he has suggested in what way he would have had the Commission framed more respectfully towards himself. For the sake of giving daily Proofs of this Absurdity, he refuses to come into Court in the Bishops Carriage with the other Judges, & follows them alone in some Vehicle of his own Purveyance.

I am happy to learn that the Convictions of yesterday have had a very salutary Effect on the minds of the People at Littleport, which were previously very much subdued; and I trust there is no doubt that the general Result of the Commission will entirely bring about the Effect which it was the object of Government to produce.

Having heard that Mr. Dering, the Norfolk magistrate, was a friend of Mr. Justice Abbott, I took an Opportunity yesterday afternoon of speaking to him on the subject of Mr D’s recent malverisation. He told me that he had known Mr. D. from his Boyhood, & was satisfied of his being a most honourable & right intentioned man, & with Firmness sufficient to execute at any Risque any thing which he conceived to be his Duty, but not unlikely to err in a case where he has not a strong Conception of the Line which it is incumbent time to pursue. I have thought it right to state this Testimony in Mr. D’s favour for Ld. Sidmouth’s Consideration, when he finally determines on this Subject.

I have sent for the magistrate’s Clerk from Downham for the purpose of getting Information respecting the Prisoners committed from thence.

Before the Post goes out to day I will write again.

Believe me

Yrs truly
H.Hobhouse

18th June 1816: The Treasury Solicitor, Henry Hobhouse, writes from Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 18. 1816

Dear Sir,

I send you the Shorthand writers Note of Mr. Justice Abbott’s Charge the Grand Jury yesterday.

The first Indictment selected for Trial was one against [the] Prisoners for Burglary at the House of Rebecca Waddelow at Littleport, in which we made a complete case against all the Gang, but the last Witness unfortunately moved that he had a joint Property in the dwelling house (which was quite unexpected), and upon this Point arising the Case was withdrawn for the purpose of preferring a new Indictment, & the Prisoners were of course acquitted on that before the Court.

We have since tried two Indictments, the first before Mr. Justice Burrough against 7 Prisoners for breaking the House of J. Dewey at Littleport, of whom 5 were convicted, & the other two acquitted by Consent, the Evidence coming out with less force against them than was expected: the second before Mr. Chief Justice Christian against one who had before been convicted, & two others, for breaking Speechley’s House at Littleport. All 3 were [found] guilty

We shall fill up the day with other Littleport Cases, & tomorrow proceed with those at Ely.

I would have written yesterday, but I had nothing to say but what you have ere this heard more satisfactorily from Sir John Byng.

I am
Yrs truly
H. Hobhouse

29th May 1816: Henry Hobhouse sends his latest about the forthcoming Ely Special Commission to the Home Office

Ely
May 29. 1816.

Dear Sir,

In the course of yesterday I went thro’ the minutes of the Examinations taken on the previous Days, and though some of them are very defective, yet enough appears to satisfy me that our Prosecutions will be confined to the Transactions of two days, viz. last Wednesday & Thursday. On the former, a Mob, collected from the Parishes of Littleport Downham & Ely assembled in the Evening at the former Place, levied Contributions of various Amounts from many persons, some in the Street, & others in their Houses, committed Outrages amounting to Burglary in 2 or 3 dwelling houses, & finally plundered that of the Rector Mr. Vachell, & expelled him & his Family, at which last House there was not only a Burglary, but a beginning to demolish within the Riot Act.

The Mob continued together during the Night, & on Thursday morning marched to Ely, where besides levying small Contributions on numerous Persons they attacked several Houses & grabbed the owners of money or Goods.

This short Statement gives you the general Complexion of the Prosecutions. I shall endeavour to select the Cases, where the greatest Outrages were committed, & the largest number of Prisoners can be proved to have been engaged. I see no reason to doubt that the Offences will be fixed by satisfactory Evidence on all the Ringleaders. I hope I shall get away from hence tomorrow, but I shall remain until while I find I can be essentially useful.

I have ascertained that the Chief Justice of Ely holds pleas of the Crown, not by virtue of his Appointment from the Bishop, but by a standing Commission of Oyer & Terminer & General Gaol Delivery under the great Seal, which is directed to others besides the Chief Justice, the latter being of the quorum. If there [should] be no reason for extended the intended Commission to the rest of Cambridgeshire, it may follow the Form of the standing Commission that the Isle, which will obviate the difficulty as to the Officer by whom the Jury is to be summoned. And the Bailiff of the Isle assures me that he has no doubt of getting from the north part of the Isle a panel of Jurors omni exceptione maiores.

I write this hastily to send by Sir H. Dudley. If any thing material occurs before the Post, I will write again.

Yrs faithfully.
H. Hobhouse

28th May 1816: Henry Hobhouse sends details of a wanted man to the Home Office

Ely
May 28. 1816.

Dear Sir,

This will be delivered to you by a Constable, who has a Warrant against Aaron Layton for a capital Felony. Enclosed is a Letter from the Prisoner Felon, who is likely, if in London to be at No. 11 St. Mary Street Brook Street New Road—and if at Bath, at the House of his Uncle—Cheesewright, who is a Waiter at the White Hart and lives at No. 51 Walcot Street Bath. The Constable is well acquainted with Layton's Person, and has seen Sir H. Dudley sign the Warrant. The Prisoner Felon is a Bricklayer, 5 feet 7 inches high, 20 years of age, dark Hair, Hazel Eyes, much freckled & pock-fretten, remarkably wide mouth, wears a fustian Jacket & Breeches, blue Stockings, & high-low Shoes.

You will be pleased to give the necessary Directions for the Constable’s being assisted in apprehending the Felon.

I am Sir
Your obedient
humble Servant
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esqr

28th May 1816: Henry Hobhouse arrives at Ely to prepare for the Special Commission

Ely
May 28. 1816.

Dear Sir,

Sir H. Dudley & myself reached this place between 10 & 11 this morning, & found the magistrates engaged in the Examination of the Prisoners. We lost no time in joining them, & have assisted in the Examinations. The general Complexion of the Cases in such as to lead me to expect that the Guilt and many of the Prisoners will be evidenced much more satisfactory than I anticipated. They consist principally of Robberies committed previously to last Friday in open day the presence of Persons who speak clearly to the Identity of the Prisoners.

I have not yet had an Opportunity of looking at the Depositions taken yesterday & Saturday.

In passing through Cambridge I had some Conversation with Mr. Pemberton the Undersheriff respecting the means of getting to this Place a Jury at any Freeholders out of the Isle. There appears to be some practical Difficulty in it, which will require the Consideration before the Place for holding the Session is fixed, & I will inform myself better on the subject while I am here.

I will write again tomorrow.
& am
Yrs faithfully
H. Hobhouse

[To John Beckett]

31st December 1814: John Lee asks the Home Office if they support the prosecution of the former spy, Joseph Taylor

By the end of 1814, time had caught up with the former spy, Joseph Taylor, who had been caught out extorting money from the well-to-do in Lancashire, trading on his usefulness to the government as a spy.

My Lord,

In the Matter of Joseph Taylor.

I have the honour by the directions of the Magistrates here to transmit your Lordship a Statement accompanied by a Copy of the Papers referred to therein, of the Manner in which the above Person obtained divers Sums of Money from several of the Gentleman and Merchants of Rochdale and its Neighbourhood, in order that Government may if thought proper, direct him to be prosecuted at its Expence, conformably to the Wish of the Parties concerned.

I beg to observe to your Lordship that the Quarter Sessions at Manchester commence about the Middle of January next And therefore the Transaction I am now troubling your Lordship with &c demands immediate Attention. As soon as your Lordship shall have obtained the Determination of Government upon this Business I hope to be favoured therewith for the Information and Guidance of the Gentleman here. I trust your Lordship will think with me that Taylor ought not to go unpunished.

I am [etc]
Jno: Lee.
Rochdale Decr 31st 1814.

[To] The Right Honble
Lord Viscount Sidmouth
Secretary of State
&c. &c. &c.
London.

Although the papers are absent from the Home Office files, a cover note from a Home Office clerk to John Beckett of the Home Office written in the New Year follows with a description of the contents of John Lee's letter:

Letter and five Inclosures from Mr. Lee of Rochdale containing an account of Joseph Taylor who was useful during the Disturbances in the north West Districts – This man it appears has been obtaining various Sums of money by making unauthorized use of the name of Sir J Radcliffe &c—That he has imposed upon several reputable Individuals by false Stories & by producing Certificates fraudulently obtained & false lists of Subscriptions & by asserting that he never received any thing from Government for his Services – he has been committed by the magistrates, who wish to know whether Government will prosecute—Will Mr Beckett first send these papers privately to Mr. Hobhouse?

[Home Department] 3d Jany 1815.

John Beckett then forwarded the documents to Henry Hobhouse, the Solicitor to the Treasury, on the same day with the following note:

Private

Mr. Beckett presents his Compliments to Mr Hobhouse & is directed by Lord Sidmouth to transmit for his perusal the several accompanying papers relative to the Conduct of Joseph Taylor, the Person employed during the Disturbances. Mr. Beckett requests that Mr Hobhouse will return them with such remarks as he may see occasion to make.

Home Department
3d January [1815]

2nd March 1814: The Treasury Solicitor informs the Home Office about his views on Nadin's expenses

Lincolns Inn
March 2. 1814

Mr. Hobhouse presents Complts. to Mr. Beckett, and returns Mr. Nadin's Memorial, & the accompanying Documents received from Mr. Beckett on the 26th ulto. Although on the Inspection of Mr. Nadin's Charges there certainly does not appear to be any Claim for his personal Labour, yet the Amount of some of those Items which are charged as Disbursements, leads to a strong Suspicion that a considerable Profit on them must have occurred to himself. W.H. makes this Observation, not with a View of subjecting the Bill to Revision, which he thinks would at this time be useless, but as it may weigh something in deciding on the question of Mr. Nadin's ulterior Remuneration. W.H. regards Nadin as a very useful Police Officer, whom it is desirable to render chearful in the Execution of his Duty, & on this Ground he presumes to think it would not be amiss, particularly after the long Delay wch has occurred in paying his Bill, to present him with a moderate Gratuity.

With regard to the Derbyshire Cases, in respect of which Nadin thinks himself [badly] treated, it is fit to observe that Government has neither directly nor indirectly had any Concern in them. W.H. knows not by whom Nadin was employed, nor by whom the Prosecution were conducted; but he apprehends that the 5 Convictions entitle the Prosecutor to 5 Rewards of £40 each besides Tyburn Tickets, out of which Nadin probably had, & certainly was entitled to have, a considerable Share

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

Private

Lincolns Inn
Feb. 5. 1814.

Dear Sir,

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

I am Dr. Sr
Yrs. faithfully
H. Hobhouse

J Beckett Esq

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

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

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

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

Lincolns Inn
Jan. 18. 1814

26th January 1813: The Treasury Solicitor suggests that the Home Office pay off the informer, Samuel Fleming

Lincolns Inn
Jan. 26. 1813.

Sir,

With Reference to Mr Litchfield’s Letter of the 28th ulto, in which he transmitted a Bill and Mr. Joseph Nadin of Manchester containing (among other Things) various Payments made by him to Samuel Fleming a Witness for the Crown at the Summer Assizes at Lancaster, I have the Honor to inform you that having seen at York both Mr. Nadin & Mr. Hay the Magistrate I took an opportunity of speaking to them on the Subject of Fleming, & have now to transmit to you for Lord Sidmouth’s Information a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Hay, suggesting what appears to the magistrates on the spot to be the best mode of getting Fleming off the Hands of Government.

I have [etc]
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

[Written in margin]

27. —

Write to the Treasury — and request that this will authorise them [illegible] to advance 100£ for the purpose stated out of monies in his hand, for [illegible] a Criminal [Prosn]

13th January 1813: Henry Hobhouse dismisses the solicitors Lloyd & Allison to prevent them stirring up further trouble

York
Jan. 13. 1813.

Sir,

I deem it right to lose no Time in informing you that in Consequence of a Conversation which I had yesterday Evening, with Gen. Maitland, in which he stated his Intention to be to try whether the severe Example made at this place together with the Amnesty proposed on the part of the Government would not unable him to withdraw the Troops from the disturbed parts, & leave those parts to recover tranquility, from their Disaffection, I conceived it would be right to prevent the Effect of these measures being endangered by any Indiscretion on the part of the Attornies who have been employed for the Crown at Huddersfield. I have therefore taken upon myself to inform Mr. Lloyd & Mr. Allison that they cease to be employed from this Time, & that they are to take no Step whatever on the part of Government without express orders, for which however they are at liberty to apply, if they shall see occasion. If Lord Sidmouth should disapprove of these Directions, it will be easy to correct my Error; whereas any Contravention of the Views of His Majesty’s Ministers on the opposite side would not be so easily set right. I therefore hope I shall at last stand excused for the Orders I have given.

Inclosed I send you a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Cartwright to Mr. Blackburn the Attorney for the Prisoners, written in answer to an Application to sign a Petition, which is probably a Duplicate of one that I am informed went up to Lord Sidmouth last Night.

I am now on the point of quitting this Place, & remain

Sir
Your obedient
humble Servant
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

13th January 1813: Henry Hobhouse informs the Home Office that Judge Le Blanc has denied the condemned Luddites mercy

Private
& confidential

York
Jan. 13.

Dear Sir,

Mr. LeBlanc has communicated to Park that after a very attentive [illegible] of the Cases they can discover nothin sufficient Distinction to warrant any Mercy except in the single Instance mentd in my official Letter.

Not one of the Prisoners denied his Guilt, when called on to say whr he had any thing to urge agst the Sentence. Yet I understand that Blackburn the Atty is handg abt a Petition for Signatures stating their Innocence of those who are convicted for Cartwright’s Affair.

I have enough to do to employ me here till tomorrow, & moreover am extremely well to day. But I hope to see you on Saturday

Park means to call on you on Friday.

Yrs &c
H Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

12th January 1813: Henry Hobhouse sends the result of the York Special Commission to the Home Office

York
Jan. 12. [1813]

Sir,

The Business of the Commission being concluded, I have the Honour to inclose from Lord Sidmouth’s Information a Calendar of the Prisoners, in which their several Sentences or their Modes of Discharge are noted. His Lordship will find the general Result to be that of 64 Prisoners

18 have recd Sentence of Death,
6 of Transportation for 7 Years,
17 capitally indicted, but discharged on Bail to appear & answer when required by the Crown.
2 admitted Evidence for the Crown.
13 discharged without Indictment
7 acquitted (4 of them by Consent)
1 has traversed to the next Assizes.

Of the 15 who have just received Sentence of Death, Mr. Baron Thomson intimated to only one of them any Hope of Mercy, viz. to John Lumb who was recommended by the Jury; & I understand that it is their Lordships’ to execute all the others either on Thursday or Saturday next.

I hope this Result of the Commission will meet the Approbation of his Majesty's Ministers; & as soon as I return to Town I will have the Honour of calling at Whitehall to answer any Enquiries which Lord Sidmouth may wish to make.

I have [etc]
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq