24th July 1816: Bury Quarter Sessions ends with sentences for machine-breakers and others

The Bury & Norwich Post of 31st July 1816 carried details of the sentences for prisoners tried at the Bury Quarter Sessions for various events that had taken place in east Anglia in previous months:

Bury Quarter Sessions did not terminate till Wednesday afternoon, when the following sentences were passed on the several prisoners, convicted subsequent to our last week's paper being put to the press:— 

Thomas Meers, Geo. Farrant, sen. Stephen Clarke, Mary Jackson, and Richard Rogers, for breaking a threshing machine at Stoke by Clare, the property of Mr. J. Wales, 12 months’ imprisonment each; George Farrant, jun. and W. Jackson, 6 months; George Frost, 3 months; C. Meers, T. Swallow, Wm. Turner, John Deeks, Sarah Jackson, and J. Angel were discharged on their own recognizance. 

Jonas Taylor, Wm. Seeley, and Jeremiah Osborn, for destroying two threshing machines, the property of Mr. Thos. Kemp, 13 months’ imprisonment; and Jas. Seeley, Jas. Howard, and Jas. Burroughs, were acquitted. 

William Edwards, for conspiring with several others with a view of inducing labourers to form themselves into a society for raising their wages, &c. at Wattisham, and elsewhere, 9 months’ imprisonment, and to find sureties for his good behaviour for one year.—No true bills against Wm. Abbott and John Payne, charged with the same offence. 

Robert Leader, Henry Poole, Robt. Durham, John Smith, John Abbott, Wm. Howe, Wm. Halls, for riotously assembling at Rattlesden and breaking a mole plough, the property of Mr. Benjamin Morgan, of Gedding; the said Robt. Leader, (styled commander) two years’ imprisonment in one of his Majesty's gaols, and the other six 12 months each; J. Button, Benj. Buxton, J. Chinnery, T. Durham, B. Steggles, R. Osborn, M. Moore, R. Baxter, Chas. and r. Cobble, Ezekiel Buxton, Mesach Moore, Jas. Southgate, J. Bird, G. King, J. Folkerd, John Steggles, T. Mattock, and J. Clover, 3 months each, or until they find sureties to keep the peace for one year, which they all procured in Court and were discharged; Wm. Richer, W. Nunn, R. Folkerd, and R. Gladwell, pleaded guilty, and were allowed to be at large on their own recognizance; & J. Golding was acquitted.

A week later, the Bury & Norwich Post corrected their coverage of the trial of another incident at Clare with the following information:

In the account of our quarter-sessions last week, we omitted the names of Jacob Halls, Sam. Gridley, Rhinaldo Bareham, and Henry Atherton, convicted of burning a threshing machine at Clare: the former of whom were sentenced to 13 months, and the latter to 9 months' imprisonment.

19th July 1816: 7 labourers jailed for assault at Cambridge Quarter Sessions

On Friday 19th July 1816 at Cambridge Quarter Sessions, 7 labourers who had assembled with others at Swaffham Bulbeck in May to demand higher wages were tried. The Cambridge Chronicle of 26th July carried a brief report:

At the Quarter Sessions for this county, on Friday last, William Ullyar [actually Hullier], James Thompson, John Stickwood, Joseph Flack, John Fordham, and William Clements, were indicted for riotously assembling at Swaffham Bulbeck, in May last, and also for assaulting William Manning.—It appeared that about 50 labouring men, amongst whom were the prisoners, assembled together for the purpose of demanding an increase of wages, and that they endeavoured to persuade Manning to accompany them; on his refusal, they assaulted him, and treated him very ill. The evidence of the riotous conduct of the prisoners was not sufficient for conviction, but they were all found guilty of the assault, and the three former sentenced to be imprisoned six months, and the latter three months, in the county gaol.—

17th July 1816: Four jailed for destroying a Threshing Machine at Hockham, Norfolk

At the Norfolk County Session on Wednesday 17th July 1816, 4 prisoners were jailed for destroying a Threshing Machine at Hockham on 19th May.

The Norfolk Chronicle of 20th July 1816 carried a report about the trial:

John Abery, Jas. Bailey, the elder, Peter Palmer, the elder, and Peter Palmer, the younger, were indicted for having, together with other persons to the number of 100, routously and riotously assembled in the parish of Hockham, on the 19th of May last, and then and there destroyed a certain threshing machine, the property of William Burlingham.—The two latter prisoners pleaded guilty. On the part of the prosecution, it appeared, that the prosecutor, Wm. Burlingham, being nearly blind, was rendered unable to work for his livelihood, but having a little money, he had purchased a threshing machine for the price of 76l. which he used to let out to the neighbouring farmers, at a small profit to himself. That in May last, it had been to let out to a Mr. Wells, in the aforesaid parish, and that on the 19th of that month, being on a Sunday morning, the prisoners together with other evil disposed persons had dragged the machine from off Mr. Wells's premises into the high road, where they completely effected its demolition. The prisoners were proved to have taken an active part in the riot. 

Mr. Cooper, for the prisoners, contended that they had not been proved to have committed an unlawful act, and that none of the witnesses had sworn to their dragging the Machine off, the private property of Mr. Wells, but had all found them in the act of destroying it in the public road. It might therefore be presumed that a number of persons passing that way, had found this clumsy machine very much in their way upon the road, and deeming it a nuisance had destroyed it and removed the materials, which the learned Counsel stated they had a legal right to do. An alibi was attempted in favour of the prisoner Bailey, by calling two witnesses who had seen him six yards distant from the spot where the machine was destroyed, but it was not denied that at the time, Bailey was thus far off, the greater part of the mischief had been effected. 

Mr. Alderson, as Counsel for the Prosecution, strongly rebutted the position of law asserted by the Counsel for the Prisoners, the dangerous and fallacious tendency of which was strongly laid down from the Bench in the Chairman's charge to the jury. 

The prisoners were found Guilty; Abery and Bailey, were sentenced each to imprisonment for one year, in Wymondham Bridewell, and find sureties for their good behaviour for two years further; and Peter Palmer the elder, and Peter Palmer, the younger, who had pleaded guilty, were sentenced each, to three months imprisonment in Norwich Castle, and enter into security for their good behaviour, for one year more.

16th July 1816: One rioter imprisoned for Norwich riot in May 1816

On Tuesday 16th July 1816, the Norwich Quarter Sessions commenced & the trials included cases of rioting that took place in the city in May.

The Bury & Norwich Post of 24th July reported the following:

Robert Hatton, the younger, was tried for a misdemeanour, in having, together with other persons unknown, riotously assembled in the Market-place of this city, on the evening of the 17th of May last, and acted in a violent and tumultuous manner. On being called upon for his defence, the prisoner threw himself upon the mercy of the jury, who after a few minutes deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Norwich Bridewell.—No true bill was found against Hardy Sheppard, who had been committed for a similar offence.

Meanwhile, the Norfolk Chronicle of 20th July carried the following report:

Robert Hatton, the younger, was tried for a misdemeanour in having together with other persons unknown routously and riotously assembled in the Market-place of this city, on the evening of the 17th of May last, and for having acted in a violent and tumultuous manner upon that occasion. By the evidence of several very respectable persons, it was proved that the prisoner had on the above occasion, distinguished himself amongst the mob by exciting others to assist him in acts of violence, and particularly by endeavouring to frighten the horses upon which the cavalry were mounted, by means of a fireball, at a time when the cavalry were called out to aid the police in preserving or restoring the public peace. On being called upon for his defence, the prisoner threw himself upon the mercy of the jury, who after a few minutes deliberation returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the court. 

He was sentenced to three months present in Norwich Bridewell.  

No true bill was found against Hardy Sheppard, who had been committed for a similar offence.

9th February 1816: Charles Sutton is sentenced to 12 months in prison for political libel

On Friday 9th February 1816, Charles Sutton returned to the Court of King's Bench to receive sentence, after losing his appeal 8 days earlier. The Times of 10th February 1816 covered the hearing in its Law Report section:

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Friday, FEB. 9. 

THE KING v. CHARLES SUTTON. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for the sentence of the Court upon the defendant: we noticed the principal facts of the case in the argument on the motion for arresting the judgment: the information was for a libel inserted in the defendant's newspaper, entitled "The Nottingham Review," in which, under the form of a letter to the editor, a comparison was made between the conduct of the British forces at Washington, who had been rewarded, and the riots of the Luddites, at Nottingham, who had been executed. 

The defendant having taken his place on the floor, several affidavits were put in on his behalf from members of the corporation of Nottingham, who gave him a good character as a peaceable and well-disposed subject, and stated an opinion that the libel had been published from an error in judgment. The defendant’s affidavit set forth the age of his mother, who in her 74th year was dependent upon him, the sickness of his wife; and the heavy pecuniary charges he had sustained in consequence of this information. 

Mr. DENMAN then addressed the Court in extenuation of the offence. He was, of course, not nowat liberty to argue that the publication was not libellous; but he had contended that the trial, and begged leave now to repeat, that the conduct of the British troops at Washington, and of the Ministers who ordered that enterprise, was a fair subject of public discussion; and if it were restrained, the boasted liberty of the press, which professed to give this privilege as one of the main supports of our constitution, would be converted into a snare to entrap the unwary: the conduct of all the functionaries of the state had hitherto been deemed free to the canvass of the people; and it courts of justice were too rigid in punishment every time the bound was a little overstepped, the injury would be much greater the benefit. Such topics and others he had urged at the Assizes, and had quoted the words of Lord Ellenborough, in the King v. Perry, in which it had been once more laid down, that the administration of the King’s ministers was open to a fair and free scrutiny; the Sovereign himself was not free from errors to which God has subjected his creatures, and from which he alone was exempt. It had appeared to him, that to no defendant could that doctrine be more fitly applied than to the present; for at the period he published this libel, while the ill-gotten treasures of the Louvre had been spared, the public edifices and private dwellings of an unoffending capital had been razed to the ground. He would not enter before their Lordships upon points he had pressed upon the jury. In the court he now addressed, the language of the great Roman orator was verified:—"In hoc loco falsa invidia imbecilla esse debet, dominetur in concionibus, jaceat in judiciis—ab ingeniis prudentium repudietur.” ["in this place unpopularity arising on false grounds ought to be powerless, let it have sway in assemblies, but let it be overthrown in courts of justice—but let it be rejected by the dispositions of the wise" - paraphrased from the speech of Cicero in defence of Aulus Cluentius Avitus]. He was instructed to express the deep regret of the defendant that a Jury of his countrymen had found him guilty of a libel, not printed in the years 1811 and 1812, when the spirit of disturbance prevailed, but two years after it had subsided: which libel it was stated in the information, was intended to re-animate that spirit. It was some consolation, however, to the defendant to find that such calamitous effect had been produced. 

Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY.—You do not swear that there have been no disturbances since 1812, and the fact is known to be otherwise. 

Mr. DENMAN was confident that no general resistance to constituted authorities have been shown since that period, though partial and temporary disturbances might have been committed. However it might be charged in the information, that truth was more especially with regard to the riots of the Luddites, that newspapers and pamphlets had had little or no influence, and that the true operating causes were "malesuada fames et turpis egestas." ["hunger and vile want are bad counsellors"]—The manner of treating it might be ill advised, but the subject which the libel dwelt might by some be considered as affording a fair ground from which to assail the government that had directed an enterprise, more like the lawless effort of an enraged multitude, that the regular attack of a disciplined army. He concluded by pressing upon the Court the facts stated in the affidavits. 

Mr. PHILLIPS, on the same side, declined making any additional observations. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not disposed to call for any undue degree of severity, or to ask the Court to break through the barrier that defended the liberty of the press; but it was not so trite as true that the licentiousness of the press was the greatest enemy to its liberty. If public measures were discussed, misrepresentation ought to be avoided, and, above all, no attempts should be made to excite discontents among the people. The influence of newspapers and pamphlets was greater than was generally believed, and for this reason it behoved those who preserved the public peace to be especially watchful that there nothing appeared that was likely to disturb it: distress and hunger might do much, but they alone would never have occasioned the dreadful scenes of 1811 and 1812. With respect to the effect of the libel in question, although it was contended that tranquillity had been perfectly restored long before its appearance, it was not a little singular that a person had been shot in his own house on the very day this publication appeared. 

Mr. DENMAN submitted that no such fact appearing upon the affidavits, the Attorney General could not refer to it: at the trial, the defendant was prepared with evidence to show that the libel before the court could have had no influence on that event, as it had been contemplated and plotted before its appearance. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted the correctness of Mr. Denman’s remark: he had only mentioned the circumstance to show that the general spirit of insubordination was still alive at the time the libel was thrown among the discontented at Nottingham. 

Mr. JUSTICE LE BLANC passed the sentence of the Court:—that the defendant should be imprisoned in Northampton gaol for one year, and at the end of that time should give securities for his good behaviour, himself in 500l. and two sureties in 250l. each.

19th January 1816: 19 men imprisoned for machine-breaking in Suffolk in 1815

On Friday 19th January 1816, the Cambridge Chronicle carried reports from two recent Quarter Sessions in the county, where cases of machine breaking that had taken place in Suffolk in 1815 were dealt with.

At the Ipswich Quarter Sessions 12 men (4 more than were initially charged) were tried for destroying a threshing machine at Holbrook, Suffolk the previous August:

At Ipswich sessions, Daniel Grimwood, Thomas Seager, Joseph Cook, Martin Gosling, ____ Sells, John Driver, Jerry Lucas, ____ Bayley, Robert Payne, Samuel Page, Robert Page, and S. Turner, were indicted for appearing in a riotous manner in the parish of Holbrook, on the 3d of August last, and there breaking and destroying a threshing machine, the property of John Roper, of Wilby.—Mr. Stocks, for the prosecutions, insisted upon the urgent necessity of supporting the laws, and after the evidence, which was full and conclusive, had been gone through, the prisoners were called upon for their defence, but they had little to urge except the difficulty of gaining employment, which they attributed to the use of machines.—Several persons were called, who gave them excellent characters. The Jury brought in the whole Guilty, and the sentence of the Court was,  that Grimwood, Seager, Cook, and Gosling should be imprisoned for twelve calendar months; Sells and two others, for nine months, and the remainder of the prisoners for six months.

At Woodbridge Quarter Sessions, a total of 7 men were tried for destroying 3 threshing machines in disturbances that had involved a total of 100 people the previous November:

At the quarter sessions at Woodbridge, Edmund Prime, Wm. Garnham, Wm. Bannister, John Abbott, Wm. Barker, and Thos, Stevens, charged with breaking machines in the parishes of Kenton and [Monk]-soham, and also for subsequent riot and misdemeanour, were found Guilty, and ordered to be imprisoned twelve months in the county gaol.—John Brunwin, for the like offence, was sentenced to be imprisoned six months in the same gaol.—It is much to be hoped that these necessary examples will have the effect of preventing such excesses for the future—excesses not only disastrous to the objects of them, but ruinous to the perpetrators.

1st April 1815: Gosbeck machine-breakers sentenced at Suffolk Assizes

Suffolk Lent Assizes ended on Saturday 1st April 1815, and the nine men arrested for breaking threshing machines at Gosbeck on 21st February had stood trial on charges of riot and misdemeanour. They were all convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment.

Their names were J. Peck,  J. Bass, J. Hurdwicke, J. Last, E. Fuller, W. Ellis, S. Osborn, J. Miller & J. Fenn.

4th March 1815: John Lee reports that the former spy, Joseph Taylor, has been sent to prison

Early in 1815, the tables had been turned against the former spy, Joseph Taylor, and a magistrate from reported his conviction to the Home Office:

Rochdale 4th March 1815

My Lord,

The King agt. Taylor.

I beg to transmit my Bill of Costs herein and when approved of I will send my receipt for the same.

Enclosed your Lordship will also receive Mr Haslam the Constables Account of his Expences accompanied by a recommendation of his Character and Services by the Magistrates here — To all these Papers I have no doubt of being honoured with your Lordship’s Answer as soon as convenient.

The Prisoner made no defence and the court sentenced him to Six Months further Imprisonment. He appeared to have suffered considerably already but every one thought his conduct deserved punishment to the Extent of the Law

I am [etc]
Jno Lee

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).

2nd September 1812: The lesser-known cases at Lancaster Summer Assizes

On Wednesday 2nd September 1812, sentencing took place at Lancaster Summer Assizes. A number of cases were decided there which do not usually feature in any of the histories of Luddism, but which nevertheless deserve to be recognised and/or highlighted.

Six prisoners were on trial for rioting at Middleton during the 2-day disturbances in April: they had all been tried for arson at the Lancaster Special Commission in May, but were acquitted, and then immediately charged with rioting to be tried at the next Assizes. Robert Ogden and James Taylor were imprisoned for 18 months, with Paul Greenwood, John Scholes, Abraham Ogden & John Kenyon being imprisoned for 2 years.

Six women who were arrested after the Lancaster Special Commission for taking part in rioting at Barton-upon-Irwell in April were also brought before the Court: whilst Elizabeth Birch, Mary Clare, Mary Dunn were acquitted, Mary Barlow, Elizabeth Benyon & Sarah Parkinson were found guilty and imprisoned for 1 month.

Solomon Low - someone taken up by Captain Francis Raynes during his stay in the area of Mottram - was convicted convicted of having stolen three loads of meal at Ashton-under-Lyne, during rioting in April and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

John Brown, the landlord of the Prince Regent's Arms in Manchester, taken up along with Humphrey Yarwood by John Lloyd in June, was not prosecuted for being present at the administration of an illegal oath.

Messrs Rowe & Duncough, the owners of factory at Westhoughton which was destroyed by Luddites in April, brought an action for recovery of their losses against the Hundred of Salford, no doubt because the military failed to act at the time, even though they were alerted. The verdict was given in their favour, and they received 'upwards' of £7000 in damages, and enormous sum of money.

Lastly Edmund Newton, one of the 'Manchester 38', who had been acquitted 5 days before was re-arrested at the end of the trial, charged with administering an illegal oath in Tintwistle and re-committed to Lancaster Castle to stand at the next Assizes.

24th August 1812: Convictions at the Chester Summer Assizes

Some of the less well-known convictions for Luddism took place at the Chester Summer Assizes, on or before Monday 24th August 1812. William Cooper, a spy/informer from Newton in Cheshire employed by the Stockport Solicitor, John Lloyd, played an important part. Cooper had been uncovered by the local Luddites prior to the Assizes, and an unsuccessful attempt had been made on his life in July.

Daniel Garside (around 23 years of age) was found guilty of being present at and consenting to the administering of an illegal oath to Cooper, although another man called John Hollingworth charged with a similar offence was acquitted after taking the oath of allegiance. Two other men, George Dernally & Joseph Horsefield, were found guilty of taking the oath, and were acquitted after admitting evidence for the crown and taking the oath of allegiance.

Thomas Schofield was convicted of inciting Cooper to steal a barrel of gunpowder, and also taking an illegal oath.

Although the newspaper reports do not contain details of the subsequent sentences, the Home Office records show that Garside was sentenced to 7 years transportation, with Schofield receiving 4 years imprisonment.

A report in the Lancaster Gazette states that evidence was given about both men convicted, that alleged they had collected money for delegates, and also to pay for Counsel for the 'Manchester 38', whose trial at the Lancaster Summer Assizes was imminent.

The firmness of these convictions, and Cooper's role in it all, is as yet unclear to this historian.

24th July 1812: The convicted prisoners are sentenced at York Summer Assizes

On Friday 24th July, Judge Bayley sentenced the prisoners convicted at the York Summer Assizes.

Patrick Doring, was found guilty of threatening Mary & Joseph Culpin with death for giving evidence against the Luddite James Haigh. The Leeds Mercury of 1st August 1812 recorded Judge Bayley's verdict:

“You been found guilty, on evidence which satisfies the Jury and the Court, of endeavouring, by threats, to obstruct the regular course of justice; an offence of a very serious nature, and which, in this case, is much increased by the consideration of the aggravated nature of the crime you were endeavouring to screen and protect. The attack on Mr. Cartwright’s mill was of so atrocious and savage a nature, and struck so directly at the root of civil society, that it might have been expected that every man would have been anxious to bring the persons concerned in so daring an outrage to justice; but instead of being disposed to contribute, by the information of which you might be possessed; to this end you did all in your power to prevent those who were disposed to perform their duty, giving their evidence. This attack was of so savage and cowardly a nature, that I should have thought there were few persons in this country of minds of so depraved a character as to be capable of joining a transaction of so dark a complexion. It is evident from your conduct, that you are either in some respects connected with the persons concerned in this transaction, or at least that you are a well wisher to their cause. But it is quite certain that it is a cause which cannot succeed; the persons concerned in it will probably in this world be brought to justice; but there will a time come when this attack, made in the darkness of the night, will be brought to light, and when all those concerned in it will stand unveiled, and when they must answer for their conduct at a tribunal from which nothing can be concealed.”

The prisoner was sentenced to be confined two years in York Castle.

Thomas Wilson was found guilty of rioting in Sheffield on 14th April. The Leeds Mercury of 8th August 1812 carried the Judge's words:

His Lordship, on passing sentence upon the Prisoner, some days after, said, “in addition to the recommendation of the Jury of you to mercy, on account of your general good character, a circumstance has been stated to me, and which, upon enquiry I believe to be correct, but you have, by your industry, been the principal means of maintaining your widowed mother and eight children. This instance of filial piety has made a strong impression upon my mind, and has induced me to go as far as my duty to the public would permit in mitigating your punishment; and I am persuaded that it will form no inconsiderable part of your sufferings, that you have, by your folly, deprived her for so long a period of that support, and I regret to say, that your separation must be continued some time longer. If those who engage in excesses of which you have been convicted, or in other more aggravated species of guilt, would consider the anguish, disgrace and sufferings they occasion to near and dear relations, they would not, I am persuaded, engage in such destructive courses. I trust you will, in your future life, be warned and instructed by the error you have committed, and atone for it by continuing the same course of laudable industry has distinguished your conduct previous to this unguarded moment.” His Lordship then ordered him to be imprisoned three months, and find security for his good conduct for one year.

William Groom, charged with entering a cellar to steal potatoes during the same riot, was sentenced to 12 months in Wakefield House of Correction.

Mary Gibbon & William Rodgers, who had both been found guilty of taking part in the raid on the military depot at Sheffield on 14th April, were respectively sentenced to 1 year and to 6 months imprisonment in York Castle.

Though William Shirtcliffe was also found guilty of rioting at Sheffield, the Mercury does not record his sentence.

Of the two cases of assaulting soldiers that may or may not have been linked with the disturbances, both Ann Gardner & Robert Dick were acquitted

Finally, the Grand Jury had heeded Judge Bayley's comments about James Haigh at the start of the Assizes, when he had warned them that to proceed with the case on the evidence that existed could mean an acquittal and thereby no chance of bringing Haigh before a court again for the same offence. No true Bill (i.e. no indictment) was found against him on this occasion, meaning that he would return to custody to stand trial again at a future Assizes, provided more evidence was found and a proper indictment brought. With the sympathiser and witness intimidator in the shape of Patrick Doring now ensconced in York Castle, the authorities could work on the Culpins and amass other evidence and witnesses to try Haigh again at a future Assizes.

23rd July 1812: The result of the Derby and Nottingham Summer Assizes

The Derby Mercury of Thursday 23rd July 1812 carried the outcomes of both the Derby & Nottingham Summer Assizes. The Nottingham Assizes are of particular interest because they contain a case which resulted in a sentence of transportation, a case never remarked upon by historians in any of the significant works about Luddism. The following is extracted from the Derby Mercury report:

At [Derby] Assizes, Andrew Scott, alias Thomas Purday, charged with being an accomplice in the burglary committed at the dwelling house of Mr. Hunt, at Ockbrook, in December last, pleaded guilty, and received sentence of death, but was afterwards reprieved.

At Nottingham Assizes, Benjamin Renshaw, for setting fire to a stack of hay at Mansfield, the property of Mr. Charles Stanton, and for feloniously killing and carrying away a sheep, the property of Isaac Dodsley, of Mansfield … received sentence of death … [and] is left for execution.

George Spray, for destroying a stocking frame at Sutton in Ashfield, the property of Francis Betts … to be transported 14 years; John Stanley for inciting soldiers to break a frame at Basford, to be imprisoned three years.

In earlier reports about his arrest, the John Stanley mentioned here was called Slaney, which was his actual name. His trial had been left over from the Lent Assizes in March

In the report about Nottingham, there is no mention of the other 3 suspected Luddites the we know the Nottingham magistrates wanted to prosecute - William Fell, Joseph Falconbridge & John Clarke. It may be that they were acquitted or that no indictment was found against. In the case of Falconbridge, we know that his indictment rested upon the evidence of a witness that had absconded, so we can assume the witness never appeared.