1st July 1812: The County Clerk of Nottingham presents the bill for the prosecution of Luddites to the Home Office

Rex v. Carnell and Maples
Same v Osborne
Same v Marshall
Same v Slaney

My Lord

I take the liberty of inclosing to your Lordship my Bills of Costs in the above prosecutions, which were directed to be carried on by and at the expence of his Majesty's Government; and shall be obliged by your Lordship giving the necessary directions the discharge of the Amount being £423: 17: 7 —

I am also directed by the Magistrates to transmit to your Lordship a Copy of the Depositions against William Godfrey another prisoner Committed for Trial at the next Assizes for framebreaking and to request that your Lordship will be pleased to communicate to and for their information, whether the Crown will think right to direct the prosecution against this prisoner also.

I beg the favor of an early Reply
And have [etc]
Geo. Sculthorpe
Nottm 1st July 1812.

[To] The Rt. Honble
The Secy of State—

[Henry Hobhouse replied 6 days later informing the Home Office that the Government would prosecute William Godfrey]

3rd May 1812: Nottingham County Clerk, George Sculthorpe, requests payment of a reward for informers

Nottingham 3d. May 1812.

Sirs

I am directed by the County Magistrates to write to you on behalf of John Braithwait and Elizabeth his wife, who gave information against William Carnell and Joseph Maples Convicted at the last Assizes for this County of Framebreaking. And to request that you will favor me with such documents or information as you may deem requisite to enable these poor persons to receive the reward offered by the Prince Regents Proclamation of the 18th of December last.

Braithwait and his wife have been threatened with Assassination and the Magistrates find that it will be necessary to remove them to a distant part of the Kingdom for Security, and for this purpose must have recourse to their own Subscription Fund, independent of the reward; they therefore hope that you will favor me with an early reply on the subject.

I have the honour [etc]
Geo. Sculthorpe
Clerk to the Justices

[To] The Rt Honble R. Ryder.

The Solicitor to the Treasury, Henry Hobhouse, replied to Sculthorpe on 8th May, agreeing to pay the reward of £50 each to Braithwaite & his wife. This is the equivalent of  £33,500 each using average earnings in today's money.

30th March 1812: The seven Nottinghamshire Luddites sentenced to transportation leave the town forever

The seven men sentenced to transportation at the Nottingham Lent Assizes - William Carnell, George Green, Benjamin Hancock, Gervas Marshall, Joseph Maples & Robert Poley - had been waiting for several days for their removal to the South of England. Amongst the authorities, there were concerns that a rescue may be attempted.

Special arrangements had been made for their journey. Two Bow Street officers - Pearkes and Adkins - had arrived in Nottingham on Saturday 28th March 1812 to facilitate their removal from the Town Gaol with the least possible fuss. The Bow Street men had arranged with the proprietor of the stage-coach to hire the whole vehicle for all of the journey and an escort of Hussars were to ride with the transport removing them at some distance from Nottingham.

On Monday 30th March, the stage-coach was brought to the prison at 5.00 a.m. All seven men were handcuffed prior to leaving the prison and moved to the coach as quickly as possible, with a simultaneous signal being given to the cavalry to mount up and surround the coach. Pearkes and Adkins were to ride with the coach themselves, with one of them inside and one on the outside at all times.

The crowds the authorities had expected did not materialise in significant number, not doubt due to the early hour. As it was up to 40 people turned up, but the speed of the operation and the numbers involved meant nothing material occurred.

The coach and escorts stopped at Leicester to breakfast, and apparently drew some crowds out of curiosity. On their way again, the cavalry escort left the stage-coach a few miles out of Leicester, to be replaced by another escort of the Blues.

The seven Luddites arrived at Newgate prison in London the following day. By Thursday, they had been delivered to the prison hulks at Woolwich, their home for several weeks. Although a petition signed by four thousand Framework-knitters had been sent to the Prince Regent asking for mitigation, the men would begin their forced journey of several thousands miles and several months to Van Dieman's Land in June, never to return.

19th March 1812: Judge Bayley writes to the Home Office about the outcome of Nottingham Lent Assizes

(Private)

Nottingham

18 March, 1812

Dear Sir,

The Assizes here have finished, with the exception of one case for a threatening letter, to be tried—tomorrow morning. There have been two Acquittals, and as I think rightly, and the other persons have been found guilty of transportable offences, and some I have sentenced for l4 years, some for seven, but as you may perhaps wish to know something of the cases to exercise your Discretion upon them, I will notice them very shortly —

Wm. Carnell aged 22 & Jos. Maples aged 16} were both found guilty, and sentenced for 14 years: Carnell was the Leader and Director of a mob of 13 who broke into a House about 8 in the evening, and destroyed 7 frames—but he had the merit of protecting the occupier of the House, an old man of 70 from any personal violence; Maples called several witnesses to prove he was the whole evening a quarter of a mile off, and tho’ the Jury disbelieved them, I am not quite clear that the verdict was right. However, Maples was apprehended the next Night with a pistol about him.

Benjn. Poley aged l6 — pleaded guilty: and the particulars of his case were not detailed.

Benjn. Hancock aged 22 was proved to be a Ringleader where the mob amounted to above 1000, and many of them had arms, and where Frames to the Value of £400 were destroyed at one House: He had a very good character, but was clearly at the head of that outrage.

Gervas Marshal aged 17 Geo. Green aged abt. 22} were also found guilty as being of Hancock’s mob—They were probably drawn into the outrage, without considering the consequences—and Marshall and Green had very good characters. They were all however proved to have broken Frames, Marshall went into a Shop for the purpose the two others contributed to break them after they were thrown out of the shop window.

I shall adjourn the Assizes till the 5th of July, unless some of the persons in the Commission shall first come on given Days in April, May or June, and the Juries have been so far ready upon fair Cases to convict, and the Magistrates during the Assizes have behaved with so much vigilance that I think the spirit of outrage will not break out again. I may however be too sanguine.—I am [etc.]

J. Bayley

18th March, 1812

I have opened my letter to say that the Case upon the threatening letter terminated in an Acquittal, upon a variance, but I think it right to mention that it appeared in evidence that one of the witnesses, on the part of the prosecution had sent away from the Assizes yesterday a Servant in the House whom he knew the prisoner had been endeavouring to subpoena, and had it not been for the Acquittal it is very probable that conduct would have excited considerable indignation.

I enclose a note handed up to me by the Gaoler from Carnell, which shews that his spirit appears subdued. Of course I did not see the man, but desired him to make any Discovery he thought fit to the Gaoler or to Mr. Hobhouse.

The Fate of the Luddites: Joseph Maples

At the time of his conviction for frame-breaking on 17th March 1812, Joseph Maples was only 16 years of age. Shirley Cook is a direct descendant of Joseph and lives in Australia. She contacted us with the results of her research into Joseph's life after his conviction, which we now publish below.

After Joseph Maples was convicted on 17th March, 1812 in the County Court of Nottingham, he was transferred from the Woolwich prison hulks to a convict ship 'Indefatigable' which left London on 4th June 1812, bound for Van Dieman's Land, (now Tasmania). He arrived on 19th October after sailing for 137 days with 200 other convicts on board.

Van Dieman's Land had become a British penal colony in 1803, and labor was needed to establish the colony. Joseph worked as a bricklayer - his occupation in Nottinghamshire - taking part in constructing government buildings.

On 13th June 1819, Joseph became a father to a son, James, but he had to wait until he had gained permission from the Governor to marry Louisa Atkins, also a convict, on 27th December, 1819.

He was granted a conditional pardon on 7th August, 1821, which allowed him to work for himself.

He was granted an allotment of land in Hobart Town on 31st December, 1823.

He & Louisa had four more children, but only 2 girls survived to marry.

Joseph died on 6th September, 1858. He was 63 yrs. old.

I am a descendant of his son James Maples.

17th March 1812: The trials of William Carnell & Joseph Maples at Nottingham Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 20th March contains the trial of the first prisoners accused of frame-breaking on Tuesday 17th March 1812:

On Tuesday morning the Court was crowded to an unusual degree, by persons of all ranks, who were desirous to hear the trials of those persons confined on suspicion of frame-breaking; but, before we proceed to detail these highly important trials, it may be proper to state, Mr. Bond, of Leicester, as Solicitor for the prisoners, had, as much as seven weeks ago, retained Sergeant Vaughan and Mr. Reader, as their advocates. On Friday last, however, Mr. Bond was informed by those Learned Gentleman, that, when at Lincoln, the preceding Wednesday, they had received an order from the Treasury to act as Counsel against the prisoners, along with Mr. Clarke and Mr. Reynolds. John Ingham, charged with writing a threatening letter to William Nunn, Esq. Lace Manufacturer, was exactly in the same predicament; who, along with William Parkes and George Shaw, charged with frame-breaking had been removed, at the suit of the crown, from the Town to the County Proson. On this account Sergeant Rough and Mr. Copley were retained, by Mr. Bond, for the persons charged with frame-breaking.

After the jury had been sworn in, William Carnel, aged 22, and Joseph Maples, aged 16, both of Basford, were brought to the bar, pleaded not guilty to the charge. After which, Mr. Clarke, as leading Counsel for the Crown, opened the charge in a violent philippic against the prisoners. He began by observing, that this was no ordinary case, for here we saw men, under the name of the Luddites, disciplined and marshalled under different leaders, and armed with various instruments of death, acting in open violation of the laws and constituted authorities of the land. An exception was here taken by the Counsel for the prisoners, to this strain of declamation, as tending to prejudice the Jury against them: and the Judge allowed the exception to be a good one, and ordered the witnesses to be called.

Elizabeth Braithwaite was the first witness called. She stated, that in January last, she resided at Old Basford; that her husband, John Braithwaite, was a Stocking-maker, and at the time above-stated, he kept seven plain cotton frames, which were occupied by five apprentices, one journeyman, of the name of Towlson, and himself. She further stated, that on the 3d of January, about ten minutes before eight in the evening, a person knocked at the door, and asked for Towlson; that the door was bolted; and, before she could open it, it was forced, and a man entered, whom she saw have hold of the outer handle of the door, he fell over a chair, and believes it was Carnel, mentioned in the indictment, that he walked into the shop with a hammer over his arm, and broke the end of a slur-bar; that eleven more entered after him; and that the first man who entered stood as guard to the rest; and that one man whom she knew, and who used a hammer, is not yet taken. Here the witness was desired to look round the Court, appoint the prisoner, Carnel, out. She turned round very attentively several times, and declared she could not see him, and that if he was there, he must held down his head—thought his imprisonment in prison would alter his appearance; but not so much as to prevent her from knowing him, except he was disguised, for she had known him from a child. She was then ordered to mount the table in the centre of the Court, to try if by that means she could identify him—she did so, and, after twice pacing it round, she pointed out a man who was mixed among the spectators, whose features she thought was like Carnel. She was then desired to look at one of the Sheriff’s officers, who stood near to Carnel, and gave her opinion if that was the man. On fixing her eyes closely upon that quarter, she pointed out the man, and said, “that is Carnel!” She was then asked whether she knew any other person near him, when she pointed to another in the prisoner’s box, and said, “that is Maples.” On being asked why she knew Carnel to be one of the men, who had violated the premises of her husband, she said, that when the scuffle was going on in the shop, she called out for her husband and to be brought out, and that Carnel (after having given her husband a nudge over the shoulder with a hammer, in consequence of which he had been lame ever since,) complied with her request; and that in the bustle the mask was pulled off his face, which she immediately recognised, though his cheeks and nose were black, and his upper-lip red. She declared, she was nowise dismayed, and why should she, for she saw they were bent upon destroying their property, and it was of no use to oppose them. She knew Carnel by his voice, but dared not to call him by his name; but that it was him, she had no doubt. Maples clapped a pistol to a breast, with this exclamation, “damn you for a bitch! I will shoot you if you don't hold your noise;” she seized the pistol, turned the muzzle inwards his throat, and drew the tracker, and had it gone off it must have shot him; but believed it was not charged, because it struck fire without going off. While this was going on she heard some one call out, “my lads, work on!” which order, she thought, was obeyed, as, she said, the hammers went like those in a smith’s shop. When the seven frames broken, she stated that seven men went through the shop windows, and five out at the house door; among the latter of whom was Maples, who she saw charging a pistol, after he went out; nor, according to her own account, had she any other way of identifying his person, than those above described. She stated the mischief to be done in 20 or 22 minutes; which makes the ending of the time 12 minutes after eight; and that Carnel returned in 20 minutes after on pretence of looking at the ruins; and said, if Ned had not done his work well, he was come to complete it; when she said, you rogue, are you come again? you are not the man you was some time ago; to which he replied, I have not been here before, – – you have, said she, for I know you right well! She then said, that his head was wet, as if he had been washing himself; that black streaks were visible from his ears to his chin; and that she said, you have been to the upper pump to wash you, and you are not now disguised.

On her cross-examination she admitted, that she had said to a Mrs. Jackson, that a person of the name of Wootton had first entered the house, and that he absconded the next day. At the same time she stated, that such admission was only with intent to “gorge” Mrs. Jackson, whom she knew was “pumping” her for the purpose of telling tales. Never said positively Holroyd was the second man. This witness entered into many other trifling particulars, which would rather encumber than Illustrate her evidence, in this summary; after which, her husband,

John Braithwaite was called, who stated his fears and surprise at seeing thirteen men rush into his shop, when himself, apprentices, and journeyman were at work; in particular when he saw them all disfigured, with hammers in their hounds, except one, who carried a hatchet. To his arguments about full price of full fashioned work, they returned reproaches upon himself, and blows upon his frames: and on being taken out of the shop, according to his wife's desire, he was dragged over a chair by the collar, as he believed by Carnel, whose face he knew, through the mask being turned aside in the scuffle, though he was not well acquainted with him; and who, he believed, gave him a stroke over the shoulder with a hammer, which had caused a lameness in his arm ever since. Of Maples’ person he knew nothing, though he spoke as to Carnel coming to his house a second time, as described in his wife's evidence.

The prisoners were charged with burglary, for entering a dwelling house, as the Judge said, after the light of heaven have ceased to enable one man to distinguish the features of another; and stealing thereout two files, one rasp, two pairs of pliers, and a hand-vice, as well as for feloniously breaking the stocking-frames. But here Serjeant Rough put it as a question to the Judge, whether, to constitute a theft, the intention of thieving was not necessary to be proved? To this opinion the Judge assented; and as it was his opinion that the frame-breakers had no other object in view than that of breaking frames, he wished the Jury to divest their minds of that part of the charge which related to stealing the articles named above: in particular as nothing of the kind had been found upon the premises or persons of the prisoners.

On the cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Copley, he admitted that the frame-breakers were so disguised, that he did not know any of them; that some of the candles were knocked out; and that while they remained, all was bustle and confusion

John Griffin and ____ Burrows, two constables, deposed that they seized and searched Maples, on the 4th of January, and found upon his person a pistol and some flints, which were produced in Court. Mrs. Braithwaite, however, believe that the pistol then produced was not one she had seen in the possession of Maples; and he said his father had lent it him to shoot sparrows with some months ago, who had found it in a particular place in the parish of Wollaton, which he described. The evidence on the part of the Crown being closed, the prisoners were called upon for their defence, (it being, according to the declaration of the Judge, contrary to the practice of courts of justice, in cases of felony, the defendant’s counsel to address the Jury in an harangue,) when Carnel declared that Mrs. Braithwaite had made a different statement before the Magistrates at the time of his commitment to what she had done then, respecting his treatment of her husband at the time the frames were broken: and on her re-examination, she admitted that instead of Carnel “nudging” her husband with a hammer, he had, she believed, been the means of saving his life. The Judge noted the circumstance down in his book, and said it would stand in Carnel's favor another day, providing he was then found guilty.

On the part of Maples, who is a bricklayer by trade, it was severally stated on oath, by Sarah Rawson, Ann Rawson, and Joseph Rawson, that he, on the evening the frames were broken, was at the house of the latter, from a quarter before seven o'clock until past twelve: that he had never been off the said premises during the whole time, nor out of the house more than from two to five minutes and then not out of the hearing of them all; and that from half past seven to eleven, he was busily engaged in whitewashing a room. In the cross examination of these witnesses they differed a little in their testimonies as to who supped together after the white-washing was done, and whether beer or water, was used as a beverage at their suppers; but all agreed in stating the whitewashing was not finished till eleven o'clock.

Francis Syson, a man of property, in Basford, made oath, that Carnel was at his house on business from half past six till ten minutes before eight the night the frames were broken; and that they then should not have parted had not the witness been going out; and that he saw the prisoner again a little before nine. Richard Clay, journeyman to Mr. Walker, Blacksmith in Basford, made oath that he saw Carnel just about eight o'clock the same evening at his Master’s shop, who came there to get a bobbin-wire made; and that he stopped there at least three quarters of an hour, that there was some ale drank in the shop during the time. John Chamberlain and George Chamberlain, Father and Son, farmers in Basford, made oath, that they were at Walker’s shop along with Carnel from eight till a quarter before nine o'clock. Here with the exception of what related to character, which was much to the credit of both the prisoners, the whole of the evidence ended: and the Learned Judge, in delivering his charge the Jury, stated, that notwithstanding the time had been apparently so connectively accounted for on the part of the prisoners, during the space in which the frames were stated to have been broken, yet it was very possible, for these persons to have been deceived in the time to the extent of 15 or 20 minutes, and especially in the case of Carnel, because they had measured the time rather by the occurrences of the evening, than by the accurate movements of a time-piece; and this rendered it very possible for Carnel to have been at the scene of action.

After a patient hearing of six hours, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, for Maples, and Guilty of Frame-breaking against Carnel; when his Lordship desired them to reconsider their verdict, and pointed out to them the impropriety of disuniting the burglarious entry into the house from the act of simple felony, occasioned by breaking the frames. All the alteration, however, which the Jury chose to make, was that of uniting Maples with Carnel, and finding them both Guilty of Frame-breaking only, thus doing away with a capital part of the charge.—The verdict being recorded, his Lordship addressed the prisoners in a most solemn and impressive manner. He deeply lamented, that two young men, whose character, till then, had stood unimpeached, should have so far forgotten their duty to themselves and the laws of their country, as to let their misguided zeal, and the evil councils of others, older and possessing more corrupt hearts than themselves, ever have led them into so perilous situation; a situation which would have been far more perilous, if the burglarious part of the charge had been found against them; for in that case, as in the present, he should have felt himself constrained, for the sake of example, in order to put an end to such disgraceful outrages, to have exerted the full authority of the law nor did he know but he should have ordered it to have been carried into execution. As it now stands, the extent of his power was to order them to be transported for the term of Fourteen Years, to any part of his Majesty's foreign settlements to which his Majesty's Privy Council might decree: which sentence he accordingly pronounced. At the same time, he gave them to understand, if they behaved themselves, and the tumults in the neighbourhood ceased, they might expect the hand of mercy to be extended towards them, in lessening their punishment.

14th January 1812: An unpublished letter to the Times is sent to the Home Office

To the Editor of The Times

Sir

Conceiving it a matter of some importance that the Public should be better acquainted with the nature of the “Riots at Nottingham” as they are usually tho’ very erroneously called — I beg leave to transmit a few observations on the subject. Both the Town & Country are perfectly tranquil — save during the momentary space of time occupied by the Destruction of Frames which is the work of a few Minutes — consequently the term “Riot” is misapplied. Such nevertheless is the System of Terror under which this Mischief is perpetrated that it not only requires activity on the part of the Magistracy but also the most undocumented courage and Public Virtue — for, whatever might be the ostensible or original motives which led to these outrages there is every reason to fear that their real extent was to be proportioned to the success which should attend their first enterprises. What follows will prove beyond a doubt that no concession on the part of the Hosiers, short of actual connivance at these Atrocities, can shield them from the effects of unprincipled vengeance. On Friday evening last nine Frames belonging to a Gentleman who had always given the full price and whose Frames were then on with Full Fashioned work were destroyed. Two reasons were assigned – First because one of his Family (in the discharge his Duty as a Constable) had brought two (of Ned Lud’s) men before the Magistrates who would give no account of themselves and who were consequently committed to prison. Secondly because the man who had the Frames was Honest, Sober, Industrious, and was living comfortably. Thus a plea has been found to Destroy the Property of a Hosier with whom they themselves declared at first they were perfectly satisfied! Four more Frames have been subsequently destroyed and the whole of their Lives and Property threatened, because Two if not Three of the Conspirators have been caught and imprisoned. It is the assurance that these threats will be executed if a favourable opportunity should occur which prevents any individual from impeaching — for strange as it may appear the parties are generally well known. The Poor Man & his Wife took refuge in Nottm but are still loudly threatened to the great terror of their Neighbours. Should the County Magistrates exert themselves it becomes obvious that it must be at the evident hazard of their property. Cutting up Plantations, Burning Hay & Corn Stacks Houghing Cattle & Horses, &c. would be the prelude to more serious depredations. If a Carrier should presume to assist in removing frames a note is dispatched to warn him that his next offence will be Death

Daring robberies are now very frequent and from the universal terror that prevails – I must observe, that the evil will soon become of serious magnitude. Perhaps one mode of checking it might be by a power vested in active Resolute men who have no local interest … this is a consideration for government. Military are in the present state of things useless — unless Martial Law was proclaimed — They dare any Judge to condemn them to Death and I truly believe would find means to intimidate any common Jury

11th January 1812: Nottingham County Magistrates request witness protection from the Home Office

County Hall
Nottingham
11th of Jany 1812

Sir

The destruction of Stocking frames, and other violations of the law, still continue in the Neighbourhood of Nottingham, with almost unabated violence. John Braithwaite & Elizabeth his wife, lately residing in Basford near Nottingham, have given direct evidence against Wm. Carnell & Joseph Maples, both of Basford, that they, with many other persons at 8 o'Cl in the Evening on Friday the 3d of January broke open the house of John Braithwaite, and broke several Frames therein and took away certain parts of these Frames. In consequence of such evidence Wm Carnell and Joseph Maples have been committed for trial at the next Assizes. As the lives of the Witnesses have been threatened, they been brought into the Town of Nottingham for security, but considerable apprehensions have been entertained that as their evidence may lead to the conviction of the Offenders their lives cannot be deemed secure till the time of their giving their testimony. We therefore take the liberty as acting Magistrates for the County of Nottingham of submitting to your consideration whether these persons may not with propriety be conveyed to London or some other place of security in the discretion of the Justices, and at the expense of Government till the time when their evidence will be required; and whether the Justices might not have the same discretionary power in the case of other witnesses similarly circumstanced.

Sir your most obedient
hum. servants

Charles Wylde
Fran. Evans

8th January 1812: Two more men committed for frame-breaking

On Wednesday 8th January, two men were committed to Nottingham Gaol charged with machine-breaking. William Carnell and Joseph Maples were charged with entering the house of John Braithwaite, a framework-knitter, at Basford on the 3rd January and destroying 7 stocking-frames there. Upon being taken into custody, one of the men was found to have in his possession a pistol belonging to Lord Middleton.