25th September 1816: Large demonstrations of unemployed men occur in Leeds

On Wednesday 25th and Friday 27th September 1816, large demonstrations took place in Leeds, involving hundreds of unemployed men. The protests were against their predicament, but also directed at the publisher of the Tory Leeds Intelligencer, who had recently published editorials scoffing at the distress of the unemployed.

Both Leeds Newspapers carried reports and editorials about the demonstrations.

The Leeds Mercury of Saturday 28th September 1816 carried a long editorial:

On Wednesday last an assemblage of several hundred men, chiefly work-people out of employment, took place in front of the Leeds Intelligencer Printing Office, but after remaining in that situation for some time they separated, without committing any act of riot or excess. The motive of this meeting we have heard differently stated, but we believe the real object of the unfortunate people of whom it was composed, was to shew the town, and more especially to prove to the Printer of the Intelligencer, that the distress which has been felt and complained of in this town and district is a reality, and not, as he has indiscreetly and insultingly represented it, in his paper of the 16th instant, a mere "farce" and an "excellent joke." After the meeting in Cross-Parish a number of the people adjourned to the Workhouse, where the Committee, consisting of the guardians of the poor, was then sitting, and the applications for the relief of distressed families were on that day unusually numerous. 

In speaking of the public distress in this town, we have uniformly guarded with extreme caution against those exaggerations into which we think opposite sides have fallen. We have stated repeatedly, that according to our views, the Mayor's Letter to the Ministers of Religion in the town, coloured those distresses too highly; but his error was on the side of humanity; and we are far from thinking that he could be guilty of the folly of wishing to impart éclat to the conclusion of his mayoralty by seeking to obtain contributions for distress which had little or no existence. Such an insinuation it remained for those who condemn others for speaking disparagingly of authorities, to level against the chief magistrate of the borough. The truth of the declaration made from the hustings in Westminster we have also denied, not in degree, but to the extent. We have said, and we now repeat, that the distress is neither unequalled nor indescribable. But while we have combated these exaggerations on one side, we have with equal earnestness, and certainly with more feeling, denied pointedly and positively that the distress on which so much has been said, has no existence. Existence it unfortunately has, and to an extent too that no well regulated mind can contemplate without feelings of deep commiseration. But it is not sufficient that the public should feel; it is necessary that they should act; and we hope the time is not far distant, when the town of Leeds, properly convened, will have an opportunity of shewing that they are alive to the destitute state of  their distressed neighbours. In the mean time, it is the wisdom of men of all parties to sooth the public feelings, and to guard against those exaggerations, as well on one side as on the other, which are calculated only to convert into a subject of discussion, those misfortunes which it ought to be the business of all, by united efforts, to alleviate, if they cannot remove. 

It has been suggested to us, that all discussions on these subjects are prejudicial; and if he be meant all intemperate discussions, we fully concur in the truth of the observation. But if it be meant to deprecate all mention of the subject as well that which exaggerates as that which tends to place the matter in a sober and proper point of view, we must beg to express our decided dissent from such a proposition. Truth, humanity and justice, never suffer by investigation. The gloomy silence of studied suppression, is, if possible, more mischievous than even the language of violent discussion. It closes the door of hope. It appears like abandoning the cause of the poor in despair; and that we will never do while we have a mind to exercise and a pen to wield in their behalf. 

WHILE we are upon this subject, we must be excused, if we expose the extreme want of candour, and the palpable, and we will add, wilful misrepresentation that has taken place regarding the statements in our last paper. We never adduced as a proof of the public distress the fact that only 1046 men were out of employment in the whole of the West-Riding of Yorkshire; what we said was, that's 1043 men were out of employment in one particular department of a single branch of the woollen manufacture. It is dealing fairly with the public, is it honest towards the labouring classes, to make these wilful and deliberate perversions of the truth? Let any man of integrity answer that question. We did not, as a proof of public distress, say that an accumulated surplus of £400 was at this moment in the hands of the parish officers. What we did say was, that an accumulated surplus of £1800, which was in the treasury of the parish in May last, had since that time been reduced to £400. Are not these repeated efforts to deceive, a proof that they are a part of a system? and what must be done the nature of that cause that requires such support? 

It is in pursuit of this system, that the Dissenters of Leeds are represented as answering the solicitations of the Mayor "to contribute to the relief of their suffering brethren, with dry eyes and immovable countenances, quietly keeping their hands in their pockets, and protesting that they could not discover any objects on whom they could properly bestow their charity." Do the Dissenters deserve this reproach? Let the numerous charities in Leeds answer this question. Do they deserve, in a time like this, to be held up, in a public newspaper, as fit objects for popular indignation? Is this a just representation of their conduct, or of the language of the paper that might be supposed to speak their sentiments on the occasion in question? In the first place, the letter of the Mayor was not, as is here insinuated, confined to the Dissenters. It was sent also to the Clergy of the Established Church, who acted, and very properly acted, in the same way as the Dissenting Ministers. But is it true that "the organ of the party" denied the propriety of raising funds for the relief of the distressed? Did we not, on the contrary, recommend that the inhabitants of the town should be called together, "to devise a mode of relief, that should be, in some degree, commensurate with the distress it is meant to abate?" And yet our accusers have the unblushing effrontery to come forward and state publicly, that the propriety of raising funds, for the release of the distressed, was denied. We have long treated the calumnies and misrepresentations, flowing from the contaminated source in which these imputations originate, with silent contempt, and impunity has made the slanderers audacious. There have evidently been making an experiment upon public credulity, and endeavouring to compress into a focus the greatest possible mass of misrepresentation, calumny, and falsehood.

The same edition also had a shorter article about the demonstration on Friday:

Yesterday another assemblage of unemployed workmen took place in Briggate and Cross-Parish, from whence they proceeded to the Court-House, where the Magistrates were sitting, and paraded for some time in front of Park-Row. Though we are by no means dispose to censure these meetings with undue severity, the first of which might be considered in some degree necessary in order to prove by an argument the force of which could not well be resisted, the reality of the public distress; yet we must say, that we do not perceive any good, and we fear much ill, may arise from their repetition. We hope and believe, that no violence or outrage is intended; but all large bodies of men, assembled under such circumstances, resemble a magazine of combustibles, and who shall say that some incendiary hand, either from a mistaken zeal, or from worse motives, may not cast in a spark, the consequences of which would probably be less fatal to those without than those within the garrison? It is, we allow, a great evil for men that are willing to work to be unemployed; but there are still greater and more lasting evils. In a country like this, no man will be suffered to perish for want. The masters in general, are as anxious to give employment to their workmen as the men are to be employed. They have a common interest. One cannot be pinched by penury, but the other must be threatened with ruin. They are embarked in the same ship, and the crew may depend upon it that the officers will not suffer her to sink, if any effort of theirs can keep her afloat. The mess at present may be slender, but popular commotions would not strengthen it. We hope trade will soon begin to improve; we hear, indeed, that some alteration for the better has already taken place. In the mean time, the more opulent inhabitants of the town, will, we do not doubt, do their duty. There never yet was a well founded appeal made to them in vain. It is some consolation to know, that in many branches of trade work-people are tolerably well employed, among those may be ranked joiners, bricklayers, and handicrafts men in general; there are, to be sure, many exceptions, but the principal distress is found among those usually employed in the different branches of the woollen manufacture.

The Leeds Intelligencer posted the following editorial about what had occurred, and in response to the Leeds Mercury's comments:

In our Market-place, on Wednesday and Friday last, there was an assemblage of between three and four hundred men, who stated themselves to be out of work. They paraded in different places, but, we are happy to say, did not commit any violent acts of outrage. The general belief is, that the sole object of this assemblage was to convince us, that there were so many persons as composed it out of employment. 

As this belief is avowed by our opponents, we would ask, Why then, do they insidiously seize such a moment, to enter into a long strain of falsehood and declamation, in order to render us as odious as possible in the eyes are lower orders? They know we cannot treat them, in a reply, as they deserve, without the hazard of adding to that irritation which has already been excited, and which we are anxious to allay, not on our account, but for the sake of public tranquillity, and of the misguided men themselves, whose safety might be compromised by their own unthinking rashness. 

We have never contended that no distress whatever existed—that not any persons were out of employment;—this has, all along, been self-evident. What we have argued, and that merely in refutation of the Westminster Patriots, is, that the distress the poor, in this place, did not warrant the assertions of the redoubted Major Cartwright, and the truth of this is fully admitted, even by those who have taken the occasion to malign and misrepresent us. That even a single individual should be destitute of work, we lament as much as anyone—but we will not, though the task would not be difficult, cast back or recriminate the foul aspersions put upon us by our angry and insidious adversaries. 

To the proposal of those adversaries we fully agree, and are willing to abide by the judgment of an impartial public, which of the two has advocated the cause of Liberty, and which the cause of Licentiousness—which has contended for the honour of Britain, and which has supported the cause of her most inveterate enemies. In the real, unexaggerated distress of the labouring classes, and in the present depression of trade (which is not confined to this country, but which extends all over Europe, and even to America) we ever did, and ever shall, feel the deepest interest: and whatever our enemies may insinuate or threaten, we shall never be found wanting, as far as our feeble means allow, in giving our support to the cause of humanity. Have not our columns, on every agitation of great questions in commerce, and on the recent Wool Question in particular, been zealously crowded with articles to promote that commerce and the consequent employment and prosperity of the labouring classes? For the vigilance with which we have watched over their real interest, we are not afraid of a comparison with any paper in the Kingdom. Have we, in public or in private, ever withheld our mite from any effort to relieve public distress? We may be represented as enemies of the poor: but the consciousness of an exactly opposite character, and the invariable exercise of that character in the discharge of our duty, shall with us, as we trust it will with the Public, suffice better to silence the voice of calumny, than the prolongation of a discussion which several reasons render it improper to continue. For the actual difficulties that exist, both with respect to workmen and their employers, we trust the returning title of prosperity will speedily bring an efficient remedy, if it be not interrupted and frighted back by the designing clamour of those whose business it is to sow dissatisfaction, and to excite despair.

25th February 1816: Four shearing frames broken by Luddites at Quarmby, their final action in the West Riding

At 1.00 a.m. on Sunday 25th February 1816, the final Luddite action in the West Riding took place - just after the fourth anniversary of the first actions in the County.

The Leeds Mercury of 2nd March carried the following report about the attack:

Outrage near Huddersfield.—Last Sunday morning, about two o'clock, several persons broke into the house and shop of James Roberts, of Quarmby, near Huddersfield, cloth-dresser, and after demolishing all the windows and window-frames, for several yards square, proceeded to break the shears and improved shear-frames used in the cloth-dressing business; and, having effected their lawless purpose, retired without molesting any part of the family. It is fervently to be hoped, that the outrages which disgraced the neighbourhood of Huddersfield some years ago, and which proved so fatal to their perpetrators, are not about to be renewed; but should that be the case, we are assured that the persons whose property is likely to suffer in the event of a renewal of the frame-breaking system, are determined to defend their property against any attack that may be made upon it, and to render mutual assistance to each other for this important object.

The passage was a press release by the authorities, since the Leeds Intelligencer also quoted the same text and acknowledged they had received it from Huddersfield and didn't wish to add comment.

James Roberts gave a deposition to Joseph Radcliffe on the 26th February, confirming the time of the attack as 1.00 a.m. Throughout the attack - which he said lasted for 3 hours - he remained in bed because he was so afraid, and he also confirmed that not one word was uttered by the attackers. Attached to the deposition was an estimate of the cost of the damage: 3 broken frames, 1 damaged frame, and 4 pairs of hand shears - £16, 17 shillings sixpence; and for damage to the windows, £25, 17 shillings sixpence.

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.

26th August 1815: The Leeds Mercury publishes a final editorial on the Charles Sutton affair

In the last Intelligencer a boast is put forth by the new Editor that he contributed to bring down upon a rival publication at Nottingham, the vengeance of law! After this we should not be surprised to hear those loyal vagabonds, the common informers, who go about the country seeking whom they may devour, boasts of their patriotic services in inflicting upon the inadvertent offenders against the revenue laws the terrors of the Exchequer. There is, indeed, this difference between the two characters—the one is actuated by a spirit of revenge, the other by a spirit of avarice; but, as to their loyalty, they are exactly upon a par. This literary informer finding himself incapable of contending with his adversary in the fair field of political combat, was, according to his own confession, obliged to summons to his aid the assistance of the Attorney-General, against whose ex officio logic all other arguments are unavailing. But when he boasts of having scorched his rival, he ought, in justice, to have added, that he destroyed himself. The Nottingham Review, which he opposed, was prosecuted; but the Nottingham Gazette, which he conducted, was annihilated. If this egotist only succeeds as well as at Leeds as he did at Nottingham, his master will have no great reason to exult in his powers, and his absence will be as little regretted here as it is there. For ourselves we have only to say, that a tolerable share of vigilance has, we believe, been exercised for the last dozen years over the productions of this press, but hitherto without any very distinguished success. For the future we rely more on our own discretion than upon any forbearance in the quarter in question. In fact, we asked no forbearance—we shall acknowledge no favour; and we despise alike the threats and the clemency of all the servile slaves of power.

19th August 1815: The Leeds Mercury responds to the Leeds Intelligencer's editorial about the Charles Sutton trial

We [illegible] a moment from more agreeable and more [illegible] pursuits, to notice a [most] violent [and impudent] attack made upon the paper by the [Editor] of the Leeds Intelligencer, who has, we [hear], [just] [arrived] from the parties of St. Giles’s, and whose language seems to be well suited to that [illegible] region. It is perhaps not known to the public, that the Editor of the Intelligencer, having written himself down, has been driven to the necessity of calling in the aid of an auxiliary, and by a very discrete choice, has, it is said, selected as his coadjutor the quondam conductor of a defunct journal, which, owing to the violence of its principal and the poverty of its talents, lately expired at Nottingham. These two negatives, which it is hoped may make an affirmative, are now uniting their wits, and it is to this promising coalition of mental energies that their small remaining stock of readers are to be indebted for the judicious, temperate, and profound observations which will in future flow from the "Intelligencer Office," and of which the last paper presents a happy specimen. Having found, from experience, that these ephemeral scribes "will die of themselves if you let them alone," we shall not be very anxious to notice their future ravings, nor would they have claimed our attention on the present occasion, had we not been inclined to put the public in possession of a secret that these combined editors, in excess of their modesty, appeared dispensed to withhold—probably from an indisposition to admit that additional aid was found requisite to prop a declining interest. As the alliance formed by these luminaries between the Leeds Mercury and the Nottingham Review, we have no objection to it whatever—they are quite at liberty to unite us with any part of the press they think proper, except with the slavish sycophants of power, the panders of ambition, and the servile tools of an existing administration. The watchfulness they have announced over the public papers, that dare to be honest in the worst of times, may recommend them to the French Minister of Police, who is just at this moment in need of a legion of censors of the press, to guard against the free discussion of political subjects; but, thanks to the glorious and successful struggles of our ancestors—thanks to the happy institutions of our country—and thanks the patriotic feeling of the present race of Englishmen, who know how to defend their best inheritance—censors of the press in this country are held in deserved detestation, and in proclaiming themselves as the fit instruments of such an office, the con-joint Editors hold themselves up to public execration. We have only further to observe, that so little are we influenced by the arrogant pretensions that have called forth these observations, that, under all circumstances, we shall keep on the even tenour of our way, and that though all the sycophants in the kingdom should be congregated to watch over us, we shall fearlessly endeavour to make the potent instrument placed in our hands administer to the liberty, the happiness, and the prosperity of our country.

14th August 1815: The Leeds Intelligencer publishes another outspoken editorial about Charles Sutton

We have promised to pay a little occasional attention to the Nottingham Review, and to shame, if anything can shame, the other paper published in that town, into the discharge of this duty, a duty, which, in such a place as Nottingham do [illegible] [illegible] print professing loyalty to the King, and attachment to the establishments of the country. But, while we spare a few "words of rebuke" to the convicted libeller of the British army, the detected instigator to outrage, murder, and insubordination of the British manufacturer, we must not entirely neglect the raving vagaries of its fraternal politician, the other weekly herald of discontent and [disapprobation], the public spirited and patriotic MERCURY of LEEDS! As these illustrious compatriots, however, even when united, are scarcely worth one's powder and [shot], we must be as sparing of our time and our ammunition as possible, and by placing them, as often as we conveniently can, together, to make to take aim at the [illegible], that we may kill both fools with one stone. The task we undertake, though loathsome, is necessary; and we shall lose no proper opportunity of [chastising] these mercenaries of a foreign tyrant, these malevolent and croaking scribblers, according to the magnitude of their respective [slur], and of arresting and beating back upon themselves, the putrid stream of moral and political quackery and delusion, with which they incessantly endeavour to annoy the Government of their country, and to poison and defile the already corrupt and feeble intellects of their infatuated disciples and admirers.

Of the Nottingham patriot, we have at present little to say. His feelings are so much engrossed by the issue of his trial for libel, and his ingenuity is so exercised with endeavours to persuade the public of his innocence, that he has neither time nor inclination to attend the general oppressions of the Government, nor to soothe the grievances and the miseries of his enslaved countrymen and country.—He plumes himself not a little on one part of the defence at up to him by his counsel, "that it is impossible he could be an instigator to Luddism, as he had, in strong and eloquent terms, reprobated a late outrage at Basford, in which two men lost their lives!"—But unfortunately for this last effort to establish the purity of his intentions, we are in possession of a fact which appears to have been unknown both to the Counsel for the Crown and for the Defendant. The article re-probating the conduct of the assassins in the outrage alluded to, was sent for insertion in the Review, from a certain gentleman, in Nottingham, distinguished for the moderation and liberality of his views, and holding a high office in the town, whom Mr. Sutton dared not disoblige by refusing a place to that very article, to which he now eagerly clings like a drowning man to a straw. Like the straw, it is, alas, insufficient to sustain his head above the water, and down he must go, into that abyss of ignominy and of guilt he has opened for himself; oppressed and weighed under the flood by the consciousness of the mischief he has created.—loaded with the indignation of the just, and with the reproaches of the criminals he has led astray. As a proof of the accuracy of our statement respecting the article to which we have alluded, it appeared, on the very same day, in all the three Nottingham papers; and so far was the Review from expressing any indignation at the atrocities perpetrated in its immediate neighbourhood, that it did not add a single word, not one representation, from itself, to the paragraph which it reluctantly admitted, in small and obscure print, into its columns!

As for the poor Mercury, we are almost as much disposed to pity us to quarrel with it, in the present depressed state of its idol. The swimming of Buonaparte, in the Bellerophon and Northumberland, appears to have given the jaundiced Editor a swimming in his head. He last week dwelt, with complacency, on the proofs afforded of Buonaparte's "splendid talents," by the mob assembled to gaze upon his prison-ship, paying him "the slight mark of respect of being uncovered" forgetting that he himself, (this same writer for the Mercury) only a few days ago, had discovered that all the misfortunes of the Tyrant were owing to his "want of common prudence!" In the eagerness of his zeal for "soothing the wounded honour of France"—"binding up the wounds of that unhappy country,"—and "preserving the integrity of its territory," he prophecies, that, if a "good round paring" be taken from its present frontier, Europe will be exposed to a second irruption of Barbarians from the North! The only irruption of Barbarians from the North, that has taken place in the present times, is the irruption of the honest, though rude and uncultivated COSSACKS! And Europe owes too much to these unshaved and [illegible] soldiers, who have treated their vanquished enemies with a magnanimity, unknown to "the wounded humour" of their French aggressors, not to wish that the BARBARIANS OF THE SOUTH may again be driven back by them, should an almighty Providence ever permit another irruption from southern devastators into those remote and frozen legion regions of the North, where their unburied and bleaching bones bear testimony to the extent of their ravages, and to the power of an avenging God.

7th August 1815: The Leeds Intelligencer gloats over the verdict of the Charles Sutton trial

On Monday 7th August, the Tory Leeds Intelligencer published an editorial about the recent trial of the proprietor of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton. It was the first of several that would appear over the coming weeks:

At Nottingham Assizes, Mr. Sutton, proprietor and editor of the Nottingham Review (the Luddite and Buonapartean Mercury of that town), has been found guilty of a libel, the intention and tendency of which were to insult his Majesty's Government, to traduce and vilify our gallant army which beat the Americans into peace: to depreciate the services of them and their late lamented leader, General Ross, whom it characterised as the younger Ned Ludd; and to vindicate and encourage that Luddite spirit of outrage and insubordination which still exists in Nottingham, and the effects of which we have had so much reason to deploy in this county. As the trial will be published at length by order of Government, we shall not occupy space with extracts from the garbled report of it sent forth by Mr. Sutton and some of his jacobin fellow-feeling contemporaries. We think his conviction the most powerful blow that Luddism could have received. There can be no doubt but that dangerous and disgraceful spirit was the offspring of one or two wicked and delusive publications, and that it was fostered, and trained to every deed of outrage and assassination, by the most artful palliations and incentives. If the conviction of Mr. Sutton, therefore, should render him and his coadjutors more guarded in their language, it will do more towards preventing outrage than could be hoped for from the operation of the most severe penal laws upon the offenders. Though found guilty of a libel of so foul a character, Mr. Sutton affects to be surprised that the article for which he has been tried should have called for a prosecution, and with all the hypocritical cant and puritanical affectation of innocence and simplicity for which the Party are remarkable, represents his own trial as one of the most oppressive, unnecessary, and extraordinary upon record. But we remember, and we beg to remind Mr. Sutton and the public of the fact, that he publicly acknowledged, in the number of his paper succeeding that which contained the libel—that he then publicly acknowledged this very article had given DISGUST to his own friends!!! and if it was so flagrantly wicked and inflammatory as to disgust them, he cannot be surprised that it excited the resentment of good men, and demanded just chastisement from those laws upon which he had so long trampled with impunity, and at length arrested the attention of that Government, which had hitherto treated with contempt his incessant but futile attempts to insult and [amuse] it. We shall resume this subject at a future opportunity.

22nd May 1813: The Leeds newspapers report on a massive petition for parliamentary reform

On Saturday 22nd May 1813, the Leeds Mercury carried a letter about a local petition for parliamentary reform:

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

MR. Editor,—The Committee for conducting the Petition from Leeds, and its neighbourhood, praying for a reform in the Commons House of Parliament, request that you will oblige them by inserting in your next paper the following

REPORT.

The Committee have the pleasure to report, that by active perseverance in this best of public causes, they have been enabled to overcome difficulties that at first appeared insurmountable.—In the discharge of this patriotic duty, they have had to encounter the frowns, the insults, and even the threats, of the enemies of Reform; the most violent of whom they found amongst persons who, by various means, contrive to live upon other men's industry. Such characters can easily comprehend how a great deal of money should be received very little labour; but that much labour should be performed for no reward whatever, either in hand or in prospect, is to them a thing quite incomprehensible. From this cause, your Committee have frequently been stiled mischievous agitators; they have been told that their services were paid for by some "factious Reformer," and that their motives were selfish and abominable. To all the slander they had only to reply, and they challenged any man living to contradict them, that their Motives were Pure—their Services Voluntary, and their Labours Free and Unbought, and to express their fervent wish that all the Members of that Assembly, which it is the object of this Petition to reform, in rendering an account of their stewardship, should be able to lay their hand upon their heart and make the same honest declaration.

Your Committee have the pleasure further to state, that a number of their countrymen, amounting to 17,472, have placed their signatures to this Petition, which has for its object the overthrow of the Borough Faction, by whose pernicious influence the commerce of the country is paralized—its taxation increased—the price of all the necessaries of life advanced—and war and bloodshed continued.

It remains only for them to add, that the Petition which they this day transmit to the House of Commons, originated with the labouring classes, and by then it has been carried through, unaided by any persons above their own rank, with the exception of one individual, by whose patriotic kindness they were furnished with sheets for signatures, and to whom they beg to express their sincere obligations. To this service they have applied the labour of 120 days! and they trust that persons in other places, influenced by their example, and encouraged by their success, will promote similar Petitions—that the names of thousands, and tens of thousands of Parliamentary Reformers, will soon cover the Table of the Chapel of St. Stephen’s, and that, in the nervous language of the Apostle of Reform, "the Borough Faction will be made to bend like a broken reed," before the thunder of the public voice.

Leeds, May 14, 1813.

Two days later, the Tory Leeds Intelligencer responded in acerbic fashion, linking reform with Luddism:

"WHAT! are You not contented YET?"

See page 48, proceedings at York, Jan. 1813.

Can any man in his senses be still ignorant of the nature of that political reform which is likely to be brought about by seventeen thousand labourers? Can any man in this Riding "above the rank" of a labourer, in the teeth of recent transactions, countenance the iniquitous practice of incessantly repeating to the ignorant and unthinking, the declarations that "bad trade, taxation, the high price of the necessaries of life, and war," are all the effects of Borough influence, and other corruptions of Government, which some theoretical reform is to cure—and yet hold up his head in the presence of men of reflection and principle?

Did not one individual above the rank of a labourer appear publicly in Lancashire immediately after certain trials at Lancaster? Did not the same individual appear at Huddersfield immediately after certain trials at York, expressly to repeat these notions, and to rally the spirits of baffled reformers? ‘Tis readily enough granted that this conduct cannot be encouraged by any but the most grovelling minds, yet the countenance of these low and wicked proceedings is not confined to Labourers.

I ask again, what is the direct, natural tendency of that unqualified censure which is daily poured forth upon the measures of our country’s rulers?—If we think it no sin to "despise dominion," are we still blind to our own private and personal interest?—Do we still imagine that " ‘tis only the obnoxious shearing-frames?" only the rotten Boroughs?—Are we absolutely stupefied by [pettiso], party prejudices, and narrow calculations? where is the cool deliberation, the enlarged views, the foresight and prudence, the manly spirit, the generous candour, the religious firmness of Britons?

The gasconading strut of so many thousand names to a popular petition, is of itself contemptible enough, more especially when it is considered that dozens and scores of these names have been affixed without moving a yard, and that not one of the persons in a score, has any conception what the petitions mean. But the infamous use that is made of such petitions, to inflame the worst passions of the unguarded multitude, should be openly discountenanced by every friend to society and government.

Our whining peaceable philanthropists will soon teach these 17,000 united labourers, the vast proportion they bear to the population of the neighbourhood in which they live; the multitude of their affiliated brethren in other places; the aggregate importance in the State; their wisdom; their strength; and, of course their right to insist upon attention to their humble voice. Are we so dull as not to see the consequences?

E.

26th April 1813: The Leeds Intelligencer publishes a last word on 'Attentive Hearer' row

On Monday 26th April 1813, the Leeds Intelligencer published a final editorial on the row that had taken up column inches over the past 3 months, ever since the execution of George Mellor. The Leeds Mercury never published a response, and the pseudonymous 'Attentive Hearer' never wrote to the Intelligencer again.

If the "Printer" will be at the trouble to read the "Attentive Hearer's" last letter, he will perceive that his last week’s challenge, is by no means declined. The Attentive Hearer is most willing to go into the proposed investigation when it is rendered necessary;  i.e. so soon as the Printer shall prove what he has twice asserted: "that the "Attentive Hearer" has published a false report of evidence."—If the report he has published be correct, there can be no doubt of the confession of Mellor. If false, let it be proved so; and the "Attentive Hearer" will, with the greatest readiness, immediately accept the Challenge of his Opponent.

19th April 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' sends his final letter to the Leeds Intelligencer

Mr. PRINTER,—The evidence given by the "Diligent Enquirer’s" Authorities, is already verbatim before the public; I hold a letter from one of them, written after an interview with the Diligent Enquirer, speaking as to his knowledge in terms which were not so decisive as I wished. I wanted to have no ambiguity; if the parties were positive, I wished them to say so, if not, they would allow it; this they all did, not one was certain! The person who wrote the letter above alluded to, signed the paragraph stating he was not positive.

The printer has charged me with falsifying the evidence of his authorities, and not giving their own words. I deny the charge; the evidence I have published is true, the very words of his own witnesses; I can at any time prove this. Let the "Printer" prove his assertion, and I will willingly fall in with his proposition this week; of submitting the whole to two impartial persons. There is no need to do this, until my antagonist has proved his point; if I have already stated the case correctly; why trouble any other person to re-publish it?

He says nothing about himself having falsified the evidence of both mine and his authorities; I before charged with this! I repeat it!

Until he proves his assertion; or acknowledges that he has falsely charged me with an untruth; I shall take no notice of his weekly ebullitions, but leave him to that infamy, his repeated falsehoods deserve.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.
Leeds, April 17, 1813.

19th April 1813: Hammond Roberson writes in praise of William Cartwright & Joseph Radcliffe

To the Printer of the Leeds Intelligencer.

SIR,—I beg the favour of you to permit your paper to the medium of a few observations on a subject in which, if I mistake not, the credit and the justice of this neighbourhood is considerably interested.

We cannot, I presume, have forgotten the state of the public mind, and the transactions which occurred during the spring months of the last year. We recollect the serious apprehensions which filled the minds of one part of the inhabitants; the disgraceful panic which seized others; the suspense in which a third sort were held, unable to form a judgment whether the disturbers of the public peace, or their opposers would prove to have taken the stronger side, and therefore afraid to commit themselves by venturing to express an opinion concerning transactions, which, by their novelty, their boldness, their ferocity, and general mischievous tendency, were becoming truly serious and alarming;—while, a lamentable proportion of the population of a great many of our towns and villages were in high and ardent expectation of some great change which they (foolishly enough, no doubt, but, which they) actually did imagine was about to take place in the persons should hold the power and property of the country.

At this time the idea of removing by violence such individuals as might seem likely to oppose any effectual obstacle to the system of destruction then in practice, was become perfectly familiar; the most atrocious acts were openly committed; murderous conversation was openly and undisguisedly held in workshops, at the market, in the public streets, and in public houses; while, whatever was offered in disapprobation of the then popular sentiments, and of the destructive practices, was generally spoken in retirement, under all the apparent emotions of apprehension, suspicion, and terror. There was an evident fear left what was said should be overheard and resented by the mischievous destruction of property of the speaker, or by his immediate assassination. Those who are first affected to scorn the expressions of alarm were themselves brought to dismay. Those who ignorantly imagined the business concerned such persons only as were connected with gig-mills and shearing-frames, were made to tremble for the safety of their own property and persons. The merchant, the farmer, the miller, the cottager, were alike assailed, terrified, plundered. The very atmosphere which surrounds us seemed contaminated, and the English character assumed for a season, the dark and baleful aspect of the malicious, relentless assassin.

A favourable change has taken place. The good sense of many of those who were incautiously led off to indulge unjustifiable wishes and expectations, is apparently returned; the momentary warmth of a perverted imagination has subsided, and given place to reflection, and a more just way of thinking. The silent and flow, but efficacious operation of our incomparable system of Laws, executed in that firm, manly, DISCRIMINATING CHRISTIAN spirit, so highly characteristic of our courts of justice, has had a powerful effect upon the public mind. The nature, the tendency, the absurdity, the madness of disorderly practices is more clearly discerned; the well-disposed are confirmed; the thoughtless are brought to some reflection; the guilty, we ardently hope, feel remorse; the vicious and abandoned have taken lessons of caution, and, it is reasonably to be expected, that the salutary pause that has been imposed upon them by the well grounded terror of the magistrate’s awful arm, will be succeeded by some general repentance and reformation of conduct, and of principle.

The extent to which the mischievous combination might have been carried is not to be ascertained. The nature and tendency of it, is pretty well known.

A full year has now passed over us. We have had time for reflection. And it remains for us to determine whether we will suffer the intelligent faithful historian of the times to enter the following record for the information of posterity:

That one of the most villainous, of the MOST DESPERATE; and, for its extent, one of the MOST ALARMING CONSPIRACIES AGAINST the Security of the persons and property of civil society, that ever disgraced a country professing Christianity, was checked and disconcerted by the manly firmness of ONE MAN, at great labour, and at great personal hazard to himself, as well as at great expence:—and, the detection and conviction of the parties to this nefarious scene, was, in a great measure, "owing to the unremitting zeal and persevering courage of ONE MAGISTRATE residing near the town of Huddersfield:" but, such was the cool indifference betrayed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood more immediately benefited by the judicious intrepidity of these two men, that, finding themselves delivered from their present apprehensions, they were content to refer the remuneration of the expences incurred by the meritorious defence of Rawfolds Mill, to the bounty of Government; to the PRIVATE liberality of individuals; to an "HUMBLE PETITION" to the Quarter Sessions; to chance:—and the worthy Magistrate of Mills-Bridge House was allowed to enjoy the satisfaction arising to an independent mind like his, from his private reflections on his own conduct; or,—whether we will do ourselves the credit, and our country the service, to offer our united public thanks to Mr. Radcliffe for the benefit he has conferred upon society, by his prompt, decisive, and judicious conduct; and testify our approbation of William Cartwright's behaviour, in defence of his person and property, and our sense of the advantages derived to society thereby by an instant public subscription expressly designed as a kind of vote of thanks, and to be offered to him independent of any notice or reward which the wisdom of Government may judge proper to confer upon him.

A Thousand Guineas subscribed by that number of persons, and their names published, would be of greater importance to the public; and of more credit to the subscribers than any additional honour or advantage to the person for whom that sum ought to be so raised.

HAMMOND ROBERSON.
Healds Hall, April 15, 1813.

12th April 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes another missive in the Leeds Intelligencer

Mr. PRINTER,—In reply to the "Printer’s" Paragraph this week, I inform him, that my Witnesses do speak positively, they state positively that they distinctly heard Mellor’s Confession. The "Diligent Enquirer" knows this, and he also knows he is the author of a wilful untruth, when he says they contradict one half of what I say: they do not contradict one word of what I have advanced! he is not ashamed, in order to make his defeat appear less complete, to shelter himself behind a battery of falsehood.

And forsooth, unblushingly to charge me with falsifying the Evidence of his Authorities! a charge which I shall prove to be as false, as all his other attempts to prove me in error.

First then I will state what I said respecting them: my words were "Out of seven brought to oppose them, (i.e. my authorities,) six say they cannot positively say how it was; and one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, thinks it was not so." For this my Opponent publicly charges me with falsehood; with having given as evidence what I was not warranted in doing. Let him read the following Paragraph; "We the undersigned were present at the Execution of Mellor, Thorp and Smith, and we believe that Mellor never made use, (in his prayer just before the execution) of the words, "us poor murderers;" and, "Die Game;" and we are of opinion if he had used them, we should have heard him; but we cannot positively say, we should have heard and remembered them." This is a literal Copy of what five of his authorities have affixed their names to, and must consequently be taken as their testimony. The sixth was asked to sign the above, or the following; "We the undersigned, were present at the execution of Mellor, Thorp and Smith, and distinctly heard every word Mellor used in his prayer, just before he was executed; and we are positively certain that no such words as, "us poor murderers" and, "Die Game;" fell from his lips; and we are sure if they had, we should have both heard and remembered them."—He however refused to sign either, but stated, if he were to sign one, it would be the former; he observed, "he was of opinion the words in question were not used," but added "at such times my mind is so taken up with what is passing, that I cannot positively say he did not use them."—The seventh refused to sign either one or the other; and said he was of opinion the words were not used; so that the last paragraph stating that they were positively certain, remains without a single signature—It may be necessary here to observe, that nine persons were named by the "Diligent Enquirer," two of whom had already made themselves parties in the dispute, and consequently have never been treated as Authorities by either party; seven being the number allowed on both sides.

I have now complied with the "Printers" wish, and "published the written and verbal testimony of his seven witnesses;" which he declares, I have falsely stated in my last Letter. The result of my enquiries is correctly given above, as nearly verbatim as possible; and I defy any one, to prove in any one instance, that it is contrary to my last report. Let it be remembered that the above Gentlemen, were declared by the "Diligent Enquirer," to be quite positively certain I was wrong! Has not the result of my enquiries, proved his report to be a falsification of Evidence?—This charge however he has falsely laid on me; I challenge him to prove his assertion; and if he fail, I call upon him publicly to declare himself in error; and confess he has falsely charged me with a Lie. If he refuse to do either, I have no hesitation in publicly declaring him, to be every thing that a Gentleman ought not to be.

In the beginning of this controversy my opponent proved himself to be truly expert in the language of abuse; now, he weakly asserts with the most unblushing effrontery, things which he knows to be false; if in future he should expect me to notice his observations, I must beg he will cease to insult his readers with his palpable falsehoods;—if he will not deviate from truth, I am ready at all times to answer his remarks.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, April 2d, 1813.

29th March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes another missive about George Mellor's last words

Mr. PRINTER,—My Opponent this week declares me dead; had it been so, his paragraph might have passed; I would have to know that I am "Game," and still living, ready at all times to assert the truth.

My adversary would fain be thought learned in the law of evidence. It is not however the first time he has made a great noise about what in reality he is perfectly ignorant of. I will endeavour to make this subject intelligible to him, and suppose a case brought before a Jury, in which four respectable persons shall positively declare they were witnesses of a certain fact, and all agree in the account they give of it: to contradict which, seven persons, equally respectable, shall give the following testimony:—Six shall declare they cannot positively say how it was; one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, it was not stated correctly by the four first witnesses; and every one of the seven, when interrogated as to the real fact, shall each give a different account of it.—I would ask the "Diligent Enquirer" if he were one of the Jury, how would he decide?—This is a plain case, exactly similar to our own, four persons of character declare that they distinctly heard the confession of Mellor. Out of seven brought to oppose, six say they cannot positively remember how it was; and one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, thinks it was not so; and all differ in their opinion as to what really said.

The "Diligent Enquirer" may quibble over this if he can: he knows I can prove it to be fact: his cause seems to stand by quibbling, railing and abusing, in which polite attainments he has indeed eminently excelled in the controversy I have had with him; it would be well for him if he would learn in future to be more cautious how he commits himself. One untruth is in general the father of another, so he has proved it. If it were necessary to answer his paragraph at length, I would do it and prove him again wading in falsehoods. The public must however be tired of this dispute, the subject of it is now for ever settled: that the murderers of Mr. Horsfall were declared by their Ringleader to be "Murderers." I believe none will now dispute excepting the "Diligent Enquirer," who has already declared he will not be convinced.—Well might Hudibras say,

Convince a man against his will,
He’s of the same opinion still.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, March 27th, 1813.

22nd March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes his longest piece yet on the last words of George Mellor

Mr. PRINTER.—Sir,—It is indeed painful to trespass on the patience of your readers, by so repeatedly calling their attention, to a subject which at first might appear trifling and unimportant; that the murderers were guilty there can be no doubt: it must however be satisfactory to the public to be assured that they confessed guilt: viewing it in this light, I am compelled again to appear before the public. On the 9th January, I communicated to you my statement of the execution of Mr. Horsfall's Murderers, in which I informed you, that the following sentence was used by Mellor in his prayer: "Thou who cast devils out of Mary Magdalen, thou who pardonest the thief upon the Cross,—thou canst still save thieves, aye and even us poor murderers." The three last words, "us poor murderers," A Diligent Enquirer has continued constantly and positively to contradict.

He confesses he was not present; but has repeatedly boasted of his authorities; and on all occasions drawn up a Noble Phalanx of official Characters, Persons who, from their consequence at executions, must of course hear for all. These, he has always vociferated, were quite positive the words were never used, one would have supposed they would have been equally confident—but No, they will not see him through; they only now, to use his own language, "declare to him that to the best of their knowledge and belief, the words in question were not used;" here am I left without an opponent. After all the vaunting of my adversary, he at last publishes his own infamy; and positively contradicts himself: indeed so fond have my antagonists been of contradiction, they have at no time hesitated pointedly to controvert the testimony of each other.

If the Diligent Enquirer had in the first instance spoken the truth, he would have required no answer. When he so readily showered down such volleys of abuse, and so confidently boasted of his positive information, one would have supposed he had at least some authorities to produce; this week however he publicly confesses he has none—had my report been unaccompanied by the testimony of any other, I have fair claim to public credit; not one who can positively contradict me!!—But my assertion is corroborated by the authority of other persons, "Gentlemen of character" who do not merely state, that, "to the best of their knowledge and belief" they heard Mellor confess himself and his companions to be murderers. No—they state positively that they distinctly heard the words. Here then is a proof positive that I am correct; I do not expect the "Diligent Enquirer" will allow this; when he introduced himself to me, he candidly told me "he would not be convinced." The public however will not be thus duped. The truth of my assertion as far as relates to "us poor murderers" is now most positively established, "the Diligent Enquirer" himself being the reporter. In my letter to you of the 9th January, I also quoted the following passage from Mellor's Prayer: "There are many here who have come expecting to see is die Game, let such know that we the penitent—we acknowledge the heinousness of our sins, and our only hope to be forgiven is in the infinite and boundless mercy of our redeemer."

The "Diligent Enquirer" and his friends have also objected much to the expression, "Die Game," it has however remained the one of their own authorities to be a corroborating evidence to the use of it; he states that he distinctly heard the words "die Game" used when Mellor was praying, but he believes it was not Mellor that used them—I hope my opponent will be convinced that those words did not originate with myself; that they were used is now certain; and that they were not used by Mellor, yet remains to be proved.

The "Printer’s" paragraph respecting the Reverend Gentleman, at York, reflects no credit on its author; had it been necessary to have further proofs of his duplicity, he has furnished me with one. If he chose to notice part, he ought to have mentioned all. When I gave him the names of my references, I mentioned to him that I had just been with a friend who told me a Gentleman had said, that a Reverend Gentleman who resides in York, had mentioned the circumstance, stating that he was on the platform at the time, and that the "Attentive Hearer" was correct. I informed him, I believed that gentleman would corroborate what I said;—it was of course impossible I could have written to him, up having only heard this a few hours before I was with the "Diligent Enquirer;" he cannot say I mentioned the Reverend Gentleman's name, in any other way, than as now stated by me.

I must apologize to your readers for trespassing so long, but cannot take leave of this subject without recommending my opponent, when he again undertakes to contradict any one, to have better grounds for his confident and positive assertions; and not amuse his readers with vapouring about a long list of Authorities, whose testimony in the end, according to his own statement, amounts to nothing. Let him take a view of his abusive language, throughout the whole of this dispute. Let him remember what he has charged me with; then look to his authorities, and after all see himself absolutely obliged to publish my vindication.—Let him do this and refrain from blushing if he can!

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, March 13th, 1813.

8th March 1813: The Leeds Intelligencer promotes a newly-published account of the York Special Commission

As per the directions of the Treasury Solicitor, Henry Hobhouse, an account of the York Special Commission had been hurriedly published, and the Leeds Intelligencer of Monday 8th March carried an excerpt. This is noteworthy, not least as it shows how a State-backed ideological reworking of events had already begun, less than 2 months after the conclusion of the trials in the West Riding:

Trial of the Luddites.—An authentic report has just been published of the proceedings under authority of the late Special Commission for the trial of the crimes committed in the West Riding of Yorkshire. To this interesting publication some preliminary remarks are offered, which, after giving a concise account of the circumstances and causes which led to a crisis little short of open rebellion, conclude as follow:—

"The cases exhibit a melancholy portrait of the depravity of human nature. We see young men, capable of gaining an ample livelihood by honest industry, led to the commission of the most heinous crimes, without any adequate, it may almost be said, without any motive. They fancy themselves aggrieved by the improvement of machinery. They take to redress into their own hands. To secure their object, they form societies, linked together by illegal oath of secrecy. They thus fancy that they have secured to themselves impunity, and they proceed to the perpetration of the most horrible outrages on the property and persons of individuals, against whom they are actuated by no personal malice: and do not even stop short of shedding the innocent blood of men, who have given no other cause of offence, than by firmly pursuing their lawful callings, not only in a harmless manner, but in that best calculated to promote the interests of the community.

"We see, in several instances, that the disaffected had experienced such success, as to make them speculate on oversetting even the Government of the kingdom; and it is to be feared, that the embers of revolutionary principles, which had been mouldering for several years, were revived in the country where the scenes were acted, by the fancied grievance of improved machinery, and the temporary success which its destroyers met with in the vicinity of Nottingham. Encouragement was given by the doubts cast on the moral turpitude of these crimes; and the evil was raised to its height by religious fanaticism, which unhappily exists, in an excessive degree, in those populous districts.

"The supposed grievance of which these deluded men complain, arising for the improvement of machinery, has been denominated a fancied grievance. It would be wasting time to argue upon the undoubted right of every subject of this kingdom to conduct his trade in such manner as he may deem most conducive to his own interests, unless where the wisdom of Parliament has controlled him by regulations. But the events of the last year prove that it may not be altogether superfluous to shew how it is that the improvement of machinery is beneficial, instead of being detrimental, to the interest of the labouring manufacturer, as well as to the community at large. It is obvious, that the demand for any commodity increases with its cheapness, and that the purchaser will resort to the market at which it is sold at the lowest rate; and therefore, that every thing which contributes to the cheapness increases the demand, and gives an advantage to the market where such cheapness exists, over all other markets where, from local causes, the commodity cannot be sold at so low a price. Where the demand increases, the number of hands employed will increase also. But nothing has been ever found to contribute so much to the cheapness of a manufactured article, as the use of machinery, which enables the same work to be done, not only in less time and with fewer hands, but by persons of earlier age and of less robust constitutions, than can render themselves useful while all the operations are to be performed by bodily strength. Hence all the members of a family are now enabled to contribute towards its support, instead of relying (as formerly was the case) altogether upon the exertions of the husband and father, who still has many parts of the manufacture to which he may apply his vigour, and earn ample wages. What then would be the consequence, if the endeavours of the disaffected could succeed in the expulsion of machinery? The wife and young children would be thrown out of employ; the husband and the father must support them entirely by his own labour; the price of the manufactured goods would be raised; the purchaser would resort to a cheaper market, where the use of machinery was encouraged; the trade would decay; the manufacturer would gradually dismiss his journeyman, or reduce their wages; while their families would become more and more burdensome; and finally, nothing but poverty and misery would prevail.

"A notion has been entertained by some, that the disturbances have been in a great degree ascribable to poverty and distress, arising from the want of foreign markets for our manufactures. It has been already stated, that at a few towns, in the spring of last year, there were some riots arising from the high price of provisions; but in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, which was a metropolis of discontent, not the least symptom is to be discovered of Luddism having arisen from these causes. On the contrary, many of the prisoners tried at York rested their defence on stories, which depended for their credibility on the fact, that work was super-abundant."

1st March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' won't let the debate about George Mellor's last words die

Mr. PRINTER—A Diligent Enquirer seems to be rather hurt that I have not allowed myself to be publicly accused, without endeavouring publicly to defend myself; he thinks I ought to have been silenced long since; he will, however, recollect I am not answerable to the Public for the length of this dispute.

In the first instance I stated what passed at the Execution, as nearly as I could remember, which has weekly been disputed by either one or another.—Mr. Brown came forward and positively contradicted my assertion. I believe a Diligent Enquirer and an Attentive Hearer and not the only persons who are willing to waive his authority.—And now, we will consider the matter as resting on the authority of two anonymous writers, one of whom was present at the Execution, and the other some miles distant. Certainly persons unknown to the public have no right to expect credit, unless there assertions can be proved, either by positive or corroborative proof;—but there is a difference even in the character of an anonymous writer. When any one is fairly proved to have published an untruth, we have a right at least to suspect him; if a Diligent Enquirer will take the trouble to refer to my last letter, he will find a blemish on his character, of which he has not even attempted to clear himself. As an anonymous writer, I think I have a [fairer] claim to public credence than my opponent; he has a length, however, come forwards like a gentleman, without either wagers or abuse, and is consequently entitled to my attention.

I am not at liberty to publish names, but if he will be at the trouble of enquiring of my Printer; he will be informed of several Gentleman, whose characters he cannot dispute, to whom I would refer him; and I hope he will not think it too much trouble, candidly to inform the public the results of his further enquiries; this I think I have a right to expect from him.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

8th February 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' keeps alive the debate about George Mellor's last words

Mr. PRINTER—Sir, when you in inserted my first Letter respecting the execution of Mellor, Thorpe and Smith, the Editor of the Mercury, in a very handsome manner, informed his readers, what I advanced was absolutely false.—To my second he made no reply; his cause was then espoused by “A Diligent Enquirer,” the dispute seemed nearly ended; we had only one word to settle; I was persuaded “A Diligent Enquirer,” if he were also a Candid Enquirer, would decide in my favour. From his silence this week, I must conclude he is now of my opinion. The dispute, in all probability, would have ended here, had not the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle, thought it a duty he owes to the public, tho’ late, boldly to step forward and controvert my assertion.

He first positively contradicts me, and then kindly tells me where I may have been mistaken; he fears I have understood the word “Adulterers” for “Murderers.”—He is just one week too late; had he made his appearance sooner, he might, perhaps, have staggered the belief of many.  “A Diligent Enquirer” has already satisfied the public on that head, he has informed them that the obnoxious word “Murderers” did escape from Mellor's lips; but his printer thinks this ought to be surrendered, that no person is so likely to be right as the Reverend Chaplain; nay, that it would be the height of folly and absurdity to dispute his authority.—The Editor of the Mercury is once more roused—after such strong, such respectable testimony, that both “An Attentive Hearer” and “A Diligent Enquirer” have been the instruments of publishing falsehoods to the world, nothing can protect them from the charge of malice or insanity, if they do not immediately retract all they have said, and bow to the super-eminent respectability of the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle.

So the Editor of the Mercury would have it.—What effect this appeal will have on “A Diligent Enquirer,” I will not surmise; tho’ I am willing to give the Reverend Chaplain all the credit his well-established character deserves, I will not be so credulous as thus to bow at his nod. No, I will even yet dare to inform the public, if I had before been inclined to doubt whether I was right or wrong, the enquiries I have since made of persons who were also present, would have removed every doubt.

One observation more for the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle, and I have done:—Two newspapers printed in York (the Courant and the Herald) in the account they gave of the execution, state that the murderers “confessed the heinousness of the crime.” How strange that this Reverend Gentleman, who feels he has such a duty to perform to strangers, should have no regard for his fellow citizens, but will silently allow them to be dupes of “mischievous” Editors; he has no pity for them—what else can be his reason for taking no notice of these gross falsehoods;—did the old proverb ever recur to his mind—“A Prophet is not honoured in his own City?”— I am, &c.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, Jan. [illegible], 1813.

25th January 1813: The Chaplain of York Castle intervenes in the war over George Mellor's last words

To the Editor of the Leeds Intelligencer.

SIR,—Having seen your Paper two Letters signed “An Attentive Hearer,” wherein he asserts that Mellor in his prayer begged of God to forgive “us poor murderers.”

I think it a duty I owe to the public to contradict the assertion, as no such expression was uttered by him, neither was any acknowledgement of guilt for the offence, made at any time, by him or his companions, directly or indirectly, either to me or the public; so far from any thing of the sort taking place, when I put the question in their last moments, “I hope you acknowledge the justness of your sentence?” The answer was “I desire you will not ask me any questions on the subject.” Notwithstanding which, no man in his senses can entertain a doubt of their guilt. I am afraid your Attentive Hearer has mistaken the word adulterers (which Mellor made use of in his prayer) for murderers, as there is a little similarity in the sound.

I am, Sir, your humble servant,

G.BROWN, Chaplain, York Castle.
York, 20th January, 1813.

25th January 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes again about George Mellor's last words

Mr. Printer,—“A Diligent Enquirer” has certainly taken great pains to ascertain whether Mellor did or did not acknowledge itself and his companions to be murderers, and it appears that those persons he has communicated with did not notice the confession. I believe there were present a great many more persons who did not hear Mellor make use of the expression alluded to, but this is no proof that what I advance is false.—“A Diligent Enquirer” says that some of the persons whom he enquired said, Mellor's words were, “even to his murderers.” That these persons are mistaken is evident, as he was addressing himself to Christ, and not speaking of him.—His words were—“Thou who cast devils out of Mary Magdalen—thou who pardonest the thief upon the cross—thou canst still save thieves, aye, and even us poor murderers.”

The words us and his, are very similar in sound, so much so, that they might easily be mistaken the one for the other, but their meaning is so very different, it will always be possible to determine which is spoken.—In this instance “A Diligent Enquirer” and the public must, I think, determine it in favor of “the word I have put into Mellor’s mouth,” us. Otherwise the sentence is rendered very unmeaning.

Wagers are in my opinion no argument, and I am astonished that “A Diligent Enquirer” should propose this mode of settling any dispute.—But his wager is particularly objectionable; if I understand it right, in all probability both parties must lose.—If it be necessary, I can produce respectable testimonials of the truth of what I have advanced. “the word of honour of persons of character,” that Mellor did make use of the expression alluded to.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

25th January 1813: The Leeds Intelligencer suggests liberal newspapers are to blame for Luddism

It requires no extraordinary acuteness of penetration nor clearness of judgement to perceive, that, from the first appearance of open violence in Nottinghamshire, down through the whole of the successive stages of disorders, mischiefs and outrages in the more Northern counties, to the late awful executions at York, the labouring part of the community, who really are in distress, as well as those who imagine themselves deprived of those comforts, or of that affluence which they suppose themselves entitled to possess, have been uniformly taught, by certain Newspapers, that the evils they suffer, or imagine they suffer, are to be attributed to the fault of their Governors. The same Newspapers have led these people to think it their duty to unite in opposition to the measures which are represented to them as the oppressive needless acts of their own unwise or unfeeling Government. They are told, that if they will but persevere they must ultimately succeed, and after they have been induced to desire and expect from Government such things as it would be unwise, dangerous or impossible to grant, still they are taught to consider themselves as injured, and oppressed, and encouraged to persevere. What then can they suppose themselves urged to do, but to proceed to actual violence, in such ways as to themselves may seem most likely to accomplish their absurd wicked withes. It is an insult to common sense and common observation, for those who encouraged them to any thing, which, in their own misguided estimation, was right or necessary, but the accomplishment of which is likely to lead on to acts of violence—to say that we never intended them to destroy property or life. If they are to unite of persevere till their object be obtained, they must bind themselves to each other—when bound they must proceed. Hence illegal oaths, illegal practices, and every mischief.

There is much reason to hope that the proceedings of the late Commission in this country, under which such just firmness, severity, and well-directed clemency have been mingled with so much wisdom and discernment, that fresh lustre has been added to the brightness of our unrivalled code of Laws, and to the firm, discreet and temperate manner in which they are executed in our courts of justice, will have the effect so ardently desired by every friend to society and humanity, unless that desirable effect be prevented and set aside by the same injurious and cruel means by which the late lamented disgraceful events were originally fomented and encouraged.

But to what purpose, we ask, is it again insinuated that the perpetrators of the late atrocious crimes were men who have been urged to commit them by the privations, the want of employment, and consequent difficulties and distresses which have been wilfully brought upon the country in general, and upon these offenders in particular, by what are represented as to the impolitic, unnecessary measures of Government. To what purpose, we ask, are these misrepresentations renewed, if it be not to re-foment and keep alive in the minds of the populace the same false unjust prejudices, which have led to the outrages we have witnessed.

Shall we implicitly credit the representation that all is perfectly free from any Political bearing, when we remark the extreme caution in all the parties concerned, as to the extent of the information given by the witnesses who know most, and the confessions of those who suffered?

X.