20th February 1818: The Nottingham Review writes on the plight of Leicester framework-knitters

The Nottingham Review of Friday 20th February posted the following article about plight of framework-knitters in Leicester being championed in the holiest places:

We learn from undoubted authority, that the framework-knitters of Leicester, to the disgrace of their employers, are now reduced in their prices even lower than last year.—This odious sin of oppression was never more ably exposed than on Sunday week, in the afternoon, by the Rev. Robert Hall, of Leicester, at his own meeting-house, from Ecclesiastes iv.1. “So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but they had no comforter.”—In commencing his sermon, the preacher said, “he did not wish to be personal, but he must ease his conscience, of a duty he ought to have done aforetime;” and we are assured, more independent, sharp, and cutting reproof, rarely comes from the pulpit; and whilst advocating the cause and the miserable state of the starving workman, his eloquent shafts were barbed with more than ordinary severity against the master manufacturers, numbers of whom were present, and we have no doubt but the thunder of this animated address will long reverberate in the ears of many who heard it.

The article was immediately followed up below with the following:

On Sunday last, at Leicester, the same Minister preached his annual sermons for the cause of Baptist Missions. The collection amounted to 47l.

2nd January 1818: Francis Ward publishes an account of his arrest and imprisonment on grounds of High Treason

The 31st December 1817 edition of the Black Dwarf contained this letter from the Nottingham framework-knitter and political activist Francis Ward, who had been detained on charges of High Treason for several months in 1817. The letter is his response to an article from the (London) Observer newspaper, which stated that the government spy William Oliver had met with him and Gravenor Henson and others prior to the Pentrich Rising. The Nottingham Review of Friday 2nd January 1818 published it in full.

ARBITRARY ARRESTS!

[From a London Paper.]

TO THE EDITOR,

SIR―In a number of your paper for November, your correspondent, signed M.P., solicits a particular account of the arrest, treatment &c of those persons who have been confined under the suspension act—In compliance with that request, I beg leave to lay before you the following remarks.

I reside in Hollow stone, parish of St. Mary's, Nottingham. At the time of my being arrested, was employed in the fancy-work manufactured here. Have a wife and four children; and a mother of ninety years of age, all dependent on me for support. On the 10th of June last, twelve or thirteen police officers entered my house, one of them (Mr. Lawson) said, "Mr. Ward, we are come to search your house." I asked by what authority they came to do so, some of them said, "you may be sure we are not come without authority;" I replied, shew me it, or you shall not search my house; immediately Mr. Lawson held up in his hand a paper, and said, "here it is." I requested him to read it; he said, "the law would not justify him in reading it until we got before a magistrate"—While this conversation was passing between me and Lawson, all the rest of the constables went into different parts of my house, and I, perceiving there was no alternative, suffered them to search without seeing or hearing the warrant read, after a long and fruitless effort. When they had reached down a CANISTER, and even peeped into a THIMBLE, they frankly acknowledged "there was nothing to be found which they were looking for." I asked what they were looking for; one of them observed, "you have THAT to find out," and then they all went away! Not being satisfied with such unreasonable, and, as I thought, unlawful proceedings, I went and consulted an attorney; he advised me to make application for a copy of the warrant by which my house was searched, and the names of the constables it was delivered to. I applied accordingly to the Town Clerk, but he observed, "you have no right to a copy," this he repeated, and added, with considerable emphasis, "you may make application, but, know what advice I shall give." I went directly to the police office, what I saw Mr. Alderman Soars, and acquainted him with my business, he said, "go backwards," and immediately ordered a Constable to take me into custody. After being in this situation more than an hour, Mr. Alderman Barber, a near neighbour, came to me, and said, "I am sorry for you, as I believe you to be an honest industrious man, but I would advise you to withdraw your application," (this he repeated several times,) "it is a dangerous case to press; however, you will not by any means consider me as talking to you as a Magistrate, but as a friend." I told that the treatment I had already received was unmerited; at all events, I was determined to press my application for that which I had a right to demand: he then left me. Not more than an hour had expired after this interview, when I was taken before a Bench of Magistrates that was then sitting. Mr. Enfield then inquired me what my application was; I informed him, it was a copy of the warrant issued for the searching of my house, and the names of the Constables it was delivered to; he ordered me to be taken away for some time, until the Magistrates had consulted how they might dispose of my case. In half an hour, I was again introduced to the Magistrates, when Mr. Enfield informed me that they have agreed NOT to grant my request, and that I was still detained for being concerned in the Loughborough Outrage. Here he (the Town Clerk) alluded to the framebreaking which took place in Loughborough, on the 28th or 29th of June, 1816. I was taken to the town jail, where I remained in one of the dampest holes that none was ever combined in; and although it is more than six months ago, I at this time experience upon my lungs the bad effects of lying in that damp cell. I continued in that wretched place until the 14th, having nothing allowed me but bread and water for sustenance, with a bed such as felons lay upon, and not only damp, but smelling so strong of brimstone, that it was almost intolerable. On that day, Mr. Alderman Barber, Mr. Enfield, a King's Messenger, and a Bow-street Officer, came to the jail, and informed me I must prepare for a journey, as there was a warrant from the Secretary of State; Mr. Alderman Barber then observed, "the Loughborough business must stand over, (and I have heard no more of it since.) They then went away, and in the course of an hour after the King's messenger and a Bow-street officer, came again and chained me hand and foot to a man of the name of Haynes; before I got into the chaise, he (the Bow-street officer) said, "if I heaved my hand to let the chains be seen, I should be the first that should fail," at the same time holding a pistol in his hand. On the road to London the fetters round my hand gave me such pain, which caused me to comment upon the inherited unmerited punishment I was suffering; the officer observed "you wish to make it appear that you are not a disaffected person; the town clerk informed me that you are much respected* by the mechanics of Loughborough, and Leicester, and the working people in general, so that you are dangerous man to be a large." On the 15th we arrived in London and were taken to the Coold-bath-fields prison. On the 21st I was taken before Lord Sidmouth; his lordship asked me how old I was, I informed him; he told me I was apprehended under a warrant from him, on suspicion of high treason, and that he would commit to close confinement until delivered by due course of law, and added if you have any thing to say, you are at liberty to speak. To this I replied, if every action of my life was painted your lordship in its proper colour, you would say I merited reward, rather than punishment. In vain did I declare my innocence, and challenge proof of my guilt; he observed I was not just unjustly punished, for his information was from a respectable source, and that I should have a list of the evidence against me, and proper notice of my trial before it commenced. I was then conveyed to Cold-bath-fields prison: and on the 24th was with William Cliff, (a young man from Derby,) removed or Oxford Castle: at my arrival at that place, I was confined by myself in a dismal dungeon, (or cell for condemned criminals,) about nine feet square, and when I had a fire in it, I was nearly suffocated with smoke; here I continued for near three months, without being permitted to see any person except the governor or turnkey. Reflect, Sir, for a moment, how I must feel in such a situation, and of so long continuance, when you are told that I had never been within the walls were of a prison before the 10th of June last. In September the number of criminal prisoners were so much increased, that it was found necessary to admit Cliff, and myself into one of the turnkey’s lodges, where I was far more comfortable, enjoying the company of an innocent fellow-sufferer (William Cliff). We had three shillings each per day are allowed for our maintenance. While in solitary confinement the turnkey boarded me for seventeen shillings and sixpence per week. After joining my companion we received our weekly allowance and provided our own food, until the 13th of November, when we were liberated on our own recognizance, to appear in the Court of King's Bench on the first day of next term, and to continue from day to day, and not depart that Court without leave. In the last five or six weeks we had more liberty and better accommodation. The facts, Sir, which I have stated, after to the best of my knowledge correct, and I shall not, if called upon, hesitate to confirm on oath before any magistrate. It is a generally received opinion, self-praise is no recommendation, I shall therefore decline saying any thing of my own character; but as I have been resident in Nottingham between twenty and thirty years, several respectable manufacturers here, who are well acquainted with me as a husband, father, servant, and neighbour, are ready to give every satisfaction which may be required with respect to character but of many I will only select the following: Mr. G. Bradley, lace-manufacturer; Mr. H. Levers, lace-manufacturer; Mr. T. Goodburn, hosier; and Mr. Alderman Barber (at this time Mayor) beforementioned. The above persons may be referred to at any time. I do most solemnly declare, that I never was any way concerned in breaking frames at Loughborough, or joined to the Luddites. Nor was I ever on a political Committee, or attended any such Committee, either secretly or openly; nor have I been a member of any political club whatever. I have been an advocate for Parliamentary Reform, for more than thirty years,—if that is High Treason, I am guilty. But notwithstanding my character stands unimpeached, as numbers can testify, a detestable attempt has been made to ruin it, as the sequel will prove. On the 10th of November, a writer in the Observer has, with all the malignity of an ________, endeavoured to traduce my character to the last degree in his publication of that day: and to make the business more certain, he published that number gratuitously in Nottingham and Derby, (and how much further I cannot say) to both public and private families, to subscribers and non-subscribers,―in fact, after a diligent search with much trouble, I can only find one subscriber to that paper in Nottingham. For the particulars of that diabolical attempt I refer you to the work itself. Now, Sir, after losing my seat of work, being torn away from an affectionate wife, from beloved children, and a poor helpless aged mother, all dependent upon me for support, after being deprived of my liberty, shut up in a dungeon, my health impaired, and on the 10th of November, (three days before my liberation) my character traduced, by a vile wretch, a hireling journalist, I ask in the name of reason, and common honestly, is there no redress for such a complication of grievances? is there not a shadow of justice to be obtained for multiplied injuries? Is a bill of indemnity obtained by corrupt majority, all the satisfaction I and my suffering family are to receive, for unmerited, unheard of persecutions, and losses we have hereby sustained? These remarks, my persecuted friend, I send you, if you, or any of your patriotically acquaintance can turn them to good account in our own, or country’s cause, they are your service―I am, dear Sir,

Your obedient Servant 

FRANCIS WARD 

P.S.—I take the liberty of saying, that I have not received one shilling, either from a subscription or otherwise, as an indemnity for pecuniary damage sustained, neither do I require it. If I am favored with health and strength, and employment to exercise it, and the blessing of heaven upon my industry, I hope to maintain myself and family with credit and respectability as heretofore. If you think it would answer any good purpose to petition the House of Commons, I should esteem it a great favor to receive the form of a petition from you.

*The Editor has taken no liberty with the style of this letter, but to print a few words in italic characters. This part of the statement is an excellent exposition of the system of the Ministers, As they are not respected, every one who is, is a dangerous character.

8th September 1817: A Nottingham Hosier has fears about FWK Union activity

Nottingham Septem 8th 1817

Sir

The very unpleasant circumstance, under which I have lately placd in the conducting my manufactory being solely the result of the unfounded although public representation made by certain parties calling themselves committees of Frameworkknitters―which said publications have, and are intended to have the effect of rendering the workman dissatisfied in every transaction with his employer I feel myself entitled to request your attention to this subject as one which threatens a much more serious wit than that of incommoding the individual―

Presuming that you are well acquainted that the nature of our manufactory is that of considerable permanence in the engagement between master & workman―you will be able to judge how very painful the situation of the employer in being incessantly calld upon to refuse gratifications which the workman is most industriously informd is really his due―

The Magistrate I am well aware is entitled to answer me, that his concern is only with acts which constitute a breach of the Peace―but when I have [stated] the publications to which I request your attentions―I can scarcely permit myself to doubt that you will be satisfied they have a manifest tendency to provoke a renewal of those disorders which have disgraced the whole range of the manufactory & occasioned the destruction of private property and of Life

Doubtless the intentions of many of those parties who so loudly anticipate the enlargement of our commerce, are innocent but it is time that even they should in some way be apprised that every instance where they raise expectations they are morally bound to fulfil them and are not entitled to throw the burthen upon that other party in commercial transactions, whose sacred interests their precipitate exultation has occasioned them to overlook―This remark would be misplaced were it merely sentimental―but its foundation is in fact of notorious publicity―the expected advancement of the wages of Labor―without adverting to any distinctions, being the almost daily theme of many public prints―the avow’d object of the conduct of several public bodies & public men (see advert from Ilkeston in the Nottm Review of 15 Augt last)―Conduct which renders them in my mind parties to a conspiracy for advancing wages and whose alliance & prompting forbids the thought of prosecuting the prominent, but the excited & perhaps misled conspirator

The first publication is dated July 11 & purports to be an intimation that the demand for goods had so encreased at Leicester that, with the exception of two or three houses, an advance of prices had been agreed to―the information had been previously, or was at some time, aroused in the Leicester and Nottingham papers apparently as News by the editor―but more probably by the parties themselves―Now, Sir my information is, that the application of the workman for an advance was suggested to them―nay even urgd upon them by the conduct of the answers of the Parish or Parishes of Leicester―& the FWKrs undertook their committees―(which it was hopd had become dormant at least, if not extinct) that Prices should have a correspondent Rise in Nottingham throughout the County―a point in which upon their failing, the Leciester and Hinckley houses finding themselves imposd upon recalled their advance

The application made to Nottingham is dated July 21st―imprudently alledging the advance at Leicester to be occasiond by extraordinary demand―& asserting the same demand to exist in Notts

The next publication―(is annexed as a supplement &) is dated July 25 in which the Committee announce their failure in terms which evince the bitterness of their disappointment & a determination to communicate resentful feelings to the body of the FWKrs―

Another publication dated 13th August is in the form of a letter to the Hosiers who manufacture Silk Gloves, couched in terms to excite no slight resentment towards the masters who do not comply―asserting a demand for their article which my own concern in this branch enabled me to know did not exist―or but partially as some demand always will―

The advertisements in the Nottm Review of 15th Augt―standing alone might leave it doubtful whether the FWKrs excite the vestry―or the vestry excite the FWKrs

Again under date 21st Augt, and after the Leicester houses recalled their advance―the Cotton workmen of Notts are required to exert themselves to secure the objects of the Committee

All these efforts failing―a Bill of advanced Rates of the Committees own forming―was delivered on the 29 Augt―with the usual breadth of assertion as to the consent of the masters except a few, who are hereby stigmatisd as oppressive & unjust

An advertisement in the Nottm Papers of Septem 6―shows clearly that these men have been generally repulsd by their employers―against whom they hope the getting of the harvest―the countenance of the Nobility Gentry Clergy & Overseers throughout the County―will support them in a general strike for advance of Wages & enable them to enforce their Bill of Rates

These circumstances exhibit such compleat evidence that the organisation of these Committees, from which individuals & the country at large have sufferd such serious injury & alarm―& in which principles destructive of all harmony between master & workman are inculcated―exist in full activity―that I cannot but persuade myself you will concur with me in opinion that the powers of the magistracy would be well employd in destroying such mischievous combinations

Whether the trade do or do not adopt the Bill of Rates thus impudently tendered―& violently enforcd―the reluctance of the employers has been sufficiently evinced―& for the committees to succeed in this mode can only tend to encrease their personal audacity & their mischievous influence over an extended population―

Other offensive matters, which have not appeared in print, are through the vigilance of your police, perhaps, better known to you than to me―I shall therefore leave them to such weight as you may judge them worthy of―& I am Sire your most obedt Servt

John Parker

[To: L Morley Esqr]

18th April 1817: The Nottingham Review reports the arrest of Gravenor Henson for High Treason

As a report has been in circulation for some days past, that Gravenor Henson and William Robinson, the persons who were deputed to carry the Petition to London, to be presented to the Prince Regent, in behalf of the unfortunate men who have suffered at Leicester, had been taken into custody, it may be proper to give a brief statement of the case, The aforesaid persons after their arrival in London, previous to their calling at Lord Sidmouth’s office, thought it advisable to call upon a gentleman to ask his influence and interest, to give the greater weight to the petition. This, Henson agreed to do himself, and Robinson was to wait for his return in St. James's Park. They had, however, no sooner separated, than a Crown Officer took Henson into custody: Robinson waited about three hours for his companion, in vain. He then returned to their inn, where he learned that an officer, in company with a Nottingham manufacturer, had been, and the officer had seized Henson's box with all its contents. Robinson immediately waited upon the manufacturer, and wished to have an explanation, and to know if there were any charge against him—and said he had no objection to go to the office of Secretary of State, to vindicate himself and explain. In consequence, an officer waiting on him on Saturday, to request his attendance there, but said he was not obliged to attend; however, Robinson chose the accompany the officer, and was introduced to Lord Sidmouth, to whom he stated his object in coming to London; and said he was not conscious of any charge being brought against himself or colleague. The Honourable Secretary, we understand, spoke in terms of approbation, of the frank and undisguised conduct of Robinson, and applauded his motives, but refused him all communication with Henson, who, it seems, is taken up on suspicion of High Treason. A messenger from the Crown arrived at this place on Saturday last, who entered Henson's house, and major a seizure of a variety of papers, which he sealed and took with him to London. Robinson was not arrested, nor his house searched. Henson is at present in Coldbath-fields prison. Such is the information handed to us, and which we believe to be correct.

17th April 1817: The final Luddite executions at Leicester - John Amos, John Crowther, Joshua Mitchell, Thomas Savage, William Towle & William Withers are hanged

On Thursday 17th April 1817, the final executions of Luddites took place at Leicester. There was coverage in various local newspapers but, unusually, the coverage in the Nottingham Review was short & muted. Although we have displayed their article below, we have placed the article in the Leicester Chronicle first, as it is much more comprehensive:

The Leicester Chronicle Friday 18th April 1817:

EXECUTION 

OF 

Thomas Savage, Joshua Mitchell, John Amos, Wm. Towle, John Crowder and Wm. Withers, for entering Messrs. Heathcote and Co’s factory, at Loughborough, and aiding and abetting the shooting at John Asher; Thomas Babington, for setting fire to a stack of oats belonging to Mr. John Moore, of Newbold Verdon. 

About half past five o'clock on Thursday morning, the above unfortunate men were removed from the County Gaol in a covered cart, escorted by a squadron of Hussars, to the New Bridewell, adjoining the Infirmary, where they immediately proceeded to prayer and continued very devoutly engaged the greater part of the morning. About twelve o'clock, they made their appearance on the platform, chained together by the wrist. Savage was placed first; Mitchell, second; Amos, third; Towle, fourth; Crowder, fifth; Withers, sixth; and Babington, seventh. 

After bowing to the vast numbers of persons assembled, Savage shortly addressed them as follows:— 

"My dear Brethren, I am now addressing you as a criminal. I shall not say a great deal. I hope you will take warning by all by our untimely fate, and not regard Man, but God. I feel confident of meeting my saviour hereafter and hope to be forgiven. I did intend to say more, but I have since declined the idea. In behalf of myself and fellow sufferers, I beg to return thanks to Mr. Vaughan & Mr. Hayton, for the attention they have shewn to us.—Farewell!" 

Amos addressed the spectators—"Friends and Fellow-Countrymen—You now see six young men going to suffer for a crime they are not guilty of, (alluding, we presume, to the firing at Asher) for the man who committed the crime will soon be at large. I would have you take warning by our fate, and be careful what company you keep. Farewell!" 

Babington said, "Gentlemen—I am as innocent as God is true, and [looking up,] God will witness it.—Farewell!" 

Mitchell wished to read a paper, but was not permitted. Amos then invited the crowd to join them in singing the following Hymn, which he gave out, two lines at a time, in a most audible and distinct manner, and was joined therein by Savage, Mitchel, Towle, &c. with equally firm voices. 

HYMN. 

How sad our state by nature is!

Our sin, how deep it stains!

And SATAN binds our captive minds

Fast in his slavish chains. 

But there’s a voice of Sovereign Grace

Sounds from the sacred word;

Ho! ye despairing sinners come,

And trust upon the Lord. 

O may we hear th’ Almighty call,

And run to this relief!

We would believe thy promise Lord;

O help our unbelief! 

To the blest fountain of thy blood,

Teach us, O Lord, to fly!

There may we wash our spotted souls

From sins of deepest dye! 

Stretch out thine arm, victorious King,

Our reigning sins subdue;

Drive the old dragon from this seat,

And form our souls anew. 

Poor, guilty, weak, and helpless worms,

On thy kind arm we fall;

Be thou our strength our righteousness,

Our JESUS and our all! 

The last short offices of devotion being concluded, Mr. Musson and the Executioner proceeded to adjust the ropes about the culprits’ necks, during which the prisoners shook hands with each other, and bade a last farewell to several of their friends whom they recognized before them, throwing to each some oranges, with a request that they might be given to their children, &c. 

Having shook hands with the High Sheriff, Clergyman, the Jaoler, &c. one of the unfortunate men (Amos) at about half past twelve, gave a signal by stamping his foot, when the fatal board fell and they were launched into eternity without much struggling, with the exception of Mitchell, who appeared strongly convulsed for several minutes. 

Almost throughout the whole of the awful ceremony they conducted themselves with a degree of firmness seldom witnessed on such a melancholy occasion. Though not insensible to religious impression, they appeared to await their approaching end with a composure we scarcely know how to express. Savage, who was a fine, tall, well-dressed, sensible looking man, appeared to be offering up his prayers with great earnestness when he was tied up. Mitchell, a well-made, bold-looking, well-dressed man, did not appear quite so devout. He assisted in adjusting Savage’s rope, as well as his own, with an unexampled coolness, worthy of a better fate. Amos, a tall, strong, decently dressed man, witnessed his fate with a smile upon his countenance, and seemed to be a man possessing great strength of mind. Towle, a fresh looking youth, betrayed no symptoms of agitation, until towards the close of the tragic scene, when, on the cap being pulled over his face, he evidently seemed much affected. Crowder also seemed much agitated towards the last, as did Withers a little, which he evinced by a restlessness in standing. 

It is to be hoped that the dreadful example now made, here and at Nottingham, will operate in putting an end to a system which has caused so much terror and alarm in this and a neighbouring county, and that Justice will now be satisfied. For ourselves, we are of opinion, with a celebrated writer, that "It is not the intenseness of the pain that has the greatest effect on the mind, but its continuance; for our sensibility is more easily and more powerfully affected by weak but repeated impressions, than by a violent, but momentary, impulse;" and consider we that "the death of a criminal is a terrible but momentary spectacle, and therefore a less efficacious method of deterring others, than the continued example of a man deprived of his liberty, condemned, as a beast of burthen, to repair, by his labour, the injury done to society. If I commit such a crime, says the spectator to himself, I shall be reduced to that miserable condition for the rest of my life. A much more powerful preventative than the fear of death, which men always behold in distant obscurity." 

A troop of Huzzars were in attendance on the above occasion, and we understand the Yeomanry Cavalry were also in readiness in case any attempt to rescue or disorder should have been made.—happily, however, the whole passed over without any interruption, the unfortunate malefactors having experienced every accommodation which the humanity of the High Sheriff and the Gaoler, was capable of affording under such circumstances. 

The execution being generally understood to take place on Monday, thousands of persons from all parts of this and adjoining counties thronged the town on that day. The postponement of the execution, it seems, was in consequence of the County Sessions commencing the early part of the week. It is computed not less than 15,000 persons were present on Thursday.

The Nottingham Review of Friday 18th April 1817:

LEICESTER, April 17, 1817.—"This morning about six o'clock, the six Luddites under sentence of condemnation, viz. Thomas Savage, William Withers, Joshua Mitchell, William Towle, John Crowder, and John Amos, together with Thomas Beavington, (for Arson) were removed, under an escort of dragoons, from the County Gaol, to the County Bridewell, preparatory to their being executed on the new drop. The Luddites appeared very cheerful, singing hymns most of the way as they passed along. Beavington seemed very dejected. In the course of the morning a greater concourse of people assembled than was ever known in this town, supposed at least, twenty thousand, to witness the melancholy spectacle. At about half past eleven o’clock, they all came on the platform, accompanied by Rev. Mr. Highton, Chaplain to the Gaol, Rev. Mr. Mitchell, Rev. Mr. Vaughan, &c. After attending the exhortations and prayers on the occasion, which they did with becoming behaviour, Savidge thanked the Ministers, &c. for their kindness and attention, on behalf of himself and fellow sufferers, and particularly for pointing out to them the way to heaven; he said he had intended to have addressed the multitude, but the time being too far gone, he should say very little; he declared their innocence as to the shooting at Asher. Amos said a few words and declared the same—Mitchell also said a few words.—Beavington declared his innocence, calling God to witness, and with his eyes lifted to heaven, said he did not set fire to the stacks. After these declarations, Amos with a firm voice, said he would now give out a hymn, desiring the people to join in singing the same, which was very readily complied with by many. The hymn was Dr. Watts, 90th hymn, 2d book, which begins, 

"How sad our state by nature is,

Our sin how deep it stains;

And Satan binds our captive minds,

Fast in his slavish chains." 

"They all joined and sang the hymn, apparently without faltering; after which at about a quarter past twelve o'clock, the signal being given, the platform fell, and they were launched into eternity;—during the time they were on the platform, they recognised several of their friends, and threw oranges to them, desiring to be remembered to their friends in Nottingham. 

“Every thing was very peaceable—the dragoons attended the platform."

Finally, the Leicester Journal of Friday 18th April 1817:

Expectation was on tiptoe, and curiosity afloat throughout the County and its vicinity, on Monday last, from his supposition that seven of the Malefactors (convicted at the last Assizes) would be executed on that day, an immense influx of people poured in from all quarters, in consequence, during the morning, (many of them from a considerable distance.)—but came to be disappointed. The Sessions for the County taking place in the early part of the week, their execution was postponed until yesterday. At six o'clock in the morning, Thomas Savage, William Withers, William Towle, John Amos, John Crowther, and Joshua Mitchell, LUDDITES, together with Thomas Beavington, for wilfully setting fire to a stack of oats, were removed from the County Gaol, under a military escort, to the New Bridewell, near the Infirmary.—The High Sheriff attended at seven o'clock, to see that the Prisoners had every accommodation consistent with their situation.—The LUDDITES were deeply impressed with the approach of the awful moment, and were very attentive to their devotion, in which they were assisted by the Chaplain, Mr. Hayton, together with the Rev. Mr. Vaughan and Mitchell. Savage acknowledged the justice of his sentence; and expressed himself grateful for the religious instruction he had received from the Rev. Messrs. Hayton, Vaughan, and Mitchell. At half past eleven they appeared upon the scaffold—after bowing to the populace—Savage addressed the multitude, cautioning them against inattention to religion, and neglect of the Sabbath, to which he attributed his own [illegible]. Mitchell was desirous of reading a paper, which was not permitted. Amos told the people, that he and his companions suffered for a crime which they never committed, (alluding to the firing at Asher,) but they all acknowledged to have been at Loughborough, and engaged in the business as proved on the trial. They all then sung an hymn, and were shortly after launched into eternity.—Their deportment to the last, although apparently repentant, savored strongly of hardy indifference.—The immense number present (at least ten thousand) behaved with great decorum, and dispersed perfectly quiet; too much praise cannot be given to the Civil Power, for the judicious arrangements adopted.

1st April 1817: "I, Daniel Diggle..." - Daniel Diggle's confession

I, Daniel Diggle, being about to suffer death, and fearing that I may not be able to unburthen my mind at the place of execution, have requested a friend to write down the following remarks and confessions, to be made public after my decease.

I freely acknowledge my guilt with respect to the particular crime for which I am to suffer; yet I declare, that when I entered Kerry’s house, I had no intention of taking away his life, and that I never thought of injuring him, until he seized Woolley.

I also acknowledge that I was guilty of the attack upon Lord Middleton's gamekeeper, and that I have been engaged in most of the framebreakings, which have taken place in this neighbourhood during this last eight months: but I never was engaged in Luddism, previous to that time: I do not however, publicly mention the names of my associates, as it is my most anxious hope, that they will take warning from my unhappy fate, and escape the miseries and disgrace which I now experience.

I would exhort with the earnestness of a dying man, not only my immediate companions, but all who have been engaged in Luddism, to break off from practices, which only involve themselves, and others, in trouble and ruin. When they observe a young man just 21 years of age, and who has only been married about as many weeks, brought to the scaffold, by those very practices—when they see the anguish of my afflicted wife and parents—when they pass by the church-yard of Basford, and observe the graves of Bamford, Towle, and myself—and when they consider the perilous state of those now confined in Leicester gaol, surely they will forsake their wicked course, and all who may have furnished money, or liquor, as an incentive incentive to crime, will be induced to repent of their cruelty. We have been often told that Luddism would benefit trade, but I most earnestly beseech all my acquaintance, as the last request I shall ever make of them, to consider it, as leading, insensibly, to the commission of the worst crimes, even murder itself.

Almost the only comfort that I now experience, is that the life of an innocent man was not sacrificed; and as I consider Kerry, and those who gave evidence against me, as instruments in the hand of Almighty God, in bringing me to justice, it would greatly increase my present sufferings, could I suppose that any should bear them ill will, or malice, on my account.

I feel very grateful to Lord Middleton for his tenderness towards my brother; and I confidently hope from the change of mind which took place in Nathan, whilst he was in prison, that there will be no occasion to bring him a second time before a bar of justice.

If any who have visited me in prison, have fought from my silence and reserve, that I did not feel my situation sufficiently, I can assure them that I now weep bitterly for my crimes, and fervently implore forgiveness at the tribunal of HIM, who once pardoned a dying criminal, and who will not, I hope condemn me, although so guilty a sinner, "TO THE BITTER PAINS OF ETERNAL DEATH."

Witness, THOMAS WRIGHT.

DANIEL DIGGLE.

County Gaol, Nottingham, Tuesday, April 1, 1817.

30th March 1817: Hoveringham Framework-knitters appeal to Hosiers to raise their wages

AN ADDRESS

Of the FRAMEWORK-KNITTERS in HOVERINGHAM,

AND ITS VICINITY.

TO THE GENTLEMAN HOSIERS.

GENTLEMEN—To your humane Feelings we address ourselves, because the little ray of Hope we had left is somewhat revived, on hearing of a Demand for our Labour: we say our Hopes are revived, because you, Gentlemen, have often cheered us by promising an Advancement of Wages when there came a Demand. Then what shall we say, Gentlemen, to excite your Compassion; shall we picture the particular Circumstances of our Family Distresses, which you will find, buy a strict Investigation, to be without a Parallel! No! a Reflection on our present Miseries, would not only hurt your humanity, but give us increased sorrow. Gentleman, we beg leave to submit to your Consideration an average Statement of our scanty Earnings. You know, Gentlemen, we cannot average at the most more than Nine Shillings per Week, at the first Hand, and when the Deductions are taken off, such as Frame Rent, &c. there cannot remain more than Six Shillings and Sixpence, and when House Rent, Coals, Candles, &c. there cannot remain more than Two Shillings; and if we average the married Man's Family at Two Children, there remains only Sixpence per Head, for a Man, his Wife, and Two Children for the Week!

We feel no pleasure, Gentlemen, in drawing up such a Statement, only we remember with what pleasure you came forward on former Occasions, and advanced our Wages, when our Wants were not half so pressing, as they are at the present time. Gentlemen, we rely upon your goodness, and humbly hope you will lift us up (at least) one Step towards the Comforts of Life.

On the behalf of the Trade, and our Fellow (suffering) Workmen, we are, Gentlemen, sincerely and respectfully, your obedient and humble Servants,

JOSEPH HALLAM,
THOMAS KITCHIN,
WILLIAM FOSTER,
THOMAS DODD,
THOMAS PARKINS,
WILLIAM HALLEWAY,
THOMAS MARTIN.

Hoveringham, 30th March, 1817.

8th February 1817: The owner of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton, is released from Northampton Gaol after a year's imprisonment

On Thursday 8th February 1817, the owner of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton, completed his sentence of a year's imprisonment for political libel, and was released.

During that time, he had been held in the debtor's ward at Northampton Gaol. The Nottingham Date Book (1852, p.318) makes it clear that it had been far from an ordeal, as Sutton had "received every indulgence, short of liberation, that he desired."

25th January 1817: Both Nottinghamshire newspapers publish editorials about the 'Loughborough Job' arrests

On Saturday 25th January 1817, both Nottinghamshire newspapers published editorials with varying degrees of detail. 

From the Tory Nottingham Journal:

We congratulate our readers on the proceedings of last week, as respects the Luddites, and confidently anticipate that a death blow will shortly be given to that nefarious system, which has so long disgraced this town and neighbourhood, and has been of such incalculable injury to the manufacturer, the mechanic, and the public at large. We have reason to believe, that in consequence of the ample confession made by James Towle, immediately before his execution at Leicester, on the 20th November last, the ten men now in custody, charged with the outrage at Loughborough, have been apprehended. As there can be no lasting friendship amongst the wicked, it is not to be wondered at, that the link between these disturbers of the public peace have hitherto been held together, should be broken. These companions in iniquity are impeaching one another; and there is little doubt but the whole of their past proceedings, with the names of the principal actors, will soon be known to the Magistrates. We incline to think, indeed, that it is the case already, at least to a very considerable extent.

From the Nottingham Review:

We find that JAMES TOWLE, on the morning previous to his execution, made a full and particular disclosure, to the High Sheriff of Leicestershire, and to a Justice of the Peace for that county, of every person, directly or indirectly, concerned in the felony and destruction at Mr. HEATHCOAT’S factory at Loughborough, and of the Luddites in general, which has been kept secret until it could be made subservient to the ends of justice. He died penitent; assured the Gentlemen that what he had stated to them was true, observing, it could be of no service to him then to say what was false, and lamented that he had not made this discovery sooner, to have saved his life; his comrades are now dong so; the Luddites are impeaching one another, and the Magistrates are in possession, we are credibly informed, of their whole history. Of the 15 men now apprehended, ten are charged with the offence at Loughborough. It is hoped that the wicked and mischievous proceedings of the Luddites are now at an end: they have driven the best part of our manufactory from the town, and the destruction of the property employed in the trade, has injured the great bulk of the manufacturers and, the public in general. We hope and trust that the time will be revived, when the ingenuity and industry of our mechanics will again raise the trade of this Empire above the rest of the world; and we feel confident, that the skill of the workmen will be powerfully aided by the great capital this country can bring into trade, whenever it can be done with security, and the master and servant are free to make what contracts they may choose to enter into with each other. As none of the men have yet been examined before the Magistrates, we decline entering into further particulars until next week.

22nd December 1816: The death of John Blackner - a 'General Ludd'?

A mezzotint of John Blackner, after an original by R Bonington.

On Sunday 22nd December the Nottingham Review journalist & historian John Blackner died at his home & business, the Rancliffe Arms in Turn-Calf Alley (latterly Sussex Street) in Nottingham at the early age of about 47.

Originally from Derbyshire, Blackner occupied a unique place in the politics and society of Nottinghamshire during the Luddite period. Born in 1770, a native of Ilkeston in Derbyshire, Blackner’s original profession was an apprentice framework-knitter, before turning to lace-making when he moved to Nottingham in 1792. A heavy drinker throughout his life, Blackner was not averse to illegalism, having frequently turned to poaching to make ends meet when the drinking left his family short of money. Previously illiterate, after his arrival in the Town Blackner set about learning to read and write, and a few years later had become eloquent enough to publish political pamphlets. A political radical, Blackner was a regular contributor to the Nottingham Review newspaper from 1808, but his political engagement went beyond words in print and into industrial organising: in 1810, he was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for conspiring to resist wage reductions in the lace trade.

Blackner also represented the trade at the highest level, when he took part in making submissions to Parliament as part of the Committee on the Petitions of the Framework-knitters, alongside Gravenor Henson and others. He was interviewed on 15th May 1812. Two months later, he became editor of Daniel Lovell’s London-based newspaper ‘The Statesman’, although this was short-lived due to increasing ill-health. Thereafter, Blackner returned to Nottingham to write for the Review again, and run a public house, the Rancliffe Arms (previously the ‘Bull’s Head’), which he had taken over in 1813.

In the last few years of his life, Blackner was no stranger to controversy. In 1814, the target of an attack by Luddites in Leicestershire, Simon Orgill, all but accused Blackner of orchestrating the raid (though not directly by name). Blackner responded furiously to the accusations in an article for once bearing his name, but Orgill was not satisfied and even took his concerns to the neighbouring authorities in Nottinghamshire, who passed them on to the Home Secretary.

Possibly the most serious affair Blackner was concerned in led to the jailing of his employer, the proprietor of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton. Again in 1814, the paper published a satirical  letter from ‘General Ludd’ to the Editor (i.e. Blackner). The letter posited that the General’s son, Ned, had enlisted in the army and has been sent to fight in the colonial wars in North America, and was now being lauded for destroying Washington, ironically by the same people who had decried his lawless efforts in Nottinghamshire but a few years before. The government, at the behest of the Nottingham solicitor Louis Allsopp, decided to prosecute Sutton as the publisher of the letter, and he was eventually jailed for 12 months for ‘seditious libel’. Throughout all of his, Blackner was never identified as the author of the satirical letter, even by biographers, who seem to have overlooked the parallel fact that his eldest son, John, was a soldier who was killed in America whilst taking part in the operation against Washington.

Perhaps Blackner’s longest-lasting legacy is his work as a historian, having published the epic ‘History of Nottingham’ in 1815. In the last 18 months of his life, the years of heavy drinking had finally taken their toll on him and he became particularly unwell before his untimely death.

Blackner’s position in relation to Luddism is uncertain. Whilst the Review (and therefore, arguably, Blackner) had always been critical of the methods of the Luddites, their attempts to illustrate the predicament of the framework-knitters had lead to widespread criticism and perhaps go some way to explain the relentless attempts to prosecute Charles Sutton. It’s likely that he was to a degree involved, and many aspects of his life suggest connections: his advocacy for the trade at the political level, his deep involvement in the Union leading to his prosecution & imprisonment, and his days undertaking illegal activity (i.e. poaching) leave it hard to imagine he didn't move in those circles and knew some of those involved. Then again, other than over the Simon Orgill affair, his name never crops up in the correspondence between the local authority and the Home Office, and the infamous Nottingham spy never mentions him once. However, one of Blackner’s biographers, John Crosby, wrote this fascinating passage:

At the commencement of "Ludding" he assisted the deluded men with his advice and in other ways, thinking that the system of terror they sought to establish was more likely to operate on the minds of the hosiery masters than cool dispassionate reasoning, but he lived to see the folly of the attempt, and was sorry for the part he had acted.

It is likely that Blackner penned the article in the Nottingham Review that gave birth to the ‘Ned Ludd’ mythos, at least outside of the Luddite milieu: the article was published almost 5 years prior to his death and is the earliest example in print of the use of the name Ned Ludd. Seven days prior to this, Blackner had written a leading article introducing ‘General Ludd’ to the world. Perhaps, after all, Blackner was indeed a ‘General Ludd’ of a sort other than the one he gave fictional voice to in 1814? We may never know, but this fascinating character is surely long overdue a more lengthy and serious biography than those that already exist.

22nd November 1816: The Nottingham Review publishes a biographical report of James Towle, his execution & funeral

Execution of James Towle.

This unfortunate man, who, on Wednesday last, in the vigour of manhood, and prime of his days, paid the forfeit of his life to the offended laws of this country, was born at Old Basford, in this county, of honest and creditable parents; one of whom, the father, was, about two years ago, seized by the icy hand of death, and has therefore, happily been prevented from feeling the painful emotions which must agitate the parental breast, and tear every feeling of a father's heart, in the contemplation of the disgraceful end of a darling son; but the widowed bereaved mother, is left to struggle with all the anguish which such a catastrophe is capable of inspiring. HER feelings we will not attempt to describe; the death of a son, is painful under any circumstances; but in the present instance, after all the hopes that might have been excited by the long delay which has taken place since the awful sentence of the law was passed, the thorns, which tear her heart, must be beyond desscription terrible: the barbed arrow of sorrow has entered, which probably will never be extracted while wife remains.

Towle was apprenticed to his father, as a framework-knitter; and no particular circumstance marked his character until he arrived at manhood; but since that period, HIS LIFE has several times been in jeopardy, in consequence of his bad conduct, and immoral life. In the year 1814, he was accused of being one of the band of framebreakers that destroyed some frames in Mr Garton's house, in New Basford, the village in which Towle then lived, and at the Lent Assizes following, he was put the bar, in the County-hall, in this town, and tried for the offence; but after a long consultation, the Jury brought in a verdict of NOT GUILTY. In July, 1816, he was, however, again committed to prison on the charge for which he has now paid the penalty of the law. The offence having been perpetrated at Loughborough, he was of course confined in Leicester gaol, and on Saturday morning, August 10, about seven o'clock, he, along with John Slater Benjamin Badder, was put to the bar. The trial lasted upwards of twelve hours, and after Baron Graham, who presided, had given his charge, the Jury found Towle GUILTY OF AIDING AND ABETTING, BUT NOT OF FIRING THE PISTOL AT ASHER; and in consequence of the verdict, Baron Graham passed sentence of death upon him.

In the course of the trial, Mr. Denman, one of the counsel for the prisoners, made some objections to the wording of the indictment; and the prisoner was resspited, in order that the opinion of the twelve Judges might be taken on the subject. On the 13th of November, the case was argued in the Court of Exchequer, and the following reports of it is given in the London papers:—

"The twelve Judges sat in the Exchequer Chamber to hear arguments on the reserved case of James Towle, one of the men convicted before Mr. Baron Graham, at Leicester. The Prisoner was one of those persons connected with the frame-breakers, and was charged with several others, with shooting at certain of his Majesty's subjects with intent to kill them. The two points reserved were, first, that the Jury having found the Prisoner guilty of being present, but not of firing the pistol he could not be found guilty as a principle; and further, that on account of the word ‘feloniously’ being omitted in the accounts, charging him with being an aider and abettor, neither could be found guilty upon those counts.

"Mr Denman was heard at considerable length in support of the objections taken at the trial, and submitted, that the Prosecutors Counsel, by having put the question to the Jury, whether the prisoner was the person who fired the gun or not, and having drawn from them an opinion, must not now complain, if that opinion should prove fatal to the prosecution.

"Mr Reynolds, on the other side, argued in support the verdict Guilty; and contended, that the word ‘feloniously’ being mentioned in the first count, must be taken to be so connected with the words ‘then and there present aiding and assisting’ in the other counts, so as to over-rule them all. The Learned Counsel also contended, that this case came precisely under the provisions of the Black Act, and therefore, that all those aiding and abetting must be considered as principals. With respect to the question put to the Jury, and their finding upon it, the question itself was unnecessary, and the answer to it ought, in no way, to affect the verdict in any legal point of view."

The Judges being unanimous in their opinion, that the objections could not be sustained, the law was ordered to take its course. The unhappy man heard the result of the application with the utmost fortitude and composure; and constantly, whenever opportunity served, declared his innocence.—He several times expressed his thankfulness to Mr. Musson, the keeper, for the kind treatment he had received from him, which was all along distinguished by Mr. M’s characteristic humanity.

On Tuesday, the Rev. Mr. Highton, the chaplain to the County Gaol, preached what is termed the condemned sermon; and on the same morning, Towle took a very affecting farewell of his wife and four young children.

On Wednesday morning, he was taken, under an escort, in a chaise, to the building, an appendage to the New Bridewell now erecting, within a few yards of the west-end of the infirmary. At an early hour, great numbers assembled to see the new drop (which had been placed there only the day before) and kept increasing until twelve o'clock, when Towle, with a firm and undaunted step, came upon the platform, attended by the Sheriff and his deputy, the chaplain, the two gaolers, &c. after paying the utmost possible attention to the prayers of the chaplain, with a firm and audible voice, he gave out one of Dr. Watt's admirable hymns, beginning with—

"Oh! for an overcoming faith,
To cheer my dying hours;
To triumph o’er the monster death,
With all his frightful powers."

He gave out the whole of the hymn, two lines at a time, and joined in singing it with the utmost fervency. About half past twelve, every thing being ready the platform fell, and launched him into eternity, in the presence of an immense number of spectators, who conducted themselves in the most orderly manner, and without the least attempt a disturbance.

After hanging the usual time, his body was demanded by his cousin Josiah Towle, who before he could obtain it, was required to put his hand to the following document:—

"The corpse of James Towle having been delivered to me on behalf of his mother, who is desirous of interring it at Basford, I hereby undertake that the same shall be buried there before sunset to-morrow, with all possible privacy, and I hereby make myself responsible that there shall be no public exhibition, either previously to, or at the funeral, and particularly that the corpse shall not be detained in the town of Nottingham, but that the same shall be conveyed, as privately as possible, throughout that town, and in case of any disturbance taking place, in consequence of the conveyance or burial of the said corpse, I consent this paper may be produced in evidence against me.

“Dated this 20th of Nov. 1816.

            HIS
“JOSIAH + TOWLE”
          MARK

"I further engage that the corpse shall not be halted or detained at any other place between Leicester and Basford, than the following:—

“To bail for one hour at Rothley House.
“To put up for the night or bail at Costock.
“To bail for one hour at Bradmore and from thence to Basford without stopping."

The body was conveyed through Nottingham during the course of Wednesday night, and on Thursday afternoon, was committed to the earth in Basford church yard, by the side of his father, in the presence of thousands of spectators; every thing being conducted in the most peaceable and orderly manner.

16th August 1816: 'An appalling picture of distress' in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire

The Nottingham Review of 16th August 1816 published the following sobering passage about the distresses being experienced amongst framework-knitters in Sutton-in-Ashfield:

A Correspondent in a large village in this neighbourhood, has sent us the following appalling picture of distress; and we are sorry to say, we have every reason to believe, from the account given by an inhabitant of the place, who called upon us this week, that so far from the facts being too highly coloured, on an investigation they would be found to exceed the representation here given: we are told that one farmer in the parish is now paying 15s. per day, as a poor rate; and we know for a certainty, that for a smart house, the rental of which is 3l. 10s. a year, the tenant is paying between two and three shillings a week to the same rate. That such a state of things cannot long continue, must be evident to every reflecting mind:—"The situation of Sutton-in-Ashfield is truly miserable. There are no less than fourteen Sick Clubs or Institutions for the relief of each other in cases of inability to follow their occupations, containing above twelve hundred members, who have stopped paying and receiving during the present distress, for the want of employ, which renders it impossible for the greatest part of them to pay their contributions, and consequently must have been excluded, is such an expedient had not been resorted to. Many are in the practice of procuring fire fuel by going two or three miles to the coal pits with wheelbarrows, and some join in numbers at a cart or a waggon and divide them when they have drawn them home. Out of the number of almost two thousand frames, not one hundred have full employ; and those who have hitherto paid poor rates, are called upon to an extent of distress which is unparalleled."

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

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

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

THE KING v. CHARLES SUTTON. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st February 1816: Charles Sutton's final hearing at the Court of King's Bench

On Thursday 1st February 1816 & three months after Charles Sutton's application to have the guilty verdict against him set aside had been considered, his appeal had now reached the final decisive hearing at the Court of King's Bench in London:

The King against Sutton 

AN information filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant for publishing a malicious and seditious libel, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, was tried before Graham B. at the last Nottinghamshire assizes. The information alleged, that at divers and very many times before the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel, &c. (to wit) in 1811 and 1812, divers and very many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly and ill-disposed persons, in and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, against the property of divers of his majesty's subjects, and particularly against the frame-work knitted stocking, and frame-work lace manufactory, whereby the property of many of the subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and that divers of the persons engaged and suspected to be engaged, in the perpetration of such outrages, had been reputed to act under the direction of some supposed and unknown person, called General Ludd, and had been commonly called Luddites, &c., and that there was war between this country and the United States of America, and that the defendant, unlawfully and maliciously intending to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of the king, against the king and his government, and to bring the government of the king into public hatred and contempt, and to excite persons to break the peace, and to commit acts of violence and outrage, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously printed and published the scandalous and seditious libel, which it set forth, and which was in the form of a letter from General Ludd to the editor of the Nottingham Review, contrasting the conduct of his son Ned, then serving (as the letter stated) in his majesty's forces under a commission to exercise his prowess against the Americans, with the conduct of himself and his family in their united efforts in breaking frames, that while these were commented on with severity, the scales were turned, and their enemies converted into friends, and sung a new tune to an old song, and the deeds of his son were trumpeted forth in every loyal paper, and his son was not now confined to the breaking a few frames, having the sanction of government, &c., and it concluded,—"though by the bye I am of opinion that all which I and my son have done in Nottingham and the neighbourhood, is not half so bad as what my son has done in America, but then you know he has supreme orders from indisputable authority for his operations in America, and that makes all the difference." Signed Gen. Ludd,

And in order to prove the introductory allegation as to the acts of outrage, the king's proclamation, dated 18th Dec. 1811, and the preambles to two acts of parliament, were offered in evidence. The proclamation recited that it had been represented to the Prince Regent that a considerable number of persons, chiefly composed of persons employed in the stocking manufactories, had for some time past assembled together in a riotous and tumultuous manner, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham, and likewise in several parts of the counties of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, for the purpose of compelling their employers to comply with certain regulations prescribed by themselves with respect to work and the wages to be paid for the same, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, and had actually committed various acts of outrage in different parts of the counties above mentioned, whereby the property of many of the subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and their lives and properties were still greatly endangered; and the proclamation went on to offer a reward for the discovery and apprehension of persons concerned in such proceedings. The preamble to the first act, 52 G. 3. c. 16. recited, "that the provisions of the 28 G. 3. for the better protecting stocking frames, &c., and for the punishment of persons destroying or injuring such stocking frames, &c. had been found ineffectual, and that such outrages had for some time past been carried on to an alarming extent." The preamble to the second act, 52 G. 3. c. 17. recited, "that considerable numbers of disorderly persons had for some time past assembled themselves together on different occasions in a riotous and tumultuous manner, in several parts of the county of Nottingham, and in the town and county of the town of Nottingham, and in the adjoining counties, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, and had actually committed various acts of outrage in different parts of the said counties, whereby the property of many of his majesty's subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and their lives and properties were still endangered." 

And it was objected that these documents were inadmissible for the purpose for which they were offered in evidence; for non constat that the acts of outrage recited in them did really exist, and if they did they were capable of other proof. The learned Judge admitted the first as being an act of the state founded upon the existence of outrages recited in it, and the others as tending to shew the notoriety of their existence. Evidence was also given by several witnesses, one of whom deposed to the existence of outrages in breaking frames in 1811 and 1812, and to his having seen the name of General Ludd chalked on the walls of Nottingham, and having seen songs respecting him; and that he was present at and assisted in the apprehension of some of the rioters at Sutton Ashfield, which is about fourteen or fifteen miles from Nottingham, who were running away from a place near to which he afterwards saw many frames broken, and that he heard them call themselves Luddites, and speak of General Ludd. Another witness spoke of having in 1811 seen riots at Sutton Ashfield, and frames broken there; and a third witness deposed to a transaction on the 12th of February 1812, at Nottingham, when about a dozen persons armed and disguised came into his father's house, and broke the frames, and that one called the other Ned, but he did not hear them call themselves Luddites, nor that they mentioned the name of General Ludd. Another witness also proved that he had heard General Ludd much talked of, and that he considered him to be a fictitious person, set up by the persons who committed the outrages in this neighbourhood, as their supposed leader. Upon this evidence, and proof of the publication of the libel, and the innuendos, it was found against the defendant. 

And in the last term it was moved by Denman that there should be a new trial; first, because of the improper admission of the evidence objected to at the trial. For the proclamation does not even state as a fact that outrages did exist, but only that it was represented that they did; but if it had stated the fact, it would make no difference, because it could not be proof of the truth of the fact . Even the certificate of the king under his sign manual of a matter of fact (except in one old case in Chancery, Hob. 213.) has been always refused, (a) And it appears by that old case that it passed without exception. Also the preambles ought not to have been received, because recitals in acts of parliament are not evidence of facts, but only of the opinion of the legislature. For instance, if one of these acts had recited that any particular house in Nottingham had been tumultuously destroyed, would this be evidence that the thing was so? As well might it be said that the insulting and arresting the person of the Russian ambassador, recited in 7 Ann. c. 12., or the stabbing of Harley by Anthony de Guiscard, recited in 9 Ann. c. 16., with the circumstances attending each of those transactions, might have been proved by the preambles to those acts of parliament, as evidence of the facts against the persons who were charged with having committed them; for if these recitals be evidence for one purpose, they must be so for all. Next, it was objected that the allegation, that acts of outrage were committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, was not proved, for the place to which the proof applies is fourteen or fifteen miles from thence, and therefore cannot be fairly said to be in the neighbourhood. Lastly, it was objected, that the Judge had misdirected the jury, because in the course of his summing up, he had stated to them that they were at liberty to refer to their own personal knowledge, if they saw any of those acts committed. Which doctrine, however it may have prevailed in ancient times, has been long exploded, and is incompatible with modern practice. (b)  

The Attorney-General, Clarke, Vaughan Serjt., Reader, and Reynolds now shewed cause, when it appearing by the Judge's report, that he did not refer the jury to their own personal knowledge, as matter of proof, for he stated that he conceived there was proof enough without it, but only as illustrating that which had been given in evidence, they contended that here was no misdirection. For is it meant to be said that a juryman is bound to reject all he knows, and is not at liberty, like other men, to use his own experience, in judging whether any particular facts which have been proved, are true? As if a fact which is perfectly notorious be proved by witnesses, is not the very notoriety one step towards the conclusion that the witnesses speak true? And even if the jury have received improper evidence, as where one of them, after the withdrawing of the jury, offered evidence to the others, yet if the Judge reports that the verdict is according to the evidence, a new trial shall not be granted, (c) And as to the admissibility of the evidence, the king's proclamation is an act of state, of which all ought to take notice (d); for it is a principle that every thing which relates to 'the king, as king of this country, is in its nature public, and therefore a gazette which contains any thing done by the king, in his character of king, or which has passed through the king's hands, is admissible evidence in a court of law to prove such thing, (e) Thus the journals of the House of Lords were admitted to prove the address to the king, and the king's answer to the House, in order to make out an averment in the indictment that divers controversies existed between his late majesty and his allies, and the king of Spain, (f) In like manner, as every man in England is, in judgment of law, party to the making of an act of parliament (g), and the preamble is a part of the act itself, surely these preambles were evidence to shew that the enactments were founded upon the mischiefs recited in them. And that such mischiefs did exist was proved by the testimony of eye-witnesses: as it said indeed, not in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, because they were fourteen or fifteen miles off; but this is, in a popular sense, the neighbourhood, agreeing with one definition of that word, viz. "Those that live within reach of communication." (h) 

Denman and Phillipps, contra, argued that it was plain, that both the proclamation and preambles must have been offered in proof of the averments in the information, because the averments are laid in the very same words: and though these documents might be evidence that the executive government and the legislature acted upon certain representations made to them, this by no means proves what the information alleges, that the facts represented were true, but only that the government and legislature gave credit to them; for if they could be carried farther, they would have greater weight than judgments, which are not evidence of any collateral matter. And as to their proving that the facts were notorious, if by that is meant a notoriety such as exists in general rumour, then the jury ought not to have taken that into their consideration; if it be meant that all the world knew them, then à fortiori they might and ought to have been proved. For to assume that the recital in every act of parliament is even primá facie evidence of the facts recited in it, would lead to very extensive consequences, and might sometimes perhaps bring the truth into hazard; as if the statute which passed at the dissolution of monasteries, should be taken as evidence of the fact that the abbots and priors, &c. of their own free and voluntary minds, and without constraint, &c. surrendered to the king, because the statute so recites. (i) So the preamble to a modern statute (j) recites, that Malta is now in the possession of his majesty, when it might have happened that at that time it was in the enemy's possession. And it is singular that one of the preambles now in question should have recited that these disorders pervaded the county of Nottingham and the adjoining counties, so that if this were evidence it might be adduced as proof that they existed in Lincolnshire, when it is perfectly well known that that county has been entirely free from them. But it may be asked, what peculiar force is there in the preamble of an act of parliament, that it should attract to it verity in every particular? It is but matter of inducement, and cannot be founded upon oath, for neither branch of the legislature can for this purpose administer an oath; whereas all evidence ought to be upon oath; and no instance is stated to warrant the admission of a recital either in an act of parliament or proclamation to prove a fact in issue. If indeed a mere act of state is to be proved, as that addresses were presented to his majesty (k); or a matter of diplomacy, as that the country stood in any particular situation with regard to its foreign relations (l); which are the cases cited contra; these from their nature can only be proved by state documents; but how does this apply to facts like the present? And as to the argument that there is evidence enough without these documents to sustain the verdict, whatever may be the rule as to that in civil actions, there is no such rule in criminal cases; on the contrary, the rule here is, that if amidst evidence which was proper to be given, evidence which was inadmissible was received, inasmuch as the Court cannot know upon what part of it the verdict was founded, nor even that the jury may not have disbelieved so much of it as was lawful, and acted upon that which ought to have been rejected, a new trial shall go. Also, in addition to the objection that there is no proof to sustain the allegation that outrages were committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, there is this defect in the proof of the allegation concerning those which were committed in Nottingham, that they are not proved to have been committed by persons called Luddites, or that they were acting under a supposed and unknown person called General Ludd; for all that is proved upon that subject is, that General Ludd was chalked on the walls; but the evidence negatives that any such name was mentioned at the time, or that any one of the party was called a Luddite. There is nothing therefore to connect these persons with this name, or as acting under General Ludd. So the allegation concerning the person called General Ludd is disproved; for the alleging that he was a supposed and unknown person, imports that he was an existing person; whereas it was proved that such a person was altogether fictitious. 

Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. If in this case I had been able to detect any particle of proof that ought not to have been offered to the consideration of the jury, I should have thought such vicious proof would have corrupted the verdict and avoided it. But after the utmost attention, I am unable to discover that there is any vice in any particle of this evidence. The material objection upon which the rule was obtained, was founded upon a supposed misdirection of the learned Judge at the trial, viz. that he had referred, in aid of some defect of evidence, to the personal knowledge which the jurors might possess, for proof of the fact that outrages had been committed in Nottingham; for as to their having been also committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, I do not think that it is material to prove both. It now appears however from the report, that the Judge did not lay any stress on the personal knowledge which the jury might be supposed to possess in order to aid any defect of evidence. On the contrary, it appears that he considered the evidence as fully sufficient to establish a verdict in favour of the crown; only he made the observation with reference to what they knew, as a matter of illustration, that it formed a part of the history of the county, that such outrages had been committed; as if he had said, every one must be aware of what has passed before their own eyes, and at their own doors; but he did not advise them to rely on that as a source of information on which they were to found their verdict, but only that it might make the proof more satisfactory to their minds, if they knew what had passed, because no one can have any reason to doubt what he knows and sees. It is conclusive, I think, upon the report, that the Judge did not leave this to the jury as forming a branch of evidence of itself. Next it is objected, that the acts of parliament were not evidence. For what purpose, then, are the Judges bound to take judicial notice of public acts of parliament, but in order that they may have a knowledge of them themselves, and communicate it to others? The Judge is bound not only to take judicial notice of their contents himself, but also to state the same to the jury; for if he is not to state them, for what purpose is he to take notice of them? According to the argument for the defendant, the Judge would be bound to take notice of them, yet would be precluded from stating them. I do not say how far this evidence was conclusive; I only say that it was admissible. Public acts of parliament are binding upon every subject, because every subject is, in judgment of law, privy to the making of them, and therefore supposed to know them, and formerly the usage was for the sheriff to proclaim them at his county court; and yet what every subject is supposed to know, and what the Judge is bound judicially to take notice of, it is said the jury cannot advert to; for if this evidence was inadmissible, it must be because the jury could not be charged with it. Next, as to the proclamation, I consider it as an act of state. The proclamation recites, that it had been represented to the Prince Regent, that a number of persons had committed various acts of outrage in the town, and in different parts of the county of Nottingham, &c.; and that the Prince Regent has thought it necessary to propound certain rewards for the discovery and conviction of the persons concerned in such proceedings. The propounding of these rewards necessarily implies that such acts of outrage have actually been committed, for otherwise it would have been nugatory to propound them. I do not say that it was conclusive evidence of the fact that these outrages were committed; but surely it was admissible, and like other acts of state to be laid before the jury. Next, as to the proof of the allegation that the persons committing these outrages were denominated Luddites; this was proved by eye-witnesses, and the very name of General Ludd on the walls confirms the common reputation that he was the supposed head of the persons acting under the denomination of Luddites. It is said, the information alleges that this was some supposed unknown person, and that it was not proved that there was any such person, but on the contrary, that he was altogether fictitious; but yet he was supposed to have existence for the purpose of carrying on these outrages, and whether he existed as a real or a fictitious person can make no difference. We read of the fancied existence of gnomes and sylphs, who are imaginary beings created and existing for the purpose of the plot they are to carry on, and who for this purpose at least must be treated as realities. In like manner this person had an existence, though it was created, and existing only in fiction for a particular purpose. Mr. Hobhouse said that he did not believe that there was actually such a person, but that he was set up as a person for the purpose of carrying on these outrages. It seems to me, therefore, that all the allegations and descriptions are made out in proof, and that there is not any part of this evidence to which it can fairly be excepted that it was inadmissible. And if this be so, I do not think that on account of an observation made to the jury by the learned Judge ex abundanti cautelá, this verdict ought to be disturbed. The report has cleared the case of the objection upon which the Court was principally induced to grant the rule. As it now stands, I am satisfied that the verdict was founded upon sufficient evidence, and that there has been no misdirection. 

LE BLANC J. This is an application for a new trial after conviction upon an information charging the defendant with having published a seditious libel. The application is grounded upon three objections; first, on account of the admission of evidence which ought not to have been admitted; secondly, because of the want of proof of certain allegations in the information; and thirdly, because the jury were referred to certain knowledge of their own as matter of evidence. This rule was granted upon a ground which I think cannot be disputed as a rule of law, namely, that if a verdict in a criminal proceeding like the present passes upon evidence, some parts of which are inadmissible and other parts admissible, the Court has not the means of referring the verdict to those parts only which were admissible, and it is their habit in such a case to grant a new trial. Therefore it becomes very material in this case to examine whether any evidence was received which ought not to have been received; and in considering this it is in the first place material to advert to the nature of the libel. It is a libel in the form of a letter from General Ludd to the editor of the Nottingham Review, reflecting on the conduct of his majesty's government, by comparing the conduct of the military serving in America, with the conduct of certain persons acting in Nottingham and the neighbourhood under the description of Luddites, representing that the son of the supposed writer who was serving in his majesty's forces in America, was now applauded for acts done by him in that country, similar to those for which the persons called Luddites were condemned in this country. Such is the nature of this libel. The first introductory allegation is, that before the publishing of the libel, many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly persons in, and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, by the destruction of frames. Now as to the objection that so much of this allegation as respects the committing of outrages in the neighbourhood was not proved, a satisfactory answer has already been given to it, namely, that it is not necessary. But as to its not being proved, there was one witness who proved the forcible attack by an armed party upon a dwelling-house in the town of Nottingham, and their breaking the frames there, and two other witnesses proved outrages of the same sort to have been committed in the county of Nottingham, at about fifteen miles distant from Nottingham. Therefore, if it were necessary to prove both parts of this allegation, I should think the evidence was sufficient. The next allegation is, that divers persons engaged in these outrages had been reputed to act under some supposed and unknown person called General Ludd, and had been commonly called Luddites. As to which the parol evidence proved that in two instances the persons committing these outrages called themselves Luddites, and spoke of General Ludd, and that that name was also chalked on the walls of Nottingham. Now this seems to me sufficient to substantiate the allegation, that persons who committed the outrages called themselves Luddites: and the name of General Ludd being chalked on the -walls of Nottingham was also evidence of the other part of the allegation, that they were reputed to act under a supposed leader of that name. As to his being an unknown person, Mr. Hobhouse proved that some persons might suppose there was a real person of that name, but that he considered him only as a fictitious person. This was certainly evidence in support of the introductory allegation, unless encountered by evidence on the other side. And that brings me to another objection, viz. that here evidence was received which ought not to have been received. This evidence consists of the king's proclamation, reciting that it had been represented that certain disturbances caused by persons employed in the stocking manufactories had taken place in Nottingham and several parts of the county, and offering a reward for the discovery and apprehension of offenders. There are likewise two acts of parliament reciting in their preambles the existence of these outrages, and making provision in the body of them, the first, for the more exemplary punishment of persons committing these outrages, the second,' for the better preserving the peace, by enforcing the duties of watching and warding. When the nature of these documents is considered, is it possible to say that they were not admissible, particularly as the libel refers to the conduct of the persons called Luddites, in destroying frames in Nottingham and the neighbourhood, and compares that conduct with the conduct of the military in America? Are not the documents material to shew that these disturbances existed in Nottingham, and existed to such a degree as to call for the interference of the executive government, and the legislature, to offer reward for their discovery, and to inflict a more exemplary punishment upon them, and to protect the peaceable inhabitants by compelling the observance of watch and ward? Surely they were evidence for this purpose, when the inquiry respected a libel of the description laid in the information, tending, as it is charged, to alienate the minds of the subjects from the king and government, and to make them think that what had been condemned at Nottingham by the government, was held laudable in America; when, according to the language of the libel, they were singing a new tune to an old song. I cannot see therefore any ground on which these public instruments could be objected to as inadmissible. They seem to me to go clearly to prove the facts which are alleged, because they shew in what way the executive government and the legislature acted upon them. The last objection is, that the Judge at the trial of this information left it to the jury upon their own personal knowledge, as evidence of the fact, to determine that these outrages had been committed. The Judge's report is an answer to this objection, for it states that he never left it to the jury to determine on their own personal knowledge that acts of outrage had been committed, but that he left that question to them upon the evidence. But in order perhaps to obviate tome observations that might have been made to the jury, to induce them to disbelieve the witnesses who spoke to these transactions as having been eyewitnesses, the Judge might advert to facts which were notorious to them as doing away the weight of any such observations. It seems to me therefore that we ought not to grant a new trial in this case, and that in refusing it we are doing nothing but what is perfectly consistent with the rule, which I admit to be a fundamental one, that where improper evidence has been received at the trial, the Court cannot sift it in order to see whether there be not enough which was admissible to sustain the verdict; because they cannot say on what part of the evidence the verdict was founded. 

BAYLEY J. Although I have not been free from doubt at times, yet on the best consideration that I am able to give to this case, I think that no evidence was received that was not admissible. And if the evidence had been confined to one branch of the allegation, either to outrages in Nottingham, or in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, I should have thought it a divisible allegation, and that such evidence would have been sufficient. The fact of outrages having been committed was proved not only by eye-witnesses, but the libel itself furnished strong evidence, upon its own admission, that such outrages had been committed; because the libel adverts to the breaking of frames as existing acts; and then the supposed writer speaks of what he and his son have done in Nottingham, there being no other acts mentioned as done by him but the breaking of frames: so that the libel itself goes to shew that outrages of this sort had been committed. The question then is reduced to this, whether the verdict is ill on account of the admission ,of the king's proclamation, and the two acts of parliament, in evidence. The proclamation sets forth, that it had been represented to the Prince Regent that a number of persons, chiefly of those employed in the stocking manufactories, had actually committed various acts of outrage; it is therefore an assertion on the part of His Royal Highness, that such a representation had been made to him, and he proceeds to act upon it, by offering a reward for the discovery of such offenders. This I think was evidence to this extent, and no farther, that a representation was made to, the executive government that such outrages existed, and that the executive government thought fit to act upon it; for they so far acted as to promulgate an act of state upon it. Therefore I cannot say that it was to be rejected, where there was other evidence. The preambles to the two acts of parliament I think are still more free from objection than the proclamation, and they assume as facts that outrages did exist. When we consider in what manner an act of parliament is passed, and that it is a public proceeding in all its stages, and challenges public enquiry, and when passed, is in contemplation of law the act of the whole body, it seems to me that its recital must be taken as admissible evidence (m), and in this case was confirmatory evidence. There is one point upon which for some time I entertained a doubt, namely, as to the allegation that these persons were reputed to act under some supposed and unknown person, whether this did not imply an existing person; but what has fallen from my Lord and my brother Le Blanc, has in a great measure removed that doubt; and I am not so convinced that it does import. an existing person as to differ in any respect from the rest of the Court.

Rule discharged.

Having lost his appeal, the guilty verdict given against Sutton at the Nottinghamshire Summer Assizes of 1815 was upheld, and Sutton would be sentenced in 8 days time.

References:

(a) Per Willes C.J., Willes, 556.
(b) 3 BI. Com. 374.
(c) Kitchen v. Manwaring, cited Andr. 321. But as to whether a juryman's offering evidence to his companions without being sworn, will avoid the verdict, see 2 Hale P. C. 306. Sid. 235, Goodman v. Cotherington. Styles, 233, Bennet v. Hundred of Hertford. Tri. per Pais, 209, Duke v. Ventris. Salk. 405, Anon. Bull. N. P. 313.
(d) Wells v. Williams, Ld. Raym, 283 per Treby C. J.
(e) Rex v. Holt, 5 T.R. 445. Per Buller J
(f) Rex v. Franklin, 9 St. Tr. 259.
(g) 1 Bl. Com. 185.
(h) Johnson's Dict.
(i) 31 H. 8. c.13.
(j) 41 G. 3. c.103.
(k) Rex v. Holt, 5 T.R. 442.
(l) Rex v. Franklin, 9 St. Tr. 255.
(m) Sec Co. Lit. 19. b. as to the rehearsal of a statute.