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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23rd July 1812: The trial of Patrick Doring at York Summer Assizes

The Leeds Mercury of 25th July 1812, carried the details of the trial of Patrick Doring, who was accused of threatening the lives of Mary and Joseph Culpin after they had given evidence against the Luddite James Haigh. Again, William Cartwright gave evidence. It is not clear on what day the trial took place, although it was likely to be before sentencing on 24th July. NB - the article refers to Martha Culpin, rather than her actual name Mary - her relative contacted us to point this error out on a previous occasion.

PATRICK DORING, otherwise BELL,
was charged with endeavouring to prevent Martha Culpin from appearing to give evidence against James Haigh, charged with being concerned on the attack in the attack on Rawfolds Mill, by threatening, that if she appeared against him she would be shot.

Mr. Cartwright proved the riot, and the attack upon his mill on the 11th of April last.

Mr. Allison, attorney at law, Huddersfield, stated, that Martha Culpin had been examined on the charge against James Haigh, before Mr. Radcliffe, at Milnes-Bridge.

Mr. Staveley produced the warrant of the committal of James Haigh to the Castle, on the charge of being concerned in the riot and attack on Mr. Cartwright’s Mill.

Martha Culpin stated, that she lived at Penistone Green; has known the Prisoner two or three years. Witness has heard of the attack on Rawfolds Mill, and has been examined before Mr. Radcliffe, at Milnes Bridge, respecting James Haigh. About sunset of the same day she saw the Prisoner; he came to her house, and said, “Why, you have been at Milnes Bridge; you must know what you have been for; if you go again you will be obliged to go to York to give evidence; and if you do, take notice what I tell you—I know that the bullet is made with which you will be shot.” Prisoner said he had risked his life in telling her this. He further said, if she and her husband would go away, he would find a place where they would be safe. In consequence of what the Prisoner had said to her, she and husband went into Derbyshire, where they remained about a week; on their return home, which was on Tuesday, they received a summons to attend Mr. Radcliffe, at Milnes-Bridge, where they went and were examined. On the evening of their return, the Prisoner came to their house, and said, “What! you have been again, but you will catch it.” Prisoner, on the occasion, told her, that he had come near her house, with an intention of dressing James Haigh’s wound, but there were so many persons about the house that he durst not come in.

Joseph Culpin, the husband of the last Witness, stated, that on the day of their first examination before Mr. Radcliffe, he saw the Prisoner going towards his (the Witness’s) house, but did not see him go in; had no conversation with him. In consequence of some communication from his wife, they went into Derbyshire, where they remained a week; this was in the month of July. After their return, they were examined a second time before Mr. Radcliffe, and entered into a recognizance to appear at the Assizes in York. The Prisoner came to his house the same evening, and said to them, “What! you have been again; but you shall catch it.” Witness told the Prisoner it was no business of his, and desired him to go about his business. Prisoner then went away, swearing at them. Witness said James Haigh was part of a day at his house; he appeared to be unwell, but Witness did not know that he had been wounded.

The Prisoner had no Counsel, nor did he call any Witnesses. He addressed the Jury in his defence; he stated that he had attended Martha Culpin as a Medical Man three weeks, during which time he had furnished her medicines, and made a cure of her; but when he carried in his bill, she had not money to pay it, and gave him only a small part of it. He had several times requested payment of the remainder, but could not obtain it; one time in particular he pressed her closely for the payment, and which she said if he asked her for the money again she would swear his life away. Witness, upon this threat, went to Mr. Allison, attorney at law, Huddersfield, and desired him to write a letter to Culpin to demand payment. Prisoner proceeded to state, that as soon as he had taken this step, they preferred this charge against him, which, he said, was entirely without foundation, as he never had any conversation with on the subject, nor did even so much as know James Haigh; and that he delivered himself up as soon as he knew that a warrant was issued against him. The prisoner concluded his defence by saying, that there was no man or subject more dispose than himself to stand true to his King and Country.

The Witnesses on the part of the Prosecution were examined in support of the Prisoner’s defence. The note was proved to have been delivered to Martha Culpin, and the demand made by Mr. Allison, before the Culpins preferred any charge against the prisoner.

After his Lordship had recapitulated the evidence, the Jury, without retiring, found the prisoner—Guilty.

18th July 1812: The York Summer Assizes commence

Sir John Bayley c.1808

On Saturday 18th July 1812, the Summer Assizes commenced at York before Baron (Sir George) Wood & Sir John Bayley. Bayley was the Judge who presided over the Nottingham Lent Assizes, who was perceived as lenient by many members of the ruling class.

The Grand Jury included Henry Lascelles (as Foreman) and Joseph Radcliffe, amongst others.

A number of cases were connected with the Luddite disturbances:

James Wolstenholme, William Rodger, Mary Gibbons, John Rowans, Thomas Wilson, William Denton, Charles Parker, William Shirtcliffe, and William Groom were charged with rioting in Sheffield on 14th April 1812.

James Haigh, of Dalton, cropper, was charged with being strongly suspected of having been involved in attacking Rawfolds Mill on 11th April 1812.

Betty Wood, of Horbury, charged with riotously assembling, theft and incitement to riot at Horbury on 17th June 1812. Mary Ellis and Marty Wright were also charged with riotous assembly, assault and robbery on the same date.

James Oldroyd, of Dewsbury, clothier, charged with confessing his involvement in the attack on Rawfolds Mill on 11th April 1812.

Robert Grimshaw, labourer, charged with feloniously entering and setting fire to the cotton mill of John and Arthur Armistead, of Clapham on 20th May 1812.

Patrick Doring, aka Patrick Bell, late of Scholes, surgeon, charged with having threatened to shoot Mary & Joseph Culpin for their giving evidence against James Haigh.

There were also 2 cases of stabbing and shooting soldiers - Ann Gardner & Robert Dick respectively - although it is not clear if these were directly related to the disturbances.

In his address to the Grand Jury, Judge Bayley made comments about some of the cases which are worthy of publication:

No. 13, in the calendar, (James Haigh) is the case of a person committed on strong suspicion of being concerned in an attack upon a mill. On this I would remark, that if the evidence amounts only to what may be called a conjecture, or slight presumption, it would be advisable to throw out the bill; but it often happens that more evidence is laid before you than is contained in the depositions handed to me. You will consider the amount of the evidence, and if he be but slight, it would be better to reject the bill, unless you have reason to believe that you have all the evidence before you that can be collected on the case, because if you find the bill, and the party is tried and acquitted upon it, he can never be tried for that offence again, whatever evidence may come out; but if the bill is thrown out, he would be still amenable to the law, if subsequent evidence should render it expedient to apprehend him. I make these observations because it appears, from the depositions, that some persons refused to enter into recognizances to appear and give their evidence. It gives me concern to observe a disposition in any person to obstruct the course of Justice; and the Magistrates would have been justified, and I wish they had so acted, in committing the persons, thus refusing, to prison.

In No. 25, (James Oldroyd,) the evidence will probably mainly rest on the confession of the party, you will, therefore, inquire what corroborating circumstances there may be in the case, and whether the confession rests under the suspicion of being made by the undue influence of promises or threats.

With respect to the disturbances of which we have heard so much in this and the neighbouring counties, I do not observe that there are any cases in the Calendar of persons charged with being concerned in any recent outrage; and I am happy to find that the vigilance exercised by the Magistracy of this county, has already so materially checked and repressed this disposition to outrage, and I trust the exertion of the same vigilance will be effectual in totally suppressing those disorders. I feel, as an individual, no alarm on the subject. The machinations of those deluded and misled persons cannot ultimately succeed; they may produce for a time uneasiness and alarm, but must at length be put down; yet though on the ground of the public safety there is no ground of apprehension, it is highly desirable that the most prompt measures should be adopted to suppress these outrages, as their further continuance must bring down upon the persons concerned in them the most heavy and serious punishments.

If the labouring classes suffer from the high price of provisions, or have any other just ground of complaint, I am sure there will be found, in you and in the country, a disposition to afford them relief and redress. In no country (and I am proud to think I live in such a country) are the comforts of the poor more attended to, or more instant attention paid to their distresses than in this; and I am sure every practicable mode will be resorted to, to diminish the pressure they must feel from the high price of the necessaries of life. Gentleman, if, by submitting to little privations ourselves, we can contribute to this, we shall have the satisfaction of reflecting, that we have done nothing to increase these troubles, nay more, that we have done all in our power to remove them; and if those people should be so unwise and so ungrateful as to persevere in their measures of hostility, we shall have the consolation of having done our duty.

The trials would take place over the next few days.

8th July 1812: Further information is obtained from Joseph Barrowclough

In the morning of Wednesday 8th July 1812, Joseph Barrowclough was again re-examined and gave more information to the authorities.

Barrowclough named Patrick Doring - who had been arrested the day before in the West Riding for threatening witnesses - and another man called Benjamin Hinchliffe, as the "principle agents in plundering houses for arms" in the Holmfirth area. He named others too - John Shaw being the 'Enoch' (i.e. hammer-man) during the raids, and other men (Samuel Hague, Abraham Armitage, Robert Fitton & Robert Harling) taking part.

Barrowclough described how the commanding Luddites could be identified by their wearing a ribbon on their waistcoats. The ribbons were different colours for the different areas. He also gave more details of the sums of money he alleged were paid to Luddites - contributions being levied and then distributed at a rate of 14 shillings per week.

Lastly, as well as giving physical descriptions of one of the mysterious and anonymous Luddite leaders and a sympathetic printer, he also gave more information about another arms dump.

7th July 1812: Patrick Doring of Scholes arrested for intimidating witnesses

On Tuesday 7th July 1812, Patrick Doring of Scholes, aka Dr. Patrick Bell, was arrested. He was accused of intimidating Mary & Joseph Culpin to not give evidence against James Haigh, who was suspected of being involved in the attack on Rawfolds Mill - he was accused of threatening to shoot them both on the 13th June.

The following day, Doring was committed to York Castle to stand trial at the next Assizes.