12th December 1815: William Cartwright thanks the Home Secretary for the £300 reward sent to him

Rawfolds December 12. 1815

My Lord

I have the Honor to acknowledge the receipt of Three Hundred Pounds, convey’d to me, by your Lordships Directions, by Genl Wynyard, under Circumstances particularly grateful to my Feelings

To have been thought deserving of a Testimony by of the approbation of his Majesty's Government, I shall ever esteem, the highest Honor I could have receiv’d; & I trust, I scarcely need to add, that I feel confident no further Emergency will find me, hesitating to sacrifice every Private Convenience to a Sense of Duty. I have the Honor to be,

My Lord, very respectfully,
Your Lordships grateful
humble Servant
Wm Cartwright,

[To: Lord Sidmouth]

7th June 1813: "May the manufacturers and the machinery of Yorkshire ever be uninterrupted"

On Monday 7th June 1813, the respective Address of Thanks for William Cartwright & Joseph Radcliffe drawn up by West the Yorkshire bourgeoisie were presented to both men by a party that processed between their respective residences. The Leeds Mercury of 12th June carried a full account, which is below:

THE LATE DISTURBANCES.

On Monday the 7th instant, the Gentleman of the West-Riding assembled at Robertown, previous to the presentation of the Addresses of Thanks to JOSEPH RADCLIFFE, Esq. and to Mr. WILLIAM CARTWRIGHT, unanimously voted at the late public Meeting at the Yew Tree Inn, on the 17th May. The addresses were produced most numerously and respectably signed by the Gentleman of Leeds, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford and intermediate District; and the Chairman of the Meeting of the 17th ult. William Rawson, Esq. was requested to present them, accompanied by the Gentleman of the West-Riding. When the mode of presentation was settled, a Resolution was unanimously adopted, to request Mr. Radcliffe to sit for a full-length portrait, by one of the first artists, and that the picture should be placed in one of the Courts of Justice of the West-Riding. A place will be engraved, and proofs and copies given to the subscribers, according to the amount and order of their subscriptions.

The Gentleman then proceeded on horseback, two and two, to Rawfolds, which is in the immediate neighbourhood of Robertown, and alighted at Mr. W. Cartwright's.

Mr. Rawson then addressed that Gentleman as follows:—

"Mr. William Cartwright—In the name of the Gentleman of the West-Riding of the County of York, I present to you an Address of Thanks, for your conduct during the late disturbances, which Address Mr. Battye will read to you."

To Mr William Cartwright, of Rawfolds.

"We the undersigned Inhabitants of the West-Riding of the County of York, most heartily approve of your Conduct in defence of your property and person, against the unprincipled attack made upon Rawfolds Mill, in the dead of night of the eleventh of April, 1812.

"We offer you our sincere thanks upon this express ground, that we are persuaded your firm and courageous conduct on that occasion, greatly contributed to checked and disconcert the destructive objects of an armed and lawless combination, to secure property, ultimately to preserve many valuable lives, and to restore the peace and tranquillity of this district,"—May 17, 1813.

To this address Mr. W. Cartwright replied:

"GENTLEMEN,—It would be most consistent with my feelings, to receive in respectful silence this most highly flattering testimony of the approbation of the Gentleman of the West-Riding of the County of York; but I cannot omit to say, that in the defence of my private property, (which is a duty every man owes to society, and from which no heart can shrink without the absolute loss of character,) I could not flattered myself with a hope, that my exertions would have been thought to merit so distinguishing a mark of the public favour.

"Believe me, Gentlemen, I feel sensible, as I ought to do, of the honour which you confer upon me."

Mr. Knight then addressed Mr. Cartwright—"A Constable of Halifax, I have to present to you an Address of Thanks, agreed upon at a public meeting of the town and parish of Halifax, on the 12th day of May last, which Address Dr. Thomson will read to you."

"To Mr. William Cartwright, of Rawfolds.

"SIR,—We the undersigned inhabitants of the town and parish of Halifax, beg leave to express our high sense of your Services, when your Property and Life and the Lives of your Men were assailed at Rawfolds Mill, on the Night of Eleventh of April, 1812. Of your conduct on that occasion, there is but one opinion throughout the Empire. In that opinion your Neighbours and late fellow Townsmen most cordially concur. We join our regret with yours, that in the discharge of that arduous duty, events occurred most painfully to your human feelings. But you stood in self defence.

"The Town and Parish of Halifax highly appreciate your Services. They claim also to share with you in some degree the Sacrifices which you have made, and cannot consent that by the discharge of your Duty, the Comforts of your Family should be at all curtailed. May your future pursuits be uninterrupted and successful, and in the general Tranquillity, and in the Bosom of your Family, may you and they long enjoy that Health and Happiness, which during the recent Disturbances, were so greatly endangered and impaired."—Halifax, 12th May, 1813.

To which Mr. W. Cartwright replied:—

"GENTLEMEN,—"in accepting this highly flattering and delicate Address, permit me to offer you my warmest sentiments of Gratitude.

"During nearly twelve months of watchfulness, anxiety, and domestic privations, through every danger, and through the awful and much to be deplored scenes which present themselves in time to time, (under Divine Providence) a consciousness that I was performing an imperative duty, could alone have supported me.

"It will ever be the proudest feeling of my heart, my exertions have been thought to meet the notice of the Gentleman, whose Names are found in this highly valued Address.

"To you, individually, gentleman, permit me to offer my most sincere acknowledgements for this condescending mark of your attention to me. Believe me, it will be remembered with feelings of the most lively gratitude to the latest hour of my existence."

Colonel Thomas Ramsden, of the Halifax Local Militia, in which Mr. Cartwright commands a company, took him by the hand, and addressed him as follows:

"Captain Cartwright—In the name of the Officers and Men of the Halifax Local Militia, I thank you for the manner in which you have upheld the honour and character of the regiment."

Mr. Cartwright replied,

"I can only thank you, Colonel Ramsden, for the readiness with which you acceded to my application for arms and ammunition to defend my property, and for the confidence which you then expressed, that I would not shed blood unnecessarily."

After having partaken of some refreshment, and having shaken hands with Mr. and Mrs. Cartwright, the Gentleman proceeded through Robertown to Huddersfield. At the George Inn, a considerable number of Gentleman joined the cavalcade, which proceeded two and two, and made a very fine and interesting appearance, in winding down the valley to Milnes-bridge. On approaching the residence of Mr. Radcliffe, the gentlemen dismounted, and preceded by the Band of the South Devon Militia, under the kind and judicious direction of Colonel Lang, proceeded in order to the house. The band took its station on the lawn. Mr. Radcliffe met the Gentleman of the West Riding on the area, and invited them into the house. The large dining-room was filled.

Mr. Rawson then addressed Mr. Radcliffe as follows:—

"In the name of the Gentleman of the West Riding in the County of York, I have the honour to present to you an Address, expressive of their admiration of your conduct during the recent disturbances. Mr. Battye will read the Address."

"To Joseph Radcliffe, Esq.

"SIR—We the undersigned Inhabitants of the West-Riding of the County of York, most cordially concur in the high in general sense that is entertained of the essential Service which you have rendered to your Country by your public Conduct during the late Disturbances in this District.

"At a time of general doubt and uncertainty as to the nature, tendency, and extent of the Combination, which appeared to be formed against the Peace and Security of Persons and Property, and of considerable Alarm as to the result, you perceived and adopted the Measures best suited to the Crisis, and by your authority, advice, and example, gave efficacy to the Laws.

"We think it our duty to express to you our admiration of your disinterested Conduct, and to offer to you our warmest Thanks for your promptitude, judgement, decision, zeal, courage, and perseverance. We congratulate you upon the present Tranquillity, which your very meritorious Exertions have so greatly contributed to produce."—May 17th, 1813.

Mr. Radcliffe’s Reply.

"GENTLEMEN,—The greatest pleasure of my life having been to fulfil the duties of the public station in which I am placed, I cannot but feel this Mark of your Approbation as the most grateful Reward of my endeavours to preserve and restore the violated Peace of my Country.

"Let me, therefore, beg your acceptance of my best Thanks, the only return in my power for an Address not more gratifying to the proudest sentiments of my heart, than honourable to the public and independent spirit with which it has been dictated, and which, I trust, will ever be the rule of my future Conduct."

Mr. Radcliffe’s Answer was received with a general expression of applause.

Mr. Rawson then came forward and said,

"MR. RADCLIFFE,—I have to request, in the name of the Gentleman of the West-Riding, that you will do the honour to sit for a full-length Portrait, to be placed in one of the public Courts of the West Riding."

To which Mr. Radcliffe replied,

"It is impossible for me to decline the high honour which the Gentlemen of the West-Riding convey by this request."

This acquiescence was received with three times three cheers by the Gentlemen of the West-Riding. The band played God save the King, in which the audience warmly joined.

Mr. Knight then addressed Mr. Radcliffe—

"As Cconstable of Halifax, I have the honour to present an Address, agreed upon at a public Meeting of the Inhabitants of that town and parish, which Dr. Thomson will read."

"To Joseph Ratcliffe, Esq.

"SIR,—We the undersigned Inhabitants of the town and parish of Halifax, beg leave to express our high sense of your public Services during the late Disturbances. At a period of general alarm, and of considerable panic, you executed with unshaken firmness, the powers vested in the Magistracy, for the Preservation of the Peace, for the Prevention of Crimes, and for the Detection of Offenders. Owing in a principal degree to your Exertions as a Magistrate, the extent of the Disturbances was checked, much local suffering was prevented, valuable property was protected, and many lives were ultimately spared. The District was saved from that state of affairs, when the Military force must have superseded the Civil Power, and eventually the deluded men who had disturbed the public peace, were brought to the bar of their country.

"In these circumstances your exertion were as unprecedented as the crisis which called them forth, and you firmly and successfully upheld the dominion of the laws. The Grand Inquest of the County has already expressed the general opinion of your services. In that opinion we cordially concur. Accept our heartfelt Thanks. May your invaluable services still be continued to the public, and may you long in private life enjoy the tranquillity which you have been so instrumental in restoring."

"Halifax, 12th May, 1813."

Mr. Radcliffe's Reply:—

"GENTLEMEN.—Having been already honoured by a general Address from the Inhabitants of the West-Riding, I can only repeat my acknowledgements to the Gentleman of Halifax for concurring in the same favourable opinion of my official Conduct during the late Disturbances in this part of the Country.

"In adding my hopes that public tranquillity will long remain undisturbed by similar causes, I cannot forbear to express the cordial satisfaction I feel, in supposing myself possessed of the confidence and good opinion of so many respectable Neighbours and Friends."

This answer was received with three times three—The band played Rule Britannia.

The Gentleman then partook of a very handsome collection, the band playing several patriotic tunes on the lawn.

The cavalcade returned in the same order to Huddersfield. Opposite the George Inn, the Band played God save the King, the Gentleman being uncovered. This was followed by three times three cheers, when the procession closed.

A large and most respectable party of Gentleman dined at the George inn; Mr. Allen in the Chair. Want of room obliges us to pass over the interesting topics of discussion, and the sentiments of the several Gentleman who addressed the Meeting. But the public spirit and cordiality of the party may be judged of by the following toasts, which amongst many others, we noticed:—

The King and God bless him!

The Prince Regent.—The Queen and Royal Family.

Joseph Radcliffe Esq.—Mr. Wm. Cartwright.

Hon. Henry Lascelles.—Lord Milton.

Earl Fitzwilliam, the Lord Lieutenant of the Riding.

Lord Rolle, and the South Devon, with particular Thanks to Colonel Lang.

The Town and Trade of Huddersfield.

Marquis Wellington, and his brave army.

Sir Francis Lindley Wood, Bart. and the Magistracy in Lieutenancy of the Riding.

William Rawson Esq.—Rev. Hammond Roberson.

Sir George Armytage, Bart. and the Agbrigg Local Militia.

Colonel Ramsden, and the Halifax Local Militia.

Dr. Thomson.

Honour and Prosperity to the West-Riding of the County of York.

Mr. Knight, and the Town and Parish of Halifax.

Mr. Charles Coupland, jun. Mr. George Oates, Mr. John Fisher and the Gentlemen of Leeds.

The Vicar of Wakefield, Mr. Rayner, and their fellow townsmen.

The Emperor of Russia, and the Allies.

Thomas Allen, Esq.

May the Manufacturers and the Machinery of Yorkshire ever be uninterrupted.

Mr. Cartledge, Constable of Elland.

Mr Tom Atkinson, of Bradley-Mills.

All our absent Friends.

Co-operation and success to the West-Riding.—&c. &c.

The whole of the business of the day was conducted with an order, spirit and unanimity highly gratifying. The day was most delightful; the sun shone on the West-Riding, and the crowded enjoyment of the day can never be forgotten by the gentleman who partook of them. The Agbrigg and West Halifax Regiments of Local Militia, being on permanent duty at York and Harrogate, many gentlemen were unavoidably absent.

28th March 1813: John Drake's Tenters are smashed again at Longroyd Bridge

On Sunday 28th March 1813, six weeks after a similar attack, the Tenters belonging to John Drake, the father of Joseph Drake who gave evidence at the York Special Commission, were again smashed during the night.

17th March 1813: Cases at the York Lent Assizes

The York Lent Assizes for 1813 concluded with sentencing on Wednesday 17th March, but by then, several cases connected with the Luddites had been before the Court.

Two teenagers from Huddersfield - Joseph Sykes, a 15 year-old cropper and John Thornton, a 14 year-old wool-sorter, had been accused of breaking into the house of Abraham Horsfall (most likely William Horsfall's father) in Huddersfield and stealing spirits and other articles. They were found Not Guilty.

Various manufacturers whose premises were attacked by Luddites had brought compensation claims against the local authority. The Leeds Intelligencer covered what happened:

Thirteen different actions were brought by manufacturers and others, against the Hundred or Wapentake of Agbrigg and Morley, to recover compensation for damages done to their machinery and buildings by the Luddites. The business was to have come on, on Tuesday, when Mr. Parke, counsel for the Plaintiffs, stated his objections to the court, against their proceeding. Five of the actions were ordered to stand over till the next assizes; and the records on the remaining eight were withdrawn, under the expectation that Government will make the requisite compensation to the sufferers.

Finally, a case left over from the York Special Commission was also heard. Again, the Leeds Intelligencer had the details:

James Starkie, who was held to bail, to appear at the present Assizes, on a charge of conspiring to affect the demolition of Rawfolds Mill, did not appear when called on. One of his bail said that Starkie had acted under the advice of his attorney.

Mr Parke said, the Defendant had been ill-advised; it was his duty to have appeared personally in Court to answer to this indictment, as it was impossible that he could know what course might have been adopted respecting him. But it was not his intention to insist upon his appearance. If the Defendant had been tried it late Special Assize, I should have thought it my duty, in the then state of the County, to have laid evidence before his Lordship and you on the subject; but, in consequence of the present happy and tranquil state of the County, the result of those severe but necessary examples which were made on a late occasion, I have determined to lay no evidence before you, and to consent to the acquittal of the Prisoner. And I hope this will be considered as a further proof that Government wish to do nothing oppressive to any of his Majesty's subjects, and that their only anxiety has been to restore tranquillity and good order.

The Jury of course acquitted the Prisoner.

14th March 1813: Captain Francis Raynes informs General Acland that William Cartwright wants to reduce the guard at Rawfolds Mill

Mill bridge 14th March
1813

Sir

Since I had last the Honor to report to you I have heard a good deal dissatisfaction express’d by those persons who have had their Arms stolen that the Oath of Allegiance should have been administer’d without the depredator declaring what had become of the Arms, or giving such information as might lead to a satisfactory account of the disposal of them — some have gone so far as to say, they will prosecute notwithstanding His Majesty's Pardon —

Would it be adviseable Sir, to ask Sir George Armytages permission to search the Kirklees Mill Dam? as it appears to be the general opinion some are there.

Mr Cartwright feels so much confidence in the alter’d disposition of the People, as to have desired me if I thought proper to reduce his Mill Guard to a Corporal and five Privates—

I have [etc]
Francis Raynes Captain
Stirlingshire &c militia

To,
Major General Acland.
&c — &c — &c

14th February 1813: Attack on the Tenters of a relative of a witness at the York Special Commission

John Drake senior was a cropper who kept Tenters at his home at Longroyd Bridge. At some point during the evening of Sunday 14th February 1813, one of his Tenters was destroyed by persons unknown.

Drake's son, Joseph, had given evidence for the prosecution at the trial of men accused of being involved in the attack at Rawfolds Mill at the York Special Commission on 9th January 1813.

30th January 1813: William Cartwright tells General Acland that Joseph Mellor is lying

Rawfolds January 30 ’13

Sir

I omitted to inform you in the Hurry of my last seeing you that on reading the paragraph in the Mercury of last Saturday respecting the outrage at Mellor’s of Lockwood, I sent over to ascertain the Fact & find the thing altogether contemptible;—Mellor up to the Night of this affair had not dared to sleep at Home, when he only did so but left a piece of Cloth upon his Tenter all Night in the Morning it was found to have had cut in it about 4 yards from one End the shape of a Heart which yet however was hanging in the Pine & above it the Letters BBL were chalked; The Foot Marks of 2 men were visible in the Snow near the Tenter.

He having his Cloth upon his Tenter knowing himself to be obnoxious & the Thing’s occuring in the very first Night of his sleeping at Home are circumstances which compel me to suspect that it is a notable Contrivance of his own—

I remain respectfully—

Sir—

Your most obedient
and very humble Servant

Wm. Cartwright

[To] Major General Acland
&c &c
Wakefield

9th January 1813: The trial of the men accused of attacking Rawfolds Mill

On Saturday 9th January 1813, the day after George Mellor, William Thorpe & Thomas Smith had been executed, the trial commenced of several alleged Luddites who were accused of tumultuously assembling and beginning to demolish Rawfolds Mill on 11th April 1812.

The prisoners on trial were James Haigh (aged 28), Jonathan Dean (28), John Ogden (23), James Brook (26), John Brook (22), Thomas Brook (32), John Walker (31) & John Hirst (22), all of them croppers. They all pleaded Not Guilty. Mellor, Thorpe & Smith were also named in the indictment.

The Jury for this trial was as follows:

Isaac Newton
John Mickelthwaite
Godfrey Park
William Parker
Henry Popplewell
Gervas Seaton
Christopher Smith
Robert Stubbing
Richard Tottie
Thomas Tootal
Richard Waddington
Henry Wilkinson

James Alan Park started the case against the prisoners for the prosecution by eulogising machinery and chiding the prisoners for their lack of patience in understanding that their actions were ‘depriving others of bread’, which was of course the charge the Luddites levelled at the likes of William Cartwright. The alternative viewpoint to that of the State and Capital was never mentioned throughout the whole trial.

Park continued to give an outline of the events of 11th April 1812 from the viewpoint of Cartwright. He then went on to introduce the principal witnesses for the Crown, starting with Joseph Sowden. Sowden had come forward when the evidence led the solicitors John Allison & John Lloyd to the workshop of John Wood, George Mellor’s employer and step-father.

Park said that Sowden contended that on the morning of the 11th April, a man called Joshua Dickinson had come to Wood’s cropping shop and a great deal of conversation ensued, and Dickinson later distributed ammunition. Arrangements were then made for the raid on Rawfolds Mill that took place later that night.

Sowden alleged that at the beginning of the year, he had heard John Walker & Jonathan Dean discuss commencing frame-breaking in the West Riding, along the same lines as the Nottinghamshire Luddites had been doing. Around this time, Sowden said he had been asked by George Mellor and Dean to join them, but said he had refused. Sowden painted a picture of Mellor and William Thorpe being the ringleaders, and commanding musket and pistol companies respectively at the Rawfolds Fight.

Park went on to discuss the prisoners in turn, beginning with James Haigh. He related how, the day after the Rawfolds Fight, Haigh had gone to Richard Tatterson,  a surgeon,  to have the wound in his shoulder treated, and from there went to Penistone Green to his relative, Mary Culpan, accompanied by his master, Joseph Ardron.

Park revealed Sowden had said that Jonathan Dean had been wounded in the hand at Rawfolds, as he was hitting the front door with a hatchet and had been shot at.

Sowden had also said that John Ogden was at the attack at Rawfolds, carrying a sword, which later broke in the scabbard. When the attack failed, he was alleged to have fled via Clifton with a man called Drake and another witness for the Crown, Benjamin Walker.

Another prisoner, James Brook, had talked about what had happened at Rawfolds to his neighbour and the horror of hearing John Booth and Samuel Hartley, the wounded left behind at Rawfolds, screaming from half a mile distant. The woman had gone to the authorities to tell them what Brook had said to her.

John Brook was before the Court because he had admitted to someone in conversation that he was there, and also that he had removed firearms from John Wood’s cropping shop prior to a search taking place.

Thomas Brook was before the Court because he had lost his hat in the mill pond at Rawfolds (where it was found later by a servant of William Cartwright), and on his way home later he had stopped at the house of a man called Samuel Naylor to borrow his hat from his wife. The hat was later returned.

John Walker was before the Court on the evidence of Sowden, whom he tried to recruit into the ranks of the Luddites. At Rawfolds, he was shot at, with the musket ball passing through his hat and not injuring him.

Lastly, Park stated that John Hirst had admitted to being at Rawfolds in a statement, saying that he was threatened to take part after meeting at the Dumb Steeple. He said he had made his way back to Hartshead with William Hall, another witness for the Crown.

Park went on the say that the Court may well hear from character witnesses for the prisoners, but that any tributes as to them being honest, industrious and hard-working did not mean that they had pledged allegiance and submission to lawful authority and government. He also strongly intimated that those providing alibis were liars.

Mr Justice Le Blanc then summed up the case before the Court.

The first witness for the prosecution was William Cartwright himself, who was examined by Mr Topping for the prosecution: he related his preparations for an attack he expected to come at some point and also the events of that night. One of his servants, James Wilkinson, spoke to Court about how the following morning after the attack, he had found a hat in the mill dam.

The next witness was a Luddite-turned-informer, William Hall. Hall was a cropper and worked at John Wood’s cropping shop. Hall related how Joshua Dickinson had brought ammunition and gunpowder to the cropping shop early on 11th April 1812. He also related what happened at the raid and that he had seen James Haigh, Jonathan Dean, John Ogden, James Brook, John Brook, John Walker & John Hirst assembled at the Dumb Steeple beforehand. He did not see Thomas Brook there, nor did he see Hirst at the Mill.

Hall said that when he retreated from the Mill, he went through the beck from the mill-pond, and later met John Hirst at Hightown, before leaving him to head back to Sir George Armytage’s fields.

Hall went on to say, that two weeks later, he had been in John Wood’s cropping shop when Thomas Brook brought in a hat, and asked him to take it back to where it belonged, and that George Mellor would know where it was from. Mellor told him it belonged to a Samuel Naylor, and Hall took it back to him.

The next witness was a cropper, Joseph Drake, who admitted to being at Rawfolds, making his way there with John Walker and Jonathan Dean, but said that he did not take part, gave up his pistol and stayed 60 yards distant throughout the raid. Other than Walker and Dean, Drake identified Thomas Brook, having seen him in Hightown later that night, without a hat and having wet clothes: he said Walker told him he had fallen into the mill-dam. Drake stated that Mellor was with Brook, and they went together to Samuel Naylor’s house, to borrow a hat for Brook.

Drake went on to say that they had also stopped at Clifton, and knocked up a house to provide them with something to eat and drink. Drake also said that he met John Ogden at Hightown after the attack: Ogden had a pistol, and they went together to Cowcliffe where they parted.

The next witness was Benjamin Walker, whose evidence for the Crown had already hung three men. Of the prisoners before him, Walker stated that he had seen James Haigh carrying a maul at the Dumb Steeple; that Jonathan Dean had given him a tot of Rum on the way to Rawfolds from the Dumb Steeple, and he also saw John Walker with a pistol as they were travelling. Walker said that after the attack, he fled the Mill with George Mellor, Joseph Drake, Thomas Brook and a man whom he did not know from Cowcliffe and corroborated Drake’s evidence about stopping at Samuel Naylor’s for a hat for Brook, and also the group stopping for food and drink at Clifton. Later, he had gone to Dean’s house after the attack, to find Dean in bed, with a bleeding hand.

It was now Joseph Sowden’s turn to give evidence. He claimed to have not been involved at Rawfolds, and related what he had seen & heard at John Wood’s cropping shop in the days afterwards, in particular John Walker relating to tale of how a shot from the Mill passed through his hat. Under cross-examination by Mr Hullock for the defence, he claimed to have been too scared to speak out earlier than the 24th October, when he was questioned by Allison and Lloyd under oath.

Mary Brook was called to give evidence that she was the woman at Clifton who had given bread and water to people she claimed to be unable to identify. The Crown contended the people outside her house were Benjamin Walker, George Mellor, Thomas Brook, Joseph Drake and John Ogden on their way home from Rawfolds.

Sarah Naylor was called to give evidence about the same group calling at her home at Hightown to lend a hat for the bare-headed Thomas Brook. She also related that the hat was returned, but could not be specific as to the time. Like Mary Brook, she said she could not identify the men.

Richard Tatterson, a surgeon, was called to give evidence about how he had treated James Haigh’s wound to his shoulder. He stated that the wound did look like it had been caused by a fall onto a stone, contradicting what the Crown had said when they opened the case. Tatterson pointed out Haigh at the Bar when he was asked to identify the man who had called on him.

Joseph Culpan was also called as a witness, to relate how he had sheltered James Haigh when he was brought to his home at Penistone Green by Haigh’s employer, Joseph Ardron. A Constable, Thomas Atkinson related how he had tracked and eventually arrested Haigh at Methley 12 days after the Rawfolds attack.

Fanny Miles, a neighbour of James Brook, gave evidence about his behaviour in the days following Rawfolds: how he had been visited by many croppers and held discussions, of which she had overheard talk of a ‘dismal din’ that could be ‘heard for half a mile’. Under cross-examination, she admitted that her husband had had Brook arrested on a former occasion, and Brook subsequently sued him and won damages for assault and false imprisonment.

The last evidence for the prosecution was the statement given by John Hirst to the magistrate Scott on 2nd November 1812 in which he said he was ordered to go to the Dumb Steeple and intimidated into taking part in the raid at Rawfolds, and subsequently retreated as far as Hartshead with William Hall.

The prisoners were now asked for their defence: James Haigh and Jonathan Dean stated they were Not Guilty, but would leave their defence to their Counsel. John Ogden said he had never been in company with the other men. James Brook said he was not involved. Thomas Brook said he was not at Rawfolds, and John Brook and John Hirst said they were Not Guilty.

Witnesses for the defence now appeared.

Abraham Berry spoke for James Haigh. He started by saying that he been in Haigh’s company after Haigh’s abortive trial at the York Summer Assizes in a public house, when he had been accosted by a man called Hall. At this point, the Judge told him that unless he could identify this man as William Hall, his testimony could not be accepted as evidence. When Hall was brought into the Court with some others, Berry could not identify him.

Thomas Ellis, the Lockwood wool-stapler and correspondent of George Mellor’s (although the latter fact was not mentioned at the trial) who spoke for James Brook. He stated that he had been in Huddersfield on the night of the Rawfolds Fight, and making his way home later, he saw Brook opposite his house at 11.45 p.m. He also paid tribute to Brook’s character. Ellis was cross-examined by the prosecution, as to whether the defence solicitor, Mr Blackburn, had discussed particulars relative to the trial with him. Ellis denied this.

George Armitage, a blacksmith from Lockwood, also spoke for James Brook. He had visited Thomas Ellis on his way home and gone from there to James Brook’s father’s house at 12.05 a.m. on the 13th April and saw him there.

Hannah Tweddle was called to dispute the evidence given by Fanny Miles – she claimed to have overheard Miles saying she was determined that some of the Brooks ‘must be hanged before they left this place’.

John Ellis, a cropper from Lockwood, was called to speak for Thomas Brook. He said that he, Thomas Elam and Jonathan Vickerman worked for Brook and saw him that evening at midnight and earlier. Shortly after midnight, they finished work and Brook paid them their wages. The prosecution spent a lot of time cross-examining Ellis about minute details of the day, and Ellis appeared at time inconsistent.

Richard Lee was called to speak for John Walker. He said that he had been at Walker’s house that evening and stayed overnight, and he was sure Walker was not absent that evening, other than when he left briefly to fetch some coal. Walker’s brother-in-law, Joseph Walker, was also present for some of the time, and he was also called as a witness for Joseph. There appeared to be some differences in the accounts given of that evening by Lee and Joseph Walker.

Hannah Blakey, a coal-dealer, corroborated Richard Lee’s evidence about John Walker buying some coal from her that evening.

Character witnesses were then called for the prisoners.

An apprentice cropper called Mills spoke to the good character of James Haigh, as did Joshua Wood, a cloth manufacturer.

Joseph Brook, a cloth-finisher, spoke in favour of Jonathan Dean, having known him for four years. James Garside, a cropper, had known Brook for up to 7 years, and called him honest and industrious. Joshua Priestly had know Dean for 12 years and described him as peaceable. Joseph Riley, a tailor, had known Dean since he was a child and gave a tribute to his character.

Richard Beaumont, a clothier, spoke for John Ogden having known him for 5 years and worked with him for 2. Another clothier, Abel Armitage, said he had known Ogden for up to 6 years, and described him as steady, and hard-working and had a wife and two children.

William Haigh spoke to the good character of all the Brooks, having known them from their youth, as did James Garside, who had known them up to 8 years. Joshua Wood, a cloth manufacturer, also spoke in favour of Thomas Brook.

William Haigh spoke in favour of John Walker, having known him for years, and found him a laborious, honest man.

Two witnesses called Holdfield and Shipley spoke for John Hirst, both of them having known him for many years.

Sir Simon Le Blanc summed up the case, and paid a highly partial and glowing tribute to William Cartwright. The Jury retired at 6.00 p.m. to consider their verdict. They returned an hour later, finding James Haigh, Jonathan Dean, John Ogden, Thomas Brook and John Walker Guilty, and James Brook, John Brook & John Hirst Not Guilty.

2nd December 1812: William Cartwright pens a grovelling letter to the Home Secretary

Rawfolds near Leeds
December 2. 1812

My Lord

I trust your Lordship will pardon, my trespassing on your Attention, to Express the lively Sense of Obligation, which the benevolent Interest in my Behalf, which your Lordship has condescended to convey to me, by Major General Ackland, has excited.

He only, can conceive the deep Impression of Gratitude, who has suffer’d as I have done, surrounded by Dangers, which I had put too good Reason to fear, no Time would remove, depress’d by Difficulties, which I had no means of surmounting, the Bitterness of my Feelings as a Father, for my remaining Children, aggravated by the miserable Prospect of Ruin, in Consequence of the Desertion of those, whose best Interests had been promoted by my successful Stand, against a lawless, and Bloodthirsty Banditti; thus isolated by the Pusillanimity of many, & proscrib’d by the Fury of those whose wicked Vows were frustrated, worn down by unremitting Vigilance, my Health, or Reason would have sunk, under the Load, had I not tenaciously adhered, to the Consciousness, that thought what I had done, had been to me so very fruitful in Calamity alone, I still had acted right—.

That your Lordship is pleased to think so, gives me inexpressible Gratification.

Thus stimulated, I cannot shrink from any Danger, which may cross me in the Path of Duty; I shall most cheerfully Continue to maintain my Post, for any Length of Time which your Lordship may think necessary, for the Public Good, & for which I beg to assure your Lordship, that no Exertions of mine shall be wanting.

Whilst I present my heartfelt thanks, for that Relief, the pecuniary aid which General Maitland has offerd me, must naturally afford, me, & whilst I deeply feel, the keen Mortification, the Necessity of accepting it imposes, on me, I hope I may be permitted to Express my humble Wish, that your Lordship would be pleased to learn, from General Maitland, what the exact Nature of my Situation is, and that any assistance now afforded me, will be but considered as the means of prolonging my Defence, and that it will not in any Degree weaken, the favorable opinion, with which I am honor’d by your Lordship;

I have [etc]
Wm Cartwright

[To: Lord Sidmouth]

1st November 1812: Lieutenant Cooper names a suspect involved in the attack on Rawfolds Mill

Elland 1st November 1812.

Sir.

I have the Honor to inform you that nothing very material has occurred since my last Report to you, Elland and its Neighbourhood has been perfectly quiet ‘till last night when three guns were fired between the Hours of ten and eleven I tried in vain to discover the Raskals by concealing myself near the place I judged the Report came from & firing a Pistol and hope it would be answer’d.

I have sent two or three times for Joshua Gibson to come to me, which he promised to do, but I have seen nothing of him, I therefore apprehend his tale was forged for the purpose of obtaining money or that he is withheld by fear from proceeding in his engagement.

A man whose name is Joseph Park has been publickly accusing three of the Suffolk, in my Detachment, of stealing Potatoes in the Middle of the afternoon of this day fortnight as I have every reason to believe it is scandalous falsehood particularly from my always parading the men during the afternoon’s Service I would severely punish the Man if I knew how to proceed and the Law will allow me.

I understand Joseph Park is one of the Multitude that attack’d Rawfolds Mill and that he is very shortly to be apprehended, with another Man of this place (Saml Robinson) for that Crime, I should therefore like to punish him previously by way of example as there has been many Reports of the same nature, which must be very detrimental to the characters of the Soldiers as it makes them appear to the Inhabitants the Depredators instead of the preservers of their Property.

I have [etc]
Alf. Cooper Lieut.
West Suffolk Regt.

[To] M. General Acland
&c. &c. &c.

22nd October 1812: A new informer appears & Jonathan Dean confesses to being at the 'Rawfolds Fight'

By Thursday 22nd October 1812, two more statements were sworn before Joseph Radcliffe at Milnsbridge House.

The first was from William Hall, a cropper from Yews near Lockwood. Like Benjamin Walker, he had decided to turn King's Evidence and become an informer for the State. He gave a long statement of his involvement in many of the West Yorkshire Luddites activities, including the attack on Francis Vickerman's and William Cartwright's premises. He also gave evidence about George Mellor and William Thorpe, implicating them in the assassination of Horsfall. Other names of Luddites were provided by Hall, many of whom were subsequently taken up by the authorities.

One  of those already in custody, for the second time, who was trapped by Hall's evidence was Jonathan Dean. Dean was suspected of being involved at the 'Rawfolds Fight', and had fled into Lancashire on the 12th April, only returning home some months later when he thought he was safer. By June 26th, he had been arrested and swore a statement before Joseph Radcliffe that an injury to his hand had been caused by an accident in his workplace: two of his colleagues, Richard Brook & John Priestley, supported his story of an injury at work.

But following William Hall's evidence that he had been involved with the Luddites at Rawfolds Mill, and other raids, Dean crumbled. The best he could do now was to blame his involvement at Rawfolds on Hall - his short statement said it was Hall that had ordered him on Friday 10th April to be at the Dumb Steeple the following night. In one sentence, he admitted to being at Rawfolds on that Saturday night and receiving an injury to his hand, and subsequently fleeing.

21st October 1812: The cropper, Benjamin Walker, turns informer & implicates Mellor, Thorpe & Smith in the William Horsfall shooting

By the evening of Wednesday 21st October 1812, Benjamin Walker, the cropper who had been arrested 4 days before, had reached his limit and agreed to turn King's Evidence for the State against his former comrades and fellow croppers.

Only 24 hours before, he had proved to be unyielding for the past 3 days: General Acland had reported to General Maitland in a letter of the 20th that Walker had "been examined, but nothing has come out".

Something had made him capitulate. He was being interrogated by the Stockport solicitor, John Lloyd, a loyalist zealot who was renowned for his interrogation techniques and practice of abducting witnesses. In a letter Lloyd wrote to Acland the day before,  he indicated that he had an informer (a 'respectable merchant in Huddersfield') who told him that prior to her son's arrest, Walker's mother had unwittingly approached the informer with concerns that those in custody may impeach those at large. Lloyd had persuaded this merchant to turn informer when he had Walker's mother watched and followed to his home. Lloyd had then acted to apprehend Walker, followed by William Thorpe after 'intimations' from Walker's mother he was also somehow involved. Lloyd then apprehended Walker's mother herself, and subjected her to a rigorous 'examination', but she would not tell him what she had told the informer. Lloyd got the informer to give him an undertaking that he would get Walker's mother to relent, so that he would not have to appear himself to give evidence. Finally, Lloyd then abducted Walker's mother to his home in Stockport "where she will more fully and freely give her Examination".

By the Thursday 22nd October, Walker had placed a mark next to his name (because he was illiterate) at the bottom of a lengthy confession which implicated many of his comrades. Radcliffe, Lloyd & the others intended to use him as King's Evidence, which would save him from the hangman.

The statement began with a description of how Walker became involved in the raid on Rawfolds Mill: hearing about the plan at his workplace in John Wood's cropping shop: Walker said George Mellor had teased him, asking him if he could 'keep a secret', before revealing the plans to attack Rawfolds. A good deal of what we know about the raid comes from this statement. Walker stated that Mellor and William Thorpe were the ringleaders, and company commanders on the night, and also stated that he and others from John Wood's shop felt obliged to be involved because, as well as being their employer, Wood was Mellor's step-father. Walker also implicated others he said were wounded - James Haigh and a man called Jonathan Dean - and also a man called Mark Hill who had been involved in collecting money for those wounded in the raid.

Walker then went on to state his involvement in the assassination of William Horsfall. He alleged that the shooting was solely the idea of Mellor & Thorpe, a plan they presented to him and Thomas Smith only 30 minutes prior to putting it into execution. This is perhaps the weakest past of Walker's whole testimony: all that subsequently followed is supposed to have occurred in only 30 minutes, something which stretches credibility beyond any reasonable point, but which the Crown subsequently based its case on. Walker said he and Smith 'refused for some time' the idea of the execution, hard to believe as they would have needed to have moved fast to make it to Crosland Moor and lie in wait for Horsfall, who would have been well on his way to the Warren House even by then. Walker then said that Mellor provided both he and Smith with pistols and directed them to make their way to the plantation on Crosland Moor and wait for him and Thorpe who would take a different route to arrive there. According to Walker, they did this and waited 10 minutes before the two others arrived, meaning that only 20 minutes had elapsed from Mellor broaching the idea to them reaching this point.When Mellor & Thorpe arrived, they agreed that Walker and Smith would fire only if they missed, and that they should lie in wait 20 yards behind Mellor & Thorpe. Walker then says, rather bizarrely, that they all waited a further 30 minutes before Horsfall arrived, which contradicts his statement earlier that he only knew of the plan to kill Horsfall 30 minutes before it happened.

Walker went on to say that when Horsfall drew level with the plantation, he heard two shots, and assumed both Mellor & Thorpe had fired, although he did not see what happened. In this statement, he is clear that neither he nor Smith fired a shot, something which he said annoyed Mellor as they fled. The four split in Dungeon Wood, with Walker & Smith taking a different route. He and Smith then headed on to a public house at Honley, where they drank and ate.

The following day at John Wood's workshop, Walker said that William Thorpe made he and Smith swear on a Bible to keep the matter secret. The day after that, Walker said Mellor told him to be careful and say nothing, as some people from Dungeon had already been questioned.

Walker was keen to exonerate his master, John Wood, saying that he knew nothing of his step-son's plan.

At the end of the statement, more detail was added: Walker said that after he and Smith had parted with Mellor and Thorpe in Dungeon Wood, they had hidden their loaded pistols in an anthill, but never returned to retrieve them. He also talked about the Russian pistol belonging to George Mellor, and how Thorpe had hurt his cheek running through Dungeon Wood, and Mellor one of his fingers because he had loaded his pistol full of musket balls. He also described the coats Thorpe and Mellor were wearing. All of these details had appeared as questions put to Joseph Mellor's household 10 days before, and appear to corroborate them.

Radcliffe and Lloyd now had what they wanted: an accomplice to corroborate the story that had been concocted. Despite the seemingly insurmountable issues with the timings given by Walker, his confession would prove to be the framework for the Crown's case.

2nd October 1812: Joshua Haigh is committed to York Castle

On Friday 2nd October 1812 Joshua Haigh, the soldier who had confessed to killing William Horsfall and being involved in the attack on Rawfolds Mill, was committed to York Castle by Joseph Radcliffe.

11th September 1812: Captain Raynes writes about a plot to blow up Rawfolds Mill

Mill bridge 11th Sepr. 1812

Sir,

I have the Honor to enclose the Copy of a Letter I yesterday received Lieutenant General Maitland. In compliance with his Orders, I have sent the following Officers with Detachments from the West Suffolk and Stirlingshire to proceed by Rout and carry into effect the Instructions I had the Honor to receive.

A man of the name of Starkey of Mill bridge got acquainted with George Ashworth & James Robinson, he proposed to them a plan of blowing up Mr. Cartwrights Mill and took them down to the spot where they mean to commence their operations, he also shewd them some Houses where there are Arms, and wish’d they would engage with him to take them in consiquence of Starkey discovering Robinson and Ashworth I made known circumstance to Sir George Armytage. Sir George has examined Robinson and Ashworth, and issued a Warrant to apprehend Starkey. My Party with a Constable will secure him this night if possible, he will appear before Mr. Radcliffe tomorrow with the two evidences. They are a very turbulent set here, and speak their sentiments freely, even before the Soldiers. In all the Towns I since visited they have neither Associations, or Watch and Ward; I shall have the Honor Sir, of sending a Report of every Township, as soon as I have made the necessary enquiries. Sir George Armytage has beg’d I will always apply to him when I have occasion.

I fear Sir, it will be some time before we can break into this Lawless band

I yesterday desired Dearnely to wait upon you, he informed he had got acquainted with two or three Luds at Huddersfield. he says he cannot get Work near that Town, I shall endeavour to look out for him in this neighbourhood. The other Special Constables are going but slowly on

I have [etc]
Francis Raynes Capt
Stirling M

To
Major Genl. Acland
&c &c &c

6th September 1812: James Starkey meets the spies Robertson and Ashworth to show them his plans for Rawfolds Mill

On Sunday morning 6th September 1812, the two spies James Robertson and George Ashworth met the would-be Luddite, James Starkey at the Globe Inn, Millbridge. They proceeded to Rawfolds Mill and Starkey revealed his plans to place the gunpowder under an archway for maximum effect.

The three men then retired to the Globe Inn and talked more. They parted later, agreeing to meet later at 7.00 p.m.

At the appointed time, only Ashworth turned up to meet Starkey. Starkey asked him to come outside - he was concerned that the three of them were not enough for the arms raid he had planned to succeed - he felt 10 or 12 men were needed.

A little later, the two men parted.

5th September 1812: Two spies meet a would-be Luddite with plans to blow up Rawfolds Mill

On Saturday evening, the 5th of September 1812, James Robertson, a private in the Stirlingshire Militia and George Ashworth, a Special Constable were undercover at the Globe Inn at Millbridge in West Yorkshire.

At one point, Robertson went to leave and a man who had come in earlier followed him out. The man stopped him and said "I wish I was a Ludd!" - Robertson took the opportunity to lead him on, telling him he 'wouldn't wonder if he was'. The man motioned into the distance, and said "there's a damned rogue who lives up there, his name is Roberson, he's the Parson" - the man went on to complain that Roberson had 'made himself very busy' at the time of the Luddite attack on Rawfolds Mill, and that the two men killed there should be revenged. The man then pointed out into the distance towards Rawfolds and said "there is another damned rouge lives up there and they ought both to be shot". Robertson carried on the conversation, and the man revealed he had dreamed up a plan to blow up Rawfolds Mill using a barrel of gunpowder with a long fuse.

The two men moved inside to drink, and were joined by the other spy, Ashworth. The man revealed he was a weaver and then revealed his plans again to Ashworth, and Robertson then suggested they move to a more private room. The man said his motivations were that William Cartwright had thrown men out of work in order to work his shearing machines, and also vengeance for the two men killed at Rawfolds, who he said he knew well. He went on to say that on the night of the attack on Rawfolds, he had stood on a nearby bridge and watched - his master would not let him join the Luddites. The man then revealed that he knew that at least 3 different houses in the neighbourhood had guns, and he revealed plans for stealing them, but that he had no pistol which he wanted the two men to acquire before it could be attempted.

The man said he could obtain the barrel of gunpowder from Halifax, but would need the two men to fund the purchase of it. If they did that, he would sort out Rawfolds, with the help of some Colliers that he knew.

The men continued drinking after moving to the Black Bull nearby. Later, the man showed the two men his house and asked them to call on him tomorrow before noon, when he would show them Rawfolds and explain how his plans would work. Before they left him, he told them his name - James Starkey.

5th September 1812: William Cartwright informs on those he suspects were involved in the Southowram attack

Saturday morning
Sep 5 ‘12

Sir,

I this Evening learn that the mob have destroyd the Machinery of a Mr Waterhouse at Halifax, assume this to be the Case; it occurs to me as most Singular that this same Gentleman was lately the mean of discontinuing the patrol of the Civil Power in Halifax declaring that no one could doubt for a moment that the County was in a State of perfect Tranquility!!!—

The purport of the present however is to day that I do not doubt the plans and executors of this Destruction are his own Servants my reasons are

George Hartley the Brother of Hartley who was shot here &
John Midgely – Particular [friend] [of Hartley…]
Abraham Pule all work with Mr Waterhouse

Now previous to the attack at my Place Pule who had formerly work’d with me (& who had at that Time taken up the dealing in Pigs) came to me & from affected motives of Friendship inform’d me that he had 2 Nights before been in a private meeting of the men of this very Mr Waterhouse & had overhear’d them say that they had receiv’d a message from the Huddersfield men on the Subject of the Attack at my Place which it was determined should take place before the End of 4 Nights unless it was thought that I was too much on my Guard, in which Case it should be defer’d for 2 or three Weeks (it took place exactly 3 Weeks from the Time)—but he play’d himself that none should take place without his conveying distinct Information to me—he did not keep his Word

Between his first visit & the attack Pul went to work with Mr Waterhouse & he remains there at present. I know not any where two more daring Characters that Midgley & Pul, Hartley I do not so well know. Pul is a Private in my Company of Halifax Local Mila the other 2 are Privates in the Light Company of the same regiments—

On the Morning of the Inquest on the 2 Men shot here Pul & Midgely were both lounging about at Robert Town 8 miles from their Home & Evinc’d so much Perturbation as led to suspect strongly that they had been of the Party—

Tho mere surmise I could not think myself justified in omitting to convey them to you & I remain

Sir – Yours Very truly

W Cartwright

[To Acland]

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.

22nd July 1812: The trial of James Oldroyd at York Summer Assizes

The Leeds Mercury of 25th July 1812, carried the details of the trial of James Oldroyd, who was accused of being present at the attack on Rawfolds Mill, after he was alleged to have been overheard boasting about it in Mirfield on 22nd June. William Cartwright gave evidence. The trial took place on Wednesday 22nd July 1812.

JAMES OLDROYD was charged with assembling, with divers other persons on the night of the 11th April, and there making an attack on the Mill of Mr. Cartwright, of Rawfolds, and with beginning to demolish the same.

This prosecution was founded on an Act passed in the 9th of Geo.III which makes it a capital felony for any person riotously to assemble and demolish any Mill, or to begin to demolish any Mill.

Mr. Park, Mr. Topping, and Mr. Richardson, were Counsel for the Prosecutor, Mr. Raine to the Defendant.

Mr. Park stated the case to the Jury, in which he laid it down as the law of the case, that the violent breaking of windows, when evidently done with such instruments, and under such circumstances as shows the intent to be to demolish the building, is such a beginning to demolish as comes within the meaning of the Act. And that every person so present with the rioters giving them his countenance and aid, is as guilty law though no individual act of violence can be personally proved against him.

[We shall, conformable to our usual custom, state the case from the evidence of the Witnesses.]

Mr. Cartwright, the proprietor of the Mill, was called to the purpose of proving the riot and the nature of the attack upon the Mill. A circumstantial narrative of this having already appeared before the public, it may be sufficient merely here to add, that the attack was made about 20 minutes after 12 o'clock at night on the 11th April, by a considerable number of persons, but how many the darkness of the night did not give him the means of forming an opinion, the attack was made by fire-arms, hammers, mauls, and hatchets; all the windows on the side of the attack were broke in almost instantaneously, the lower windows by the instruments before mentioned, and the upper stories by discharges of ball and slugs. The firing continued incessantly for about 20 minutes, it was accompanied by cries of “bang-up—damn you are you in—in with you—kill them every one.” The party on the inside, of which the witness was one, repelled the charge by keeping up a constant fire on the assailants, but the darkness of the night was such that the only guide they had in directing their fire was the flash from the discharge of the fire-arms of the assailants. Witness supposes about 120 shots would discharged from the building, and about the same number from without. The attack continued about 20 minutes, when the assailants retired. As soon as the Witness thought it prudent to open the door, he found that two wounded men had been left behind, (who afterwards died) and near the premises, in the direction in which the party had returned, a number of mauls, hatchets, picklocks, masks, and bullet-moulds, were found, and which were produced in court. The wood work of the door, which was partially lined with iron, was was entirely destroyed. The Witness said, he had no means of forming judgement whether the Prisoner was there or not, but he had no reasons to believe he was there. The Prisoner was a person of good character, and had no grounds for animosity against him.

Mr. Cartledge, of Brow-bridge, near Elland, said, he was returning from Wakefield, on the 22d June, accompanied by Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Woodhead, they called at the Black Bull, Mirfield, for refreshment, and sat in the Bar, it was about eight o'clock in the evening, the room was separated from another room by a thin wood partition, in which there was a small window, the glass of which was partly broken, heard a person say in a loud tone of voice, “I was at Rawfolds on the night of the attack, I was engaged there, I was close by the two men that fell,” the same voice said, that he never was in any association but one, and that was Ned or General Ludd's, (believes he used both expressions) had been any service three years, that he had been faithful to him and would ever remain so. Witness said he spoke in a loud and boisterous tone of voice. Mr. Ashworth, one of the party, went for a Constable, the Witness went into the Room and enquired which of the party had used that language. There were eight or ten persons in the room, he was pointed out to him by William Clarkson, and on the return of Mr. Ashworth, they prevailed on him to go with them into another room, where he denied having used the words imputed to him.—On his cross-examination he said the man appeared to have had liquor, but was not drunk, and appeared to understand what he said and what was said to him; he said Mr Cartwright knew him, and if they disputed his character he would get a letter of recommendation from him. Witness first heard of Gen. Ludd about a year ago. Witness said the Prisoner spoke so loud that he might have been heard by every person in the low part of the house.

Mr. Ashworth stated the conversation at the Black Bull in these terms:—I heard a voice say, as if in answer to some persons who had been contradicted him, “but I was at Rawfolds Mill that night, and I was engaged in the attack, and I saw the man fall,” or the men. Witness believes both expressions were used at different times. The same voice further said, “I was never engaged in any association or society in my life but that of General or Ned Ludd, I have ever been true to it, and I have been in it three years.” Witness said these words were not used uninterruptedly as he has stated them, it was an interrupted conversation, and many of the expressions were repeated several times. After a consultation as to the course which it became their characters to pursue, it was determined to send for a Constable, and Witness went for one, but did not succeed, on his return, the Prisoner was pointed out to him, and when he spoke he recognized the same voice, but lower and softened. Witness proceeded to state what he heard of the conversation in the room to which they retired, which was the same in substance as stated by Mr. Cartledge; the Prisoner denied having used the expressions imputed to him; the Witness said he had no reason to believe that the Prisoner did not understand what he did or said; his spirits appeared to be elevated by the liquor he had taken. Nothing material occurred in his cross-examination, except that the Witness judging from the boisterous tone and manner in which the words were used, should have thought them the words of a crazy person.

Wm. Clarkson (the person referred to by Mr. Cartledge) stated that he was in the Black Bull public house on the night in question, and heard the conversation, heard the prisoner say he was at Rawfolds Mill the night it was attacked, that he was engaged in the attack, and that he was near to his fellow creatures when they fell; he never had entered into any society, but he would abide by it as long as he lived. Witness said he considered the Prisoners as drunk from first to last.

Joseph Senior was also present, heard part of the conversation, but did not much attend to it. Remembers the Prisoner saying he was at Rawfolds Mill the night it was attacked, and was engaged in the attack; did not hear him say any thing more; was not in the room when the conversation was begun, but the Prisoner and another person appeared to be talking one against the other. The Prisoner appear to have two partners, (that is persons who are drinking with him) and one of them said to him, “hold thy peace, if there be a good trade and meal come down, Ned Ludd will die.”—(A laugh.)

This finished the case on the part of the Prosecution.

Mr. Joseph Savage stated that he was a surgeon at Dewsbury, and attended the Prisoner, who was very subject to attacks of fever; he attended him up to the time of Pontefract Sessions, but was then under the necessity of being absent from the 6th to the 11th of April; left him medicines; he was in a debilitated state, and not able to endure much fatigue. Judging from what he saw the Prisoner, it would have been dangerous for him to have been out on the night of the 11th of April. Witness saw him on the morning of the 12th, and, from his appearance, he should have supposed he had had his usual rest the preceding night.

Mary Ward sleeps in the house of the Prisoner, who is married, and has two children. She went to bed at ten o'clock on the 11th of April, at which time the prisoner was in bed. He sleeps in the room they usually live in. Her child being unwell and restless, she got up again about eleven o'clock, and came down stairs to the fire; the Prisoner was still in bed, and spoke to her, and complained that he could get no rest.—Witness soon after went to bed again, but her child continuing restless, she was under the necessity of getting up again. The clock then struck one. She remained up until near three o'clock, during which time the Prisoner frequent spoke to her, and, at the request of his wife, she gave him his medicine. The child being quiet, Prisoner advised her to go to bed, asking her what o'clock it was; she looked at the clock, and said it wanted a few minutes to three.—Witness got up at six o'clock in the morning, and went to her father's house; Prisoner was still in bed.

The Counsel for the Prosecution cross-examined her at considerable length, but she did not vary her testimony. She accounted for sleeping at the Prisoners, by stating that her father had six children, and only two beds, and had not room for her and her child to sleep.

His Lordship summoned up the evidence with great particularity, and observed that the riot and the beginning to demolish the mill had been clearly proved, but the material question remain, which was, whether the Prisoner was present at the attack. It he was present he was guilty. That he was present there was the evidence of his own declaration. The Jury would consider, whether under all the circumstances of the case they could be fully convinced that these declarations were founded in truth; they would examine the manner and the circumstances under which they were made; and from a careful consideration of them, determine the degree of credit to which they were intitled. But it was right to state that these declarations, though fully proved, were not confirmed by any corroborating circumstances. On the part of the defence, there was evidence of Mr. Savage, who appeared to be a respectable man, and the amount of whose testimony might fairly be stated as rendering it improbable that the Prisoner should be there. If the evidence of Mary Ward had full credit given to it, and there was nothing improbable or inconsistent in the account she gave, and her evidence had not been shaken by the cross-examination. If her testimony was believed, they must of necessity acquit the prisoner, as it was impossible he could have been there. The Jury would weigh all the circumstances of the case, and if upon the whole, they were convinced that the Prisoner’s declaration at the public house was true, they would find him guilty; but if they believed it was not true, or had a reasonable doubt upon the subject, they would acquit him.

The Jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner—NOT GUILTY.

The verdict was received in perfect silence.

It may be proper here to add, that the most perfect order and decorum prevailed in the Court during the whole of the trials for rioting; and there is in the city no military parade, nor any thing to indicate that the County is not in a state of the most profound tranquility and security.

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.