21st March 1815: The trial of James Towle, for framebreaking, at Nottingham Lent Assizes

On Tuesday 21st March 1815, perhaps the most notorious Luddite in the Midlands - James Towle - took his trial at Nottingham Lent Assizes, charged with burglary and framebreaking. The offence had taken place the previous September, and Towle's arrest had led to a chain of events which included the attempt on the life of the prosecutor, Thomas Garton, and the actual death of a Luddite, Samuel Bamford, as well as a bystander, William Kilby, several weeks later.

The Judge in this trial, Sir John Bayley, had presided over the trials of the Nottinghamshire Luddites tried 3 years before at the Lent 1812 Assizes, where his sentencing had been considered lenient by many in the establishment.

The following account of the trial is from the Nottingham Review of 24th March 1815. Interesting details seem to have been omitted, but were included in an account from the Derby Mercury of 30th March, which follows:

James Towle of Basford, stood indicted for burglariously entering the dwelling house of Thomas Garton, of the said village on the 5th of September, and stealing thereout a quantity of metal (pewter,) three starbrasses, a number of needles, and three pair of stockings and an odd one. He stood further indicted for entering the said house, and feloniously breaking six stocking frames, the consent of the owners thereof not having been previously given.

Thomas Garton deposed, that he fastened his doors by ten o'clock, on the night named in the indictment, when himself and wife went to bed—that, between one and two o'clock he was disturbed by a number of persons knocking at the street door, when he got up and asked who was there, and was answered by James Towle, whom he had known seven years, "it is Ned,"—that the door then flew open, and a number of men rushed up stairs, and the same voice which had answered "Ned" called twice for lights, while the person so calling stood on the stairs, whom he was confident was Towle—that the greater part of them proceeded into the work shop, where they continued half an hour breaking frames, while a person stood on the stairs calling out, at intervals, "Ned do your duty, all’s well." Witness stated further, that he got while the men were in the premises—that three men who worked with him, lay in a room adjoining to his bed room—that as soon as the frame-breakers were gone he went to the house of Hemsley Dunn, constable of New Basford, who went with him to Towle’s house with a view to apprehend him, under a conviction on his part, that he, Towle, was one of the depredators; but, when they got there, Dunn refused to break into Towle’s house.—Witness then obtained the assistance of John Seymour, constable of Old Basford, who searched prisoner’s house, but did not find him there; they then, from information received, supposed Towle might be at Papplewick, about four miles off, whither they went, but did not find the object of their pursuit. They then went to the house of John Bamford of Old Basford, where they took prisoner into custody, about six o'clock in the morning. On his cross-examination, witness stated, that he did not know that Towle worked at Bamford’s, though he lived within an hundred yards of him—that he did not know the number of his children, nor that such children were ill at the time of the measles—and that he never said to Reuben Kilder, John Torr, or Andrew Pearson, that if he had any more frames broken within five years, he would make Towle suffer for it, or words to that effect. Of this he was quite sure, and would swear it.

John Seymour deposed to the above, as far as his name was connected with the circumstance; and further stated, that as he passed by Bamford's house on his way to New Basford, about three in the morning, he saw a light and a man therein. He further deposed, that when he had conducted Towle to Nottingham, who surrendered and came with him without opposition, he told witness he wished to speak with him in Private—that, when thus alone, prisoner asked him if he had found a sword and a chisel at his house, to which he answered "yes," though he knew he had not found such implements—that prisoner then said "don't say any thing about them"—that he afterwards searched Towle’s house, and found a chisel, but no sword; and that he went to Garton's house, and found the chisel to fit the indent in his door, which had been made in the act of forcing it open. He endeavoured to state, that he had found the same indent upon several other doors near to Garton’s, but the Judge and Counsel refused to hear him. On his cross-examination he admitted, that prisoner’s children were ill at the time.

Edward Hawke worked with Garton at the time his frames were broken—saw prisoner the previous evening at the Three Crowns, in Parliament-street, Nottingham, when prisoner said to him, "don't you work with Garton?"—A. Yes. "Then I suppose you receive tup mutton for your work!"—A, "I have no occasion to receive mutton, if I don't like it—I receive the same as other folks."—"Are you not abated in your price?"—A. "Yes, we are abated."—"Then your frame shall be broke." Witness stated this conversation to have taken place in an open kitchen, and before an indiscriminate company; and further, that prisoner asked him where his frame stood, and, after having described the place, prisoner said to him, "I know where it stands—it is a 35 gauge." Hawke said he communicated the substance of this conversation to Garton the next day. On his cross-examination he denied having received any subsistence money from Garton since he left him—stated he had worked at Mansfield; and that he had been in the house of correction for personal safety.

John Sutton said, he worked with Growcock, a smith, at Basford, at the time Gaton’s frames were broke—that he went to bed, in Growcock’s house, at nine o'clock that night, it being Sunday—that Towle came in half an hour, and asked his master to lend him an iron crow—that his master replied, "Towle, if you don't leave off frame-breaking you’ll be taken and hanged;" that Towle said, "I'll be damned if I don't reinforce,"—that Growcock said he would not lend the crow, for fear it should be left, and be noticed; but he would lend him a bar. Witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that he was in bed all the time and this conversation took place—that they were out of doors; that he did not see Towle on the occasion; and that he was not much acquainted with him, yet he would swear to his voice. The Judge remarked, on summing up this part of the evidence, that it was singular that Growcock had not been brought into Court, by one or both of the parties.

On the part of the prisoner following witnesses were called, to wit:—

John Bamford, a framework-knitter, of Old Basford, stated that Towle set his frame in his shop—that at the time named in the indictment, Towle had an order of broad shammies to make in a hurry, the completion of which would occupy all his time and attention—that his children were ill of the measles, which very much broke his rest, which, if not guarded against, might, very possibly, prevent his completion of the order, and disappoint his employer, which would have been an improvident circumstance, considering the critical state of the trade at that time. Witness went on to state, that a person of the name of Lowe, worked and lodged with him at the time, whose family resided in Nottingham, that in consequence thereof his bed was generally unoccupied on Saturday nights, Sunday nights, and Monday nights—that he understood Lowe had [persuaded] Towle to sleep in his bed, while his children were so ill, to which he, witness, gave his consent—the Towle came accordingly on the Sunday night, named in the indictment, and went to bed about half-past ten, saying he must rise early in the morning, on account of his order—that he locked the door, and himself and wife went to bed before eleven—that they slept in a small parlour, the door of which is near the house door, and also near the foot of the stairs—that having left the key in the door, contrary to his usual custom, his wife got up and fetched it into the parlour—that Towle rose at three in the morning to go to work—and that he, witness, struck, and gave him a light, which accounted for the light and man being seen in witness’s house by the Constable Seymore, as he was going to the assistance of Garton. From the description which witness gave of the interior and situation of the house, he endeavoured to make it manifest, that no one could get out, or come in, in the night, without his knowledge; and he believed on his oath, the Towle had not been out during the night.

Reuben Kilder worked and lodged with Garton at the time the frames were broken, and slept in a room near to Mr Garton’s—heard the frame-breakers doing the mischief—heard one of them say, "All’ well, Ned do your duty:" but did not hear Garton ask, "Who’s there;" nor did he hear any one answer, "Ned." Witness said, that Garton said to him, a short time before last Nottingham races, "If ever I have any more frames broke in my shop, I will make James Towle suffer for it!" This he said was spoken in the presence of John Torr and Mrs. Garton, the latter of whom swore positively to the contrary.

John Torr was next sworn, and he stated that Towle went with him some time ago to take a frame of Garton, on which account the latter said to him shortly after, "You are to blame for bringing Towle with you, for he is a frame-breaker." And in a conversation about Christmas, 1813, Garton said, "If I have any more frames broken within five years, I will have him taken up." Witness stated that Reuben Kilder was not present when any conversation of this nature took place with Garton.

Andrew Pearson had worked with Garton, who said to him one day as prisoner was passing by in their presence, "Do you know Towle? That's him: and, if I have any more frames broken, I will have him taken up."

On the flat contradiction given by Torr to part of Kinder’s testimony, the Judge remarked in his summing up, that though a person might remember the import of any particular conversation, it did not follow that he must always be correct as to the persons who were present; a circumstance which was frequently proved to most men of observation; and, if confidence could be placed in the testimony of the last three witnesses, it would most materially affect that of Garton's.

Mr Mason, warehouseman to Towle’s employer, was now called to prove that he had the particular order of broad shammies at the time previously named; but the Judge thought his testimony unnecessary.

Sarah Saxon, a neighbour to Towle, proved that his three children were ill of the measles at the time named in the indictment; and that there was but one bed for the whole family.

John Lowe, named in Bamford's evidence, proved Towle’s having applied to him for permission to sleep in his bed, on account of his work and his being disturbed so in the night.

Here the evidence closed; and it may be necessary, for the information of many of our readers, to state the following, as a few of the Judge's remarks in his summing up, in addition to what we have necessarily given in detailing the evidence. His Lordship said, that there was no evidence to fix the guilt upon the prisoner, but the testimonies of Garton and Sutton, and that was wholly upon swearing to his voice, a species of testimony always to be received with extreme caution and doubt; except the evidence of Hawke, which, if true, prove the prisoner to be one of the most indiscreet men on earth, if he was really serious in what he said; and the circumstance of the chisel, which Towle might have lent the frame-breakers, which, if true, did not affix the actual guilt upon him, because he was not charged as being accessary to the perpetration of the crime, but as a positive committer of it. Had this chisel been the bar named by Sutton, it would have been a strong circumstance in proof of his guilt. Upon the whole, said his Lordship, if the Jury are of opinion that Garton and Sutton's testimonies are to be depended upon, respecting their swearing to the prisoner's voice, in opposition to the opposing witnesses, they will then find the prisoner guilty; but, if a doubt remain their minds, they ought to give the benefit of that doubt the prisoner, and acquit him.

The Jury consulted about half an hour, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.

Counsel for the Prosecution, Mr. Serjeant Vaughan and Mr. Reader—Attorneys, Messrs Coldham and Enfield, Nottingham. Counsel for the Prisoner, Mr. Serjeant Copley and Mr. Denman—Attorney, Mr. Henry Wilkinson, Nottingham.

In their more brief coverage of the trial, the Derby Mercury of 30th March mentioned that the trial lasted 4 hours, and the following passage provides details that the Nottingham Review seemed to have omitted:

[When the Jury gave the verdict] The words were scarcely uttered, when an instantaneous shout was set up by a crowd pressing round the outer doors of the Court, anxious to hear the result. The Judge, in conclusion, admonished the prisoner against the continuance of practices, which had that day placed his life in such imminent peril; and assured him, that however individuals, might, for a time, elude the just vengeance of the law, it would eventually be found strong enough to punish and crash all violaters and disturbers of the public peace.—On the Court breaking up, the crowd out of doors testified their satisfaction at the verdict by repeatedly cheering the Judge, Counsel, &c.

13th October 1812: General Acland tells General Maitland that the evidence against George Mellor is 'very circumstantial'

Huddersfield 13th October 1812.

My dear Sir.

In reference to my letter of the 10th Inst respecting the arms stolen from the 15th Hussars at Leeds, Colonel Campbell on enquiring finds they were taken from the Men's bed room by some persons who enter’d it during the night while they were asleep—

The Two Carbines were found the following morning concealed under some Hay grass in a Field near a huge manufactory, the place was watch’d for two nights but no person came—The Pistols have not been found & all search & enquiry has failed.—

George Mellor is committed to York Castle on suspicion of being concerned in the Murder of Mr. Horsfall, I questioned [him] Mr. Allison respecting the Evidence which is he says very circumstantial & that he thinks there is already sufficient to convict him, if there by any judge but Bailey—more he says however may possibly come out—

John Varley is committed also for Stealing arms, Mr. Ratcliffe thought it better not to commit him on the other charge of being an accomplice in Mr. Horsfall business of which he must know a great deal though he certainly was not one of the four—

Benjamin Strickland  is likewise committed for a burglary at Kirk — Heaton

Wroth P Acland

[To] Lt General
The Rt. Honble
T. Maitland.

3rd August 1812: Joseph Radcliffe informs the Home Office that arms raids still continue in Huddersfield

My Lord

Not returning from attending at York as a grand jury man untill the last evening, when no post goes out for London, I could not earlier do myself the honor of answering the letter Mr. Beckett forward me with, dated the 20th Inst.—There is scarcely a night I do not hear of robberys for arms, Lead, Gun powder, or money.—I could have wished Judge Bayley had not so lightly held forth the conduct of Sykes of meltham’s forcibly taking arms (to the jury) as to deem it a frolic; but in regard to this, as relative to His observations to the petty jury on the trials of other similar delinquents; perhaps feeling too much as an acting magistrate I must beg leave to refer your Lordship to the Hbl. Mr. H. Lascelles the foreman of the Grand jury, as to his, & their sentiments.—to Mr. Park, & the Recorder of Leeds, or to any, or every one who attended the trials, & from whom I humbly trust enquiry will be made.—as to my situation (& conduct) not an enviable one, it will become me to say any thing, no doubt some one here has, or will represent it—

The persons apprehended, & alluded to in Mr. Beckett’s Letter, one in custody, their having been brought here so near to the assizes, & the informants living in Cheshire, & Lancashire wd. not allow sufficient time their requisite attention to the business, prior to my attending the assizes.—all partys will be here on Monday next, when as soon as possible afterwards, my Clerk shall copy every transaction, which without loss of time I shall do myself the honor of transmitting to your Lordship. I have the honor to be, My Lord [etc],

Josh. Radcliffe

N.B.
People are so terrified, no one
will voluntarily come forwards,
nor dare they, when brought,
speak the truth; what is got from
them is with the utmost difficulty.

[Date by HO Clerk on reverse – 3rd August 1812]

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.

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.

23rd March 1812: Luddites are charged and sentenced at Leicester Lent Assizes

The Assizes at Leicester opened on Monday 23rd March, with the presiding Judge being Sir John Bayley once again.

A number of cases involving alleged Luddites were tried at these Assizes, although detailed records of the proceedings are hard to come by. Even the local newspaper, the Leicester Journal of 27th March 1812, chose not to use many column inches covering the trials: indeed, greater space was given over to the Derby Assizes in the same issue.

William Quenby and Joseph Smith were charged with frame-breaking, although we don't know on what date and at what location. Quenby was sentenced to 14 years transportation, whilst Smith's punishment was 'to enter into his Majesty's army'.

The other offences yield a more recognisable name: Thomas Maton Harris was charged with using a threatening letter 'purporting to be sent by Ned Lud' to extort money in aid of the frame-breakers. Charged alongside him were David Walker, William Plant and Thomas Thorn. Their cases were traversed until the next Assizes.

21st March 1812: The trials of Samuel Sellers & William Elliott at Derby Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812 ended its coverage of the Derby Lent Assizes with the trial of two alleged frame-breakers on Saturday 21st March 1812:

Samuel Sellers and William Elliott, charged with frame breaking within the precincts of Swanwick, in Derbyshire, were brought to the bar; and Samuel Hill, framework-knitter, who resides at Swanwick Delve, deposed that he knew the prisoners; and that on the 9th of December, some persons passed by his house, when one of them said to him, “we shall come again some;” that he met a man disguised soon after; that he sat up till half past two in the morning, when he went to bed, thinking all was safe for that night; that his wife said, (he being hard of hearing) they are break two frames; got up and opened the door half-char, to peep; went out and saw two men with guns in their hands; said “you are all neighbours, and break the frames and be damned!” He then stated that he found three frames upon the common. On his cross-examination, he said that he could not tell how the men were dressed; nor did he know whether their faces were black.

George Hill deposed, that he saw three men stand on the causeway on the evening of the 9th December, with their faces blacked, and having on smock frocks; that he did not know them, but thought two of them were Sellers journeyman; watched Sellers house; saw four men come out of it; went home; mets three men on the causeway, one of whom was so disguised as to frighten him, and another was Sellers, who walked behind the other two, and was not disguised. On his cross-examination, he admitted that it was one o'clock in the night when he met the men, and that it was not a moonlit night.

Hannah Hill, wife of the first witness, remembered that the night alluded to; was disturbed at three in the morning; informed her husband; heard a particular voice when the men were going away; knows Sellers, and thought the voice was his. She then stated that she looked through the window, which was some distance from the road leading to Swanwick; but she heard a gun let off; went out, and found one frame in the road, one in the sink-hole, and one in the gutter. She admitted that the night was very dark, and that she only heard a word or two, which were, “damn it, stop a bit.”

Ann Jackson, sister to the first witness, deposed, that she resides in a small house adjoining to her brother’s workshop, the window in the sleeping room of which is hold up with barrel [illegible], through one of which is a bung-hole, which, to keep out the cold, is stuffed up with rags. She was alarmed about three in the morning alluded to, and said to the man who lodges with her, “are they breaking cinders in the road so soon?” She then pulled the rags out of the bung-hole, and pept, when she exclaimed, “O Lord! I wish I had not looked!” To which her lodger replied, “prithee what’s the in there?” “Why, I know them all!” “hold thy tongue, (replied the lodger,) or we shall all be hanged!” She then went on to state, she saw three men, two of whom, with black faces, were breaking frames with hammers in the road, and one standing on the causeway with a candle and lanthorn to light them—Knew that the prisoner Elliott and George Bacon were the men who broke the frame, and that Sellers, the other prisoner, was the man who held the light; was quite sure it were them; and no body else; knew them all; heard the sound of their voices; but did not understand a word they said, on account of the wind; went to bed again, and said she had seen enough. On her cross-examination she said, she slept with John Folding; that he got up first; that she saw Sellers from head to foot, but did not see his face, only by a side view, and that she worked in spectacles.

John Folding deposed, that he lodged with Ann Jackson; that there were but two beds in the house, and that the children slept in one, and himself and Ann Jackson in the other. He then proceeded to stay, that on the morning named in the indictment, he heard a noise; got up first took the “clouts” out of the bung-hole; saw seven or eight persons breaking frames, but did not know them; formed no judgement that Sellers was one, though he had known him about a year, and was reacquainted with his person, and had resided with Ann Jackson eighteen months; was distant from the frame breakers twelve or thirteen yards.

Sellers said, that Folding had known him many years ago; to which the other replied, “you was then a boy.”

Mr John Bing proved the property of one of the frames, whose testimony closed the evidence on the part of the Crown.

Job Berisford stated himself to be a farmer at Swanwick; he gave Sellers an excellent character, and stated, that in his opinion, Ann Jackson ought not to be believed on her oath; that she was a reputed liar and tale bearer, and bore a general bad character. He further stated, that on the 14th of December, he had a conversation with her at her brother’s, when he, witness, called, out of curiosity, to see the broken frames, and likewise to inform Hill, that in consequence of him having his frames broken, he had better have pay from the parish. On this occasion, Ann Jackson was washing at her brother’s, and witness asked her if she knew any thing about the matter, when she replied, that John got up first, pulled the rags out of the bung-hole, saw three men breaking frames, but did not know them. Witness said, “it was what she did not know some of them;” to which she replied, “Aye, bless you! they were all in disguise.” Susan Mather lives at Swanwick; knew Martha Orange, and had seen Ann Jackson with her; remembered hearing the former say to the latter, “I thought you had been at Derby to day?” (the day on which her brother Hill, went to the magistrates about his frames,) “Indeed! what must I go for? I know nothing about it! I was not up till our folks called me up for a light.”

Martha Orange stated, that she had a conversation with Ann Jackson shortly after the frames were broken, and that she said to witness, “why, they have broken Samuel Hill’s frames! Did you know any thing of them? No, for I was not out of bed—John was up, but if all Swanwick had been there, he would not have known any of them.” This witness concluded by giving it is her opinion that Ann Jackson ought not be believed.

Ann Robinson, whose husband is a Collier, remembered the frames being broken; went and saw them; saw Ann Jackson there, and heard her say, “God, I know nothing about them! I was not out of bed till they were broken.”

Francis Mather deposed that he kept a huckster’s shop at Swanwick; and that he would not believe Ann Jackson either on her word or her oath. On being asked to state his reason for having formed so bad an opinion of her, he replied, that by a continued form of falsehoods, she had gotten into his debt. He was then asked whether Sellers was not also in his debt; “yes, he owes me a few shillings, but he is an honest man, and will pay me.”

Jane Elliott, widow of the prisoner Elliott’s father, deposed that the prisoner Elliott came to her house at Swanwick about a month before Christmas to lodge, on account of his work calling him from Nottingham; that on the night the frames were broken, he went to bed with her son David about eleven o'clock; that she slept in the same room with them; that she got up in the night to turn her son’s flannels, that they might be dry for him to go to the pit in the morning; that she heard the clock strike three while she was up; that she saw the prisoner in bed at that time; and that he did not get up till eight in the morning. The unaffected simplicity with which this witness gave her testimony, excited the Judge’s attention.

David Elliott, with equal simplicity, confirmed the greater part of his mother’s evidence.

Luke Cartledge, lives next door to Jane Elliott, and remembered going into her house at eleven o'clock the night Hill’s frames broken, and saw the prisoner Elliott sitting by her fire. This witness was asked whether he had not been a collector for the frame-breakers, to which he answered, that he had been a collective the stocking-makers out of employment, and thought he was not doing any harm.

Another witness was called, who produced a plan of the houses of Hill and Ann Jackson, to prove the impossibility of the latter person seeing any part of Sellers below his shoulders, when she said she was peeping through the bung-hole; but as he rendered his own evidence of no avail, by stating, in is cross-examination, what he probably never intended to say, we shall not enlarge upon it.

Folding was again called on the part of the Crown, who stated, that the witness Berisford promised, if he would not appear against Sellers, that he should never want money. His testimony, in this respect, standing unsupported, the Judge thought it of little worth.

Elliott had an excellent character given him by a gentleman of high respectability from Nottingham.

When the jury, after a trial of six hours, Acquitted both the prisoners without many minutes hesitation.

Mr. Copley and Mr. Balguy advocated the cause of the prisoners and we never witnessed two gentleman do their duty better.

21st March 1812: The trial of 'Luddite burglar' John Thompson at Derby Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812 continued with coverage of the trial of John Thompson on Saturday 21st March 1812:

On Saturday morning, John Thompson, aged 25, a native of Draycot, in Derbyshire, was put to the bar, and charged with having, in company with others, on the 6th of January, 1812, robbed the house of Thomas Theobald, of Wilsthorpe, in the said County.

Mr. Theobald deposed, that he was the holder a little farm at Wilsthorpe; that his family consisted of two daughters, a servant girl, and a little girl; that just before two o'clock in the morning of the 6th of January, he was awakened from his sleep by two men coming to his bed side, armed with pistols, one of which had a candle in his hand; that they demanded his money, when he said he had but 15 or 16 shillings in his breeches pocket, that lay on the bed, which they took away; that he saw their faces, and was sure the prisoner at the bar was one of them; that a third man came in, that one staied by him while the other two went to search other rooms and came again; but they stopped an hour; that his daughter had the care of his other money; that they took eight five pound notes, five one pound notes, eight silver tea spoons, three silver table spoons, one pair of silver tea tongs, several linen and cotton sheets, and various other articles. Witness further stated that he got up at three o'clock, and when he went down stairs, he found the kitchen window taken out, and that it was large enough for a man to get through. On his cross-examination, he stated that his house was an odd one; that Mr. Harriman, who lived at least sixty yards from him, was his nearest neighbour; that he was 77 years of age, and his eyes not very good; that he knew the prisoner when a child, and was sure as to his person; that when the robbers had taken his money, he told them to go about their business, in reply to which they threatened to shoot him if he spoke another word—would not swear that he had ever mentioned the prisoner’s named till after he was taken, nor could he tell the reason why he had not done so.

Mary Theobald stated herself to be the daughter to and housekeeper of the former witness; that on the 5th of January, at night herself and the servant girl were up the last in the house; went to bed at ten, and was quite sure that she fastened the door and windows. She then stated that at two o'clock in the morning she was alarmed by two men coming into her bedroom, and drawing aside the curtains, one having a candle to his hand, and each holding a pistol, servant who slept with her having fled as they entered the room; and that they told her death should be her portion if she did not lie still. Witness then saw them go into the middle room, and so on into the far room, where the money was, and where her sister slept, who was then on a visit. She got out of bed, notwithstanding the threat, and distinctly saw them rummaging a large trunk, in which was a small trunk, which contain the cash notes named in the indictment. She swore positively to the prisoner being one of the men, though he was not the man who held the candle; and that the other man had a large nose.

Jane Hanberry, daughter to the first witness, deposed that she was on a visit as a father's house at the time it was robbed; that she slept the room where the truck was that had been rummaged; distinctly saw the men; was much alarmed, and would not swear to the person of the prisoner.

Mr. Whiston clerk to Dr. Forester, deposed that he took down the prisoners examination before the Magistrates; and that he, the prisoner, on hearing the deposition of Mr. Theobald read, declared at about three o'clock in the morning mentioned to the indictment, he was walking near Barrowash, and found Cook, Scott, and Fine John, who shewed him that articles said to have been stolen from prosecutors house; but they went to England's house at Derby, and there divided the spoils; that he Cook went up to London, where Cook sold the silver spoons, &c. to a landlord whom he knew; that he bought himself a suit of clothes with part of the money; gave the prisoner another part of it, who then went down to Tewkesbury. The prisoner had nothing to say in his defence; and the Jury, without hesitation, found him Guilty. The Judge, in passing sentence of death upon him, was peculiarly impressive, and very much affected. His Lordship said he understood that the prisoner’s father had ten or eleven children, and that his grandfather now lay dead in the house of broken heart, on account of the prisoner’s abandoned conduct, and the fate that now hung over his head. The Court were in tears; and the Judge, after he had pronounced, in the most solemn manner, the awful sentence of the law upon the prisoner, gave him hopes of mercy, in consequence of some important discoveries he had made respecting the desperate gang.

NB: John Thompson's death sentence was later reprieved by Judge Bayley.

20th March 1812: The trials of the 'Luddite burglars' Pierce Cook, James Tomlinson & John England at Derby Lent Assizes

 The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812 had extensive coverage of the trial of the Derbyshire 'Luddite burglars' whose trial took place on Firday 20th March 1812:

On Friday morning the Court was crowded to excess, when James Tomlinson, alias Fruz, [the prisoner obtained this appellation having large whiskers,] Perceval Cook, and John England, were put to the bar, charged with committing a burglary in the house of Mr Samuel Hunt, at Ockbrook mill, early on the morning of the 23d December, 1811. They each to the least five feet nine inches high, and were all fine looking young fellows; Cook being 26, Tomlinson 27, and England 29 years of age. England protested against being tried with the other two, saying, if he were, and was found guilty, he should consider himself a murdered man. The Court, however, took no notice of his protest, and proceeded to call

Elizabeth Walker, an interesting young woman, sister to the prosecutor’s wife, who resides with him in the capacity of a servant. She stated, that she got up to wash at two o'clock of the morning named in the indictment, and when she had been to the kitchen about an hour, had a strange voice call “hallo;” that she then went into the house to listen, and heard some people whispering on the doorstone. They then lifted up the latch several times, and she proceeded upstairs to call Mr. Hunt, who bid witness go down stairs and ask what was wanted, which she did, but received no answer. Mr. Hunt then went down and asked the same question, when he was answered, that they were Ned Ludd’s men; that they wished him to sign a paper to sell his corn and flour at a reasonable price; that they had left off breaking frames, and now intended to break human souls, if their grievances were not redressed. Witness then stated that several of the persons went to the windows, the shutter of which was then open, and demanded admittance; that one person had his face close to the glass, and another looked over his shoulder. On being told to look at the prisoners, and state whether any of them were the men, she immediately pointed out Cook and Tomlinson, and said Cook was the man who had his face close to the glass, and that Tomlinson looked over his shoulder. She was positive as to the identity of their faces, in consequence of having had so clear a sight of them, which she was enabled to have from the light of a large fire and having a candle in her hand, and from their standing conversing whether in that position at least a quarter of an hour. She further stated, that Cook had a black handkerchief on, which reached up to his ears and covered his chin; and that Tomlinson had something under his hat like the ears of a cap, which came down by the side of his face. [It was inferred that this was a cap to conceal his whiskers.] In the meantime, Mr. Hunt had been upstairs to fetch his gun, and on being pressed to open the door, he positively refused; when one of the depredators said if he did not, he would be dead if he should not see his mill and house burnt before his eyes. He then asked permission to dress himself; but they swore they would have him as he was. He then lifted up his gun, when one of them said, “he has a gun! we have fire arms as well as him.” Mr. Hunt replied that he had twenty guns up stairs, and that he would discharge them all before he would be robbed. She admitted that this was a [illegible] to drive the depredators away. Witness then said that she asked her brother where the trumpet was with which she might alarm the village, which was not more than a quarter of a mile from the house; but that while she was thus preparing to defeat their purpose, a brick-bat came through the window, which induced her to open it and call out murder; she then received a blow on the mouth from another brick-bat, which cut her upper lip and caused her to bleed profusely. Witness then went on to state, that a man set his foot against the door and sprung it partly open, when another said “stop a bit;” then they shortly after forced it open; and Mr. Hunt went up stairs with his gun; saw two men on the first or second stair, the first of whom was Cook; saw them quite plain with pistols in their hands, and observed Tomlinson have bits of flannel on the side of his face proceeding from under his hat; and saw other men in the house. One of the prisoners then said, what makes this man so stupid? why dont he come down and sign the paper? if he dont we will have vengeance! Mr. Hunt said, he would shoot the first man that attempted to advance another step. Mrs. Hunt had by this time dressed herself, and came to the top of the stairs with a child in her arms; and on seeing witness bleed so profusely, begged most tenderly of her husband to surrender himself, lest they should be murdered, which induced him to set his gun down and come downstairs. They then demanded his money, and he gave them his purse, containing a little silver and the key of his bureau. Witness saw five men in the house, some of whom had their faces disguised: saw three go up stairs, two of whom were Cook and Tomlinson; followed them, and saw them in Mrs. Hunt’s sleeping room; saw them at the drawers casting the things upon the door; went to them and laid hold of Cook’s arm, to whom she said, “justice will overtake you in this world, for this crime, and vengeance from an offended God in the next.” Witness then went down stairs, and saw them take three shirts from among the dirty linen. On her cross-examination she re-stated near the whole of the foregoing, and added, that she was quite sure that she knew Cook and Tomlinson, as they stopped in the house half an hour, and besides the light of the fire, there were six or seven candles burning in the house; and that she saw Cook take away Mr. Hunt’s gun.

Miss Hunt being then sworn, he stated himself to reside at Ockbrook mill, and confirmed all the material parts of the last witnesses testimony. He was positive as to the persons of Cook and Tomlinson; sure he was not alarmed until, at the tender entreaties of his wife, he surrendered himself, and that then he was afraid they would have murdered him from the resistance he had made. He further stated, that, besides his gun, which Cook had carried away, they took thirty-five one pound and guinea notes, which lay in his drawer under two suit of clothes, with sundry other articles; and that, when they were going away, he begged most tenderly that they would leave him a little money, to which Cook answered by shaking a pistol at him, and said, “We will remember you another day.”

Thomas Draper, an accomplice, aged 22, the same who swore against William Wells, alias Black Tom, at the Nottingham assize, was called as a witness: and, after receiving a caution from Counsellor Clarke to speak nothing but the truth, he deposed, that he had known Cook and Tomlinson about two years, and England about six months. He likewise knew Ockbrook Mill, Andrew Scott, a Scotchman, and Howett. He stated, that on the night preceding the burglary, the whole six met at England's house who gave them four black crapes for face cloths, and a flannel cap to Tomlinson to cover his large whiskers; it being agreed the Ockbrook Mill should not go [illegible] house in his own neighbourhood, therefore he did not want a face-cloth. [This accounts for only five persons being seen in Mr. Hunt’s house.] Witness went on to state that England furnished them with five loaded pistols, and advised them to go first to Brentnall, at Locko-grange, whom he knew bred many horses and sold them, and did not put his money in the bank, consequently, that they would there “get a good life” that they went out of England's house two by two; that they went to Brentnall's house, and got defeated; that they had forgot to bring their powder from England's; that for want of priming to discharge the pistols, he drew his own to prime the others with; but they all discharged their pistols in a close, except Cook, who he believed had not a sufficient quantity of priming; that they did not wish to do murder; that they then went to Mr. Hunt's house and robbed, as described by the two foregoing witnesses, (the circumstances attending which robbery he particularly described;) and that Tomlinson was the man who forced Mr. Hunt’s door, a panel of which he kicked out, and then entered through the hole, unlocked the door, and let in the rest. He further stated, that on their return they found England's back-door open, according to agreement, that England was gone out a brewing, and that when he came home to breakfast they gave him Hunt’s gun, and two one pound notes. On his cross-examination he admitted, that he had been charged with stealing his indenture from his master when he was an apprentice at Sheepshead; that he was a deserter from four regiments, but denied having received £111 14s. bounty money in one year.

The evidence against Cook and Tomlinson here closed, but then it was necessary to corroborate Draper’s testimony against England, to prove him an accessary, and to accomplish this, Mr. Whiston, clerk to Dr. Forester, a magistrate for the county of Derby, was sworn. He stated, that having taken down the deposition of Draper, and when he was reading it over to England, and came to that part which says, that they went out to commit the robberies in question with five pistols, “nay, says England, you had six.” “I think they [obscured] Draper,” “Yes,” replied England, “you know, Cook had two!” Witness further deposed, that when he came to that part of Draper’s testimony, which says that England received Mr. Hunt’s gun, and two notes, England said ”Nay, the notes were given to my wife!”

William Jowett, game-keeper to Lord Harrington, deposed, that some time ago he gave England a blue coat. The object in calling this witness was to prove that the coat which Cook had on Mr. Hunt’s was the one thus given to England; but as the latter part of the circumstance was not clearly proved the Judge struck out the whole of it from his notes.

Cook had an excellent character given him from his childhood down to the year 1807, by persons of high respectability from Nottingham; Tomlinson’s character stood high in the estimation of a creditable housekeeper of Belton, with whom he had lodged for a considerable time back down to 9th of January, 1812. But when he was asked, whether Tomlinson had not sometimes been absent for several days at a time, he said yes; but suppose that such absence might be accounted for by him going to Leicester with his work. And England had a fair character given him by several people up to May 1811.

The Learned Judge bestowed infinite pains in summing up the evidence; and the Jury, almost without hesitation, pronounced the prisoner Guilty.

Cook and Tomlinson were again indicted for having, in company with others, entered the dwelling-house of John Brentnall, of Locko Grange, on Sunday night the 22nd of December, 1811, it being the same night that the robbery at Mr. Hunt’s was committed; and England was again indicted for being an accessary to such forcible entrance.

Joseph Brentnall, son of the prosecutor, stated, that at eight o'clock, on the night stated in the indictment, his father's door being shut, two men rushed into the house; and that on him rising up in attempting to force them out again, he received a violent blow on the head with a pistol, while another was snapped at his breast; that he through the first man down; that three or four others rushed in: that the servant girl with a brush, and his father with a long bill-hook came to his assistance; but one of the ruffians cried out “murder; that they then got the whole of them out; that his father pursued them into the yard with the bill-hook, and was then knocked down by one of the villains throwing a large piece of wood at him; that he ran to his father's assistance as soon as possible, got him into the house and shut the door; but on missing the servant girl, he opened it again to seek for her, when he met her returning towards its and one of the villains pursuing her; and that on him appearing, the latter retreated with all possible speed.

John Brentnall deposed to the foregoing, and further stated, that when, in the yard two or three pistols were snapped at him; that he found two buttons, part of the tricker-guard of a pistol, and a hat; and that when the depredators entered his house, his family which was just rising from prayers.—We should have stated on the former trial, that Miss Walker deposed to one of the villains being without a hat, and having a handkerchief tied round his head; and that Draper declared himself to be the man. On this trial, this wretch deposed that he and Andrew Scott were the men who entered Mr. Brentnall's house; that he struck young Mr. Brentnall with a pistol, and Scott snapped the other at his breast; that he lost his hat in the scuffle; that he believed that Tomlinson was the man who knocked Mr. Brentnall down with the wood; and that on their disappointment here, they went and robbed the house of Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Whiston, Clerk to Dr. Forester, deposed on this trial, as he had done on the former, respecting the expressions made use of by England.

The Judge, in summing up the evidence, particularly stated, that a man who had furnished the means for the commission of a crime, became equally guilty, in the eye of the law, with the perpetrator of it, and consequently merited the same punishment.

The Jury found the business Guilty, and the Judge immediately proceeded to pass the awful sentence of the law upon them, and more than once enjoined them not to expect mercy.

These two trials lasted eight hours, during which time the prisoners conducted themselves with becoming deportment.

NB: John England's death sentence was later reprieved by Judge Bayley.

19th March 1812: The opening of Derby Lent Assizes

Unlike the local newspaper, the Derby Mercury, the Nottingham Review gave extensive coverage of the Derby Lent Assizes in the 27th March 1812 edition. The presiding Judge was Sir John Bayley, who had just conducted the Nottingham Lent Assizes. Indeed, Bayley had head the last case in Nottingham at 6.00 a.m. and proceeded to Derby the same day. The Nottingham Review set the scene with this introduction:

At this place, as well as at Nottingham, the Assizes were never attended by greater crowds of persons of every rank, nor were ever listened to with greater interest; we, therefore, attended every trial of import at both places, that we might put them circumstantially on record, as documents proper to be referred to on another day. And we here congratulate the county of Derby on the breaking up of one of the most formidable and dangerous gang of nightly depredators that has infested England for many years; a gang [illegible] and directed in their operations by a character worthy to be ranked with Jonathan Wilde, of the name of John England, who resided at a little stone house, the first on the right hand on entrance into Derby from the Nottingham road. The breaking up of this gang is chiefly to be attributed to Woodward and Newton, two active officers of Draycot, who have traced its baneful ramifications into the counties of Gloucester and Worcester. It is worthy of remark, that this gang was wholly made up of deserters, with the exception of England, who, as a brewer, labourer, and petty hukster, used every possible act to keep up the shadow of reputation, for the purpose of finding a cover for the rest. He never went out himself with his comrades to plunder, but always pointed out the object for their depredations; and his concubine (the wife of a person of the name of Matthew Bush, of Wessington, in Derbyshire, who was principal witness against one of the depredators in these important trials, and who was attempted to be seized as a deserter as he entered the hall.) provided them with caps, masks, and other things necessary to form a proper disguise. For these aids he used to have a share of the plunder; but at length he was too witty for himself.

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

(Private)

Nottingham

18 March, 1812

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Bayley

18th March, 1812

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

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

19th March 1812: The lesser-known cases of Luddites tried at the Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 27th March 1812, contained very brief summaries of other cases involving Luddites at the Nottingham Lent Assizes. These cases are not discussed in any of the works about the Luddites that I have read. It is not clear upon which day these cases were heard:

The following entered into a recognizance to try their traverses at the next Assizes:—John Clarke and William Fell, charged with riotously assembling together, in company with many other persons unknown, at Sutton-in-Ashfield, on the 13th of November, 1811, and disturbing the peace. William Bellamy, charged with unlawfully entering the house of Francis Betts, of Sutton-in-Ashfield, in company with many other persons, and stealing one quart bottle of elder wine.

The following prisoners were delivered by Proclamation:—John Slaney, charged upon the oaths of Edward Green and Alexander Mudford, privates in the Royal Berks Militia, with having wickedly incited the said Edward Green to break a frame at Basford, on the 27th of January 1812;—John Godfrey, charged with having incited a number of persons to assemble for the purpose of breaking frames at Arnold, on the 13th of November 1811;—William Parkes and George Shaw, charged with breaking five frames in the parish of St. Mary, in this town, on the 25th of November, 1811.

19th March 1812: The trial of John Ingham at the Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review covered the final trial at the Nottingham Lent Assizes  on 19th March 1812, which appeared in the 27th March edition of the paper:

Thursday morning, notwithstanding the Court was opened at six o'clock, yet it was crowded to excess, by persons of every rank in the town, desirous of hearing the trial of John Ingham, who, at the suit of the Crown, had been removed from the town gaol by writ of Habeas Corpus. On the part of the prosecution the Counsellors were, Mr. Clarke, Serjeant Vaughan, Mr. Reader, Mr. Balguy and Mr. Reynolds. For the prisoner the Counsellors were, Serjeant Rough, and Mr. Copley. Mr. Selby being sworn, he stated himself to be foreman in the House of Wm Nunn and Co. in Nottingham, whom he said were proprietors of the silk lace manufacture, and a cotton lace manufacture; that the prisoner had served under him in the capacity of a general warehouseman; that he had frequently seen him write invoices, orders, and general bank accounts; but did not remember to have seen him write more than one letter, and that was fifteen or sixteen months ago. On being shewn two letters subscribed “NED LUDD AND CO.” From New Radford, and directed to Wm. Nunn and Co. Park-street, Nottingham, the one being dated the 20th, and the other the 30th November, 1811. and brought from Nottingham post office, by Gilling, the general servant of the house; he stated it as his belief that they were written by the prisoner at the bar, to whom he gave an excellent character; but would not take upon himself to swear positively that there were his handwriting, because they appeared to be written in a disguised hand. On being asked why he believed them to be written by the prisoner, he answered, from the general conformation of the characters, and from the general expression of the letters. He stated that he was about three months in the same warehouse with Ingham. The letters were then read by the Clerk of the Court, from is extreme bail expression, it was impossible to collect any thing from him except their general import, which was, that Mr. Nunn had long been in the habit of imposing his workmen, by demanding his lace pieces to be made longer than the rest of the lace manufacturers; that though he had put to the rack, which regulated the length of the pieces, yet was not a sufficient atonement for past offences. Nor would Ned Ludd and Co. be contented, except he published a clear statement of his intentions to the world; that without this was done, fifty of his frames should be destroyed, his premises should be burnt, himself, and Clark, (his taker-in) who was accused of being the principal instigator instrument of his oppressions, should be made personal examples of. One of these letters further declared, “that atonement shall be bad, atonement which will make human nature shudder!” The Judge then asked, do you think there is any doubt of any other person having wrote them? To which he answered, “I will not swear they are Ingham's hand-writing.” Mr. Selby was then asked, if the length of Mr. Nunn’s pieces had been generally complained of, in which he replied, they had: and that he himself had, through his recommendation, caused the rack to be applied, to prevent such complaints in future.

Robert Renshaw, another warehouseman of Mr. Nunn’s, was then shewn the letters; and he stated upon oath, that they were in the prisoner’s hand-writing; that his knowledge of such hand-writing arose from having seen the prisoner write invoices, orders, and general bank accounts.

Q. Have you not a person in your warehouse of the name of Flanagan?—A. Yes.

Q. Where is he?—A. From home, Sir; he is gone to see his friends.

Q. Was he not served with a subpoena?—A. Not that I know of.

Q. Was he not served with a form of one?—A. Yes; but it was not properly filled up.

Q. Do you know who sent him that subpoena, the prosecutor or the prisoner?—A. I do not.

Q. Were no applications frequently made to see him?—A. Yes

Q. Who answered the person who applied?—A. I did, sometimes.

Q. Do you know the person? No.

Q. When did Flanagan leave town?—A. Yesterday morning.

Q. How old is this Flanagan?—A. He is upwards of twenty.

Q. He is under your orders, I suppose?—A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, Sir, who sent him out of the way?—A. I did.

Q. What did you send him out of the way for, Sir?–A. On business which I could not transact myself.

Here the Judge shook his head, and, emphatically, said, “I do not like it”

Mr. Clarke then disclaimed any knowledge on the part of the Counsel of this in their proceedings, and, at the suggestion of the Judge, offered to put off the trial till the next Assizes, and liberate the prisoner on bail. The prisoner, however, refused the proffered favour, and wished his trial to go on.

Mr. Clarke, then by way of exonerating the last witness of the foul proceeding with which, on his own confession, he stood charged, asked him, if Flanagan was not sent out on the business of the House, when he stated that he was. This, however, did not satisfy the Judge, and he again offered to put off the trial and the prisoner again refused to proffered [illegible].

Sergeant Rough then stated to the Judge, that there was a flaw in the indictment, in as much as William Nunn and Co. were therein stated to be Proprietors of a Silk and Cotton Lace Manufacture: whereas, according to the deposition of Mr. Selby, the principal manager of the firm in Nottingham, it appeared, that they were Proprietors of a Silk Lace Manufacture and a Cotton Lace Manufacture.

Every species of law chicanery was resorted to by the Counsel for the Crown, to shew the impropriety of the alleged flaw; but the Learned Judge said no and had a duty to perform, and he would perform it; and until he was convinced, that Mr. Nunn had manufactured Lace of Silk and Cotton conjointly, he must admit the objection to be a good one. His Lordship further remarked, that the prisoner’s Counsel had very properly stated the objection, and as properly insisted upon adhering to it; he therefore ordered the Jury to acquit the prisoner, and he was Acquitted accordingly.

18th March 1812: The trial of William Barnes at the Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of the 27th March 1812 continued with its coverage of the trials of the Luddites at Nottingham Lent Assizes:

William Barnes, one of most respectable men in Basford, was arraigned on suspicion of conniving at the breaking of three frames in his workshop, on the 26th of January, 1812, belonging to Messrs. Haddens, Hosiers, in this town.

Mr. Bodill, Constable, stated, that he took an order from Mr. Hadden to the prisoner, on the day named in the indictment, directing him to deliver up to such Constable the three frames belonging to Messrs. Haddens the next day; but it was thought necessary the plant two of the Berkshire Militia in the house, to protect them during the night from the violence of the Luddites. Accordingly, the witness took two soldiers with him to the house, and when he gave the prisoner the order, he said, “God Almighty damn the Hosiers, they are a pack of dammed scoundrels altogether;” wished the soldiers to be taken away, and would not suffer any of his family to fetch them any refreshment.

Henry Huggins, a soldier, deposed that he was placed in the prisoner’s house, for the purpose above specified; that the prisoner went out in fifteen minutes, as the admittance of himself and comrade, to fetch his daughter, for fear she should be frightened when she came at the sight of soldiers in the house, on whose account he seemed very uneasy. He described the prisoner as going out and in several times, and at length he entered in silence with eighteen or twenty persons at his back, in disguise, who immediately secured the soldiers and their arms—threatened them with instant death if they made any resistance, and sent the prisoner up stairs while they demolished the frames belonging to Messers. Haddens. The soldier described one person as a gentleman, who seemed to have the command of the rest, and who said to the men, ”Ned, do your duty, or you shall not be paid.” Witness further stated, that the frame-breakers remained in the house eighteen or twenty minutes; and that when they went away, the prisoner came downstairs, and exclaimed, “Oh dear me! this will be laid upon me! these frames would not have been broken, if the Constable had not come here.” Witness went on to state, that the priosner stated himself, during their conversation, to have been forced into his own house by two men, each with a pistol at his head, threatening, in a low tone of voice, instant death if he created the least alarm; that a table was broken in the house, and three frames in the shop, while three remained unbroken; and asserted most distinctly, that he did not fall a sleep before the frame-breakers entered the house.

Thomas Osborne, the other soldier, who had been present during the last witness’s examination, confirmed, in a hesitating manner, what his comrade had stated; admitted how much he was alarmed while the frame-breakers help their pistols to his breast; that he had not slept before they entered the house; and that they gave him and his comrade their arms back when they had completed their work of spoliation.

After Mr. Alexander Hadden had proved the demolished frames to belong to the firm of Alexander, John, and George Hadden, and that he had sent an order to the prisoner to deliver up the said frames, as stated by the witness Bodill,

Barnes was called upon for his defence, when he declared his innocence in the most solemn manner; that, so far from his having acted in the outrageous manner as stated by the witness Bodill, that he had not sworn an oath during the last seven years; that he thought it hard work for Mr. Hadden to send for his frames at so short notice, as it was not only contrary to established custom, but that he had worked him ten years, without ever an angry word having passed between them. He further stated, that if the soldiers had not slept before the entrance of the frame-breakers, that they had done something very much like it, for that he saw them hanging down their heads, and heard them snore; and that when he awoke them, they exclaimed bitterly against the Hosiers for being the cause of having such hard duty imposed upon them, and that it would be better to use violence to their persons than their frames.

Mr. Hadden voluntarily rose up and confirmed the testimony of Barnes respecting the length of time he had worked him, and the purity of his character after which,

Robert Elliott, a neighbour of the prisoner’s deposed, that he was in conversation with him at half-past six the evening the frames were broken, and that he had not parted with him at his (the prisoner’s) own door many minutes before he saw the frame-breakers enter his house, and heard the hammers go in the shop. Several highly respectable persons were ready to speak to the character of the prisoner, but the Judge thought their testimonies unnecessary; and after an impartial address to the Jury, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

18th March 1812: The trials of Benjamin Hancock, Gervas Marshall & George Green at Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review of 20th March 1812 recorded how on Wednesday 18th March 1812, some of the remaining prisoners accused of frame-breaking took their trials at the Nottingham Lent Assizes:

Benjamin Hancock, aged 21, charged with frame breaking at Sutton-in-Ashfield, on the 13th of November, 1811, was next brought to the bar.

Sarah Betts was the first witness called. She deposed that on the day above stated, she saw about a thousand persons, 11 on abreast, some armed with guns, assembled in Sutton; that she bolted her door for safety; but that the hammer-men advanced and broke the pannels in pieces.

George Jefferies, a boy of about 12 or 13 years of age was next examined. He stated, that he was at Mr. Betts’s when the frames were broken, but did not see the prisoner there; saw him at Kirkby, when he had a gun in his hand, but did not hear him say any thing to the mob; though he we went to a house and demanded a gun, which he gave to Wm. Fell.

Robert Hodges, also very young, was next brought forward as a witness; said he saw a large mob at Sutton, on the day alluded to in the indictment; but when he was asked if he saw the prisoner there, he began to weep most bitterly. After his passion had a little subsided, he said, he saw the prisoner there with a light coloured hat on and a gun in his hand.

_____ Hayes, another boy remembered Betts’s frames being broken, and saw the prisoner in the mob with a gun in his hand; saw him at Kirkby with two guns; saw the mob throw frames out of Betts’s window was, in Sutton; saw Robert the Scotchman there, but did not see the prisoner do any thing, nor was he well acquainted with him.

William Richards was working for Mr. Betts on the 13th of November; saw the prisoner in the front of the mob with a gun in his hand. In a conversation, which he said, took place between him and the prisoner, he stated, that the latter said, that the mob consisted of two thousand men; that they had one man shot at Bulwell, and another wounded in the hand. A man came and told the prisoner that they had broken all the frames before them, at which he swore bitterly, charged peace among the mob, and swore he had a mind to shoot any of his men who had broken a narrow frame. He then called for a pilot to lead them from Mr. Betts's new building to his old one.

Francis Betts being sworn, said, he should remember the 13th of November to the latest hour of his life, for that he had property destroyed that day worth £400.

A number of respectable persons spoke to the character of Hancock; but the Judge in his address to the Jury, assured them, as he had done on the preceding cases under the charge of frame-breaking, that character ought not, in the smallest degree, to sway them in their consideration. “For,” said he, “this crime has not that degree of moral turpitude attached to it as other crimes have, which, in the eye of the law, call for a similar punishment. With the worst of crimes, which merit a like punishment, it is equally dangerous to the well-being of society, yet it bears no proportion to them, in moral guilt.”—“Frame breaking,” continued his Lordship, “is not a breach the Ten Commandments, though it breaks down the barriers of peace and felicity, and as such, must be punished with the utmost rigour of the law.”

The Jury found Hancock Guilty, and his Lordship sentenced him to Fourteen Years Transportation.

Gervas Marshall, aged 17, and George Green, the two next prisoners that were tried, received excellent characters; but as they were both found Guilty of being concerned in the Sutton-in-Ashfield business, it is unnecessary to detail their trials, as the riots in that town have been already sufficiently dwelt upon.—They were each sentenced to Seven Years Transportation.

18th March 1812: The trials of John Osborne & William Wells at Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review continued it's coverage of the Nottingham Lent Assizes taking place on Wednesday 18th March in the 20th March 1812 edition of the paper:

On Wednesday morning, John Osborne, Framework-knitter, aged 29, of Heanor, in the County of Derby, was [obscured] at the bar on a double indictment for burglary and [frame-breaking].

Sarah Wild being sworn, stated, that she resides [obscured] Eastwood, in this County, in a house occupied by herself and her mother; remembered having seen the prisoner at the [obscured] her mother's house with about twenty others, in the [obscured] February, and heard him say “damn them, (meaning Hussars who were guarding a waggon load of frames (from Nottingham,) they durst not fire—we are all Ned Lud’s [obscured], said witness, you have not your hammer [obscured] yes, we carry them out of sight, and shall come [obscured] night; have you got a coal pick to lend me, to which she replied yes! She went to bed before ten at night [obscured] awaked out of her sleep by some forms scratching at the window; heard nothing said; asked who was there; when [obscured] prisoner asked if a colt worked there, to which she answered [obscured] Let me in, or I will break the door open; to which she replied; stop till I dress me, and I will; but instead of [obscured] she alarmed her brother, who lived in the next house [obscured] -ping against the partition wall with the tongs. She [obscured] stated, that the prisoner then ran round the house [obscured] the window in, against which stood the frame; that he [obscured] his shoulder against the window-stool; and struck the frames three violent blows with a piece of iron, which broke the sinkers and needles all to pieces. Witness while this was going on, flung down the tongs, and placed one foot on the frame-side and the other on the bed, to see who he was, which she was enabled to do by the light of a great fire, and recollecting his features in the day time, and from having heard him sing in company the preceding Christmas. Being asked what was meant by a colt, she said she was one, for she had not worked seven years at the trade. On her cross-examination, she admitted she had been accused of stealing lace; that she did not know whether it was five miles or one mile from Eastwood to Heanor; that she knew no more of the prisoner than that of having heard him sing in company at Christmas; and having seen his face (one side of which was besmeared with something of a dark colour,) in an oblique direction as he was breaking the frame; and that she had no expectation of gaining £10 by his conviction. She further stated, that she did not know what part of the room the bed was in; how long the window was, nor what time of the night it was when she saw the prisoner.

Hannah Wild, mother of the last witness, being sworn, she remembered a waggon load of frames passing through Eastwood, guarded by soldiers; knew not the person with whom her daughter conversed on the day mentioned in the indictment; heard the noise of the door, and the scratching of thorns at the window; called her daughter, and heard a voice ask if any colts were there; had a curtain by the side of the bed; the mischief was done in a moment, at three strokes; yet upon recollection cannot form any opinion of the length of time the man occupied in breaking the frame.

Eleanor Ingram remembered the waggon load of frames going through Eastwood; saw the prisoner in company with many others, conversing with Sarah Wild.

Josiah Mee saw the frames go; saw the prisoner of the Sun Inn, in Eastwood; had known him from a child, and gave him an excellent character.

Vincent Wild, brother of the first witness, remembered the noises his mother's door on the 5th of February at night; heard the report of a gun or of a pistol; heard the knocking at the wall; heard the window smash; heard three strokes, and went out at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock, but all was over.

William Howitt, of Taghill, deposed that he knew Hannah Wild; that he saw the frame in question at her house on the 6th of February; that the frame was not broken, but was only damaged a little in the sinkers and needles, as if the man had drawn his fingers across them; and conceived that five or six shillings would repair all the damage. He had known the prisoner 20 years, and he and his parents bore good characters. This witness dropt some curious observations respecting the formation and altering a stocking frame, which caused the Counsel for the Crown to call in the evidence of Mr. Alexander Hadden, Hosier, to give a more correct account of that machine.

Roger Osborne remembered being out with the prisoner on the the 5th of February, and parted with in a little before eight, in the evening, on his way home.

John Walters lives at Loscoe, and remembered going after the waggon load of frames, on the 5th of February, through Eastwood; and on returning home, caught the prisoner on the road between that village and Heanor, and parted with him about a quarter of a mile from his (the prisoner’s) home, about nine o'clock.

Joel Godkin remembered going with the prisoner after the so often mentioned frames, on the 5th of February, as far as the water slash near Nuttall, and returned with him home.

Robert Lomas knew the prisoner well; lives the next door to him; went into his house on the 5th of February, at nine o'clock at night; stood with him till a quarter before eleven, during which time the prisoner sat with his shoes and stockings off, which were very dirty.

Henry Savage deposed to his seeing the prisoner in his house at nine at night, on the 5th of February.

Sarah Savage, wife of the last witness, went into the prisoner’s house at eleven the same night, to boil a sop of gruel, and saw him and without his shoes and stockings.

After this long investigation, the Jury were divided in opinion; but after being locked up three hours, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.


The next prisoner put to the bar was William Wells, alias Black Tom, who pleaded guilty to the charge of robbing Mr. Robert Crompton, of Epperston, on the highway leading from that village to Mansfield, on the evening of the last October cheese fair, held at the latter place; but the Judge wished him to have the advantage of a trial, and he pleaded not guilty. Mr. Crompton stated that he was met by four men, about a quarter of a mile on the Epperston road, leading from Mansfield, during the course of the evening, who stopped him, dragged him from his horse, rifled his pocket-book of two one pound notes, presented a pistol to his breast, cut the bridle reins of his horse, and turned the animal loose; and when they thought they had taken his all, they let him go. Mr. Crompton thought the prisoner was one of the robbers, but was not quite sure of it.

Mr. Heath, Blidworth, deposed that he was attempted to be stopped on the same road and the same evening, by four men; but through exertion of courage and prudence, escaped with his property.

William Draper, a native of Sheepshead, and an accomplice, corroborated the testimony of Mr. Crompton; and likewise stated that Pierce Cook, and a person of the name of Thompson, were their accomplices, who are now in Derby jail, waiting their trials the present Assize; from which place Wells was removed by writ of Habeas Corpus, and to which place Draper is removed to appear against the other two. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty; sentence of death was passed upon him, but he was afterwards reprieved.

17th March 1812: The trials of Robert Poley & Joseph Peck at Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review's coverage of the Nottingham Lent Assizes continued with this account of the trial of Robert Poley & Joseph Peck, which was published in the 20th March 1812 edition:

Robert Poley, aged 16, charged with frame-breaking at Sutton-in-Ashfield, on the 13th of November last, was next brought to the bar, and pleaded guilty: in consequence of marks of contrition, the Judge sentenced him to seven years transportation. After which, Joseph Peck, aged 17, was brought up, and pleaded not guilty.

The first witness called was Francis Betts, Hosier and Chapman, at Sutton-in-Ashfield, who stated, that on the 13th of November, 1811, in the afternoon, four or five men approached his house, and asked his permission to break his frames, to which solicitation, as might naturally be expected, he refused his consent. He then saw a multitude approach, armed with sticks; and on a gun being fired, he heard a great shout for the hammer men to come up, who entered his house, and from the noise he heard, he supposed they were breaking his frames. He then fled for his own personal safety; and on his return, he found more than twenty frames broken, and some of his household furniture.

Dennis Horsecroft stated that he resided at [obscured] remembered on the day stated in the indictment to be [obscured] five to six hundred men, armed with guns, axes, hatchets [obscured] &c. proceed towards Sutton-in-Ashfield and have [obscured] [partially obscured] them thither, he saw a number of frames cast [obscured] Bett’s window into the Street, where the prisoner, [obscured] was using his almost endeavour to demolish them [obscured] [partially obscured], and heard him call out his comrades “damn your eyes, smash away.” He knew the prisoner from a child: he had no doubt as to the identity of his person.

Thomas Chadwick was next sworn; and he stated, that [obscured] 13th of November, he saw a great number of persons assembled at Kirkby, and followed them from mere curiosity to Sutton-in-Ashfield, when he saw the prisoner, armed with [an axe], or a bludgeon, stand by a man who was breaking of frame with [a] hammer. The prisoner, on being called upon for his defence said, that Horsecroft struck the frames as well as himself. The Judge, in his charge to the Jury, stated, that in a lawless assembly, the act of one person became the act of the whole. The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty: and the Judge, in passing sentence of transportation upon him for the term of Fourteen Years, remarked the simplicity of the prisoner’s defence; pitied his youth and gave him hopes of mercy on the ground named to Carnel and Maples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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