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: Baron Rolle reports disturbances during the Nottingham Lent Assizes to the Home Office

Private

Nottingham
18. March 1812

My dear Sir/

Notwithstanding Mr Hobhouse [may] write you I am unwilling to omit a Post or without giving you every Information that comes to my knowledge. The Result of the Verdict against Carnell proceeded from Fear as never was a Burglary more clearly nor more satisfactorily proved, the jury after a great deal of Hesitation found both Carnell & his accomplice Maples guilty of breaking the Frames only—There was only one more trial yesterday. The same Sentence pronounced on the Three Transportation beyond the Seas for Fourteen years, where they ought to be sent instead of Confinement on board the Hulks, which does not make the Impression — nor produce the Contrition – so much to be desired

The mob just at the moment the [judge] the Judge was summing up the Evidence the mob I suppose about 2000 in Number made a grand Push to get into the Court then full but by the very spirited Conduct of Mr Chaworth & the Constables he with another magistrates seized two of the most active & the Constables Two more – That together with the Establishment of Sentries from the main Guard to the Court had the Effect of restoring Tranquility – The persons were reprimanded by the magistrates & on addressing their Sorrow and on a Promise to keep the Peace were dismissed — This I trust will prove to you the Prudence and Propriety of keeping the military in the Town.

The mob went off vowing Vengeance against the Prosecutors & others & that Blood should be the consequence

Last Saturday they fired at one of the Hussars but very fortunately missed him—Nothing but a spirited & determined conduct such as Mr Chaworths in all the magistrates and [some] Exertion will effectively quell this Torrent.

The Judges send a very strong impressive and most judicious Charge

What is become of your Bills?

I am in haste to [illegible] the Post
faithfully Yours

Rolle

The Right Honble
Richard Ryder

18th March 1812: The Manchester spy 'B' visits villages in Cheshire

Colonel Fletcher's spy 'B' had been out of Manchester for once and filed a report about his activities on Wednesday 18th March in various places in Cheshire, near to Stockport.

He had first travelled to Marple Bridge, where he had caught up with Yarwood, the man who he reported had been elected Secretary of the Manchester Committee of Trades on 19th February. Yarwood related to him the feelings of the local people in nearby Mellor, who apparently had hopes that the Prince Regent would dismiss the government's ministers upon regaining his full powers.Yarwood said that those active were "all jacks to a man" (i.e. Jacobins).

Yarwood told B about how the weavers were organised in the area, 40 of them having met about 10 days prior and consulted the Stockport committee for advice. The advice coming back was to organise a committee of the different trades and from that choose an executive committee. The aim was to convince the workers that help would not be forthcoming from government, and that self-organisation was the key. Yarwood talked about broader aims, which included a mass rising, aiming to write off the national debt. There was talk of confiscating the estates of the wealthy that sided with the government, and of ending tithes paid to the clergy. B commented "the[y] intend to strike Both Church & State".

B had also been to Romiley near Stockport and Werneth Low near Hyde. He had little time for the people there, describing them as mostly Methodist, saying "these deictful [deceitful] Beings is as deep as the Rest as the[y] deal underhanded and I Belive the[y] are desloyal and would cam forword as soon as any set of people have". B stated that there was a circuit of nearby towns & villages that the Romiley and Werneth folk were in contact with, including Stockport, Gee Cross, Haughton, Denton, Hooley Hill and Newton.

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.

The Fate of the Luddites: Benjamin Hancock

At the time of his conviction for frame-breaking on 18th March 1812, Benjamin Hancock was 22 years of age. A direct descendant of Benjamin from Australia contacted us with the results of her research into Benjamin's life, both before and after his conviction, which we now publish below.

Benjamin Hancock was born on 14th June 1789 in Hucknall Torkard, the sixth child of James Hancock and Ann Walker. He had eight brothers and sisters (including William, James & Joseph).

He married Elizabeth Harrison 24th December 1810 in Hucknall Torkard.

Their first daughter, Ruth was born about 1811 in Hucknall.

On 18th March 1812 he was tried in the Nottingham Assizes for feloniously breaking stocking frames and sentenced to fourteen years transportation.

Benjamin was transported on the 'Indefatigable' which sailed from England on 4 June 1812 with 200 convicts on board.

They arrived in Hobart Town (Van Diemen's Land) on 19 Oct 1812.

In 1814 Benjamin's wife Elizabeth and their daughter Ruth arrived in Hobart. Convicts wives were given the opportunity to join their husbands which Elizabeth was no doubt eager to accept.

They very quickly added to their family having eight more children

Benjamin worked as a sawyer. He was also appointed a Constable for the District of Hobart Town.

After he was granted his Conditional Pardon he was granted 50 acres of land in the District of Norfolk Plains (north of Hobart)

Benjamin then became an Innkeeper of various Inns in Hobart.

In 1840 Benjamin decided to move his family to Melbourne, Victoria where he became the Licensee of three more Inns the last being the 'Punt Inn' in Richmond ,a suburb of Melbourne.

Unfortunately, Benjamin was declared bankrupt on several occasions.

He died at his residence, the Punt Inn, on 7th June 1853, aged 63. His wife, Elizabeth, had died two years earlier at the Punt Inn on 3rd December 1851, aged 65.

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.

18th March 1812: Letter to "Mr Byrnny" from "Genl Ludd", Nottingham

Mr Byrnny


late foreman of a jury held
at Nottingham 16 March-12


Sir,

by Genaral Ludds Express Express
Commands I am come to―
worksop to enquire of your Character
towards our cause and I am sory
to say I find it to correspond with
your conduct you latly shewed—
towards us, Remember the
time is fast aproaching when
men of your stamp will be―
brought to Repentance, you may
be called upon soon. Remember―
you are a marked man
your for Genl Ludd
a true man

18th March 1812: The Luddite William Carnell passes a note the Nottingham Gaoler

Mr Wright this is to Beg a small favour of you. Which i hope that god almighty will reward you for it i said a small favour But it may perhaps prove a Large one. that is to tell my lord judge that the Prisoner Carnell Desires to see him wonce more Before he goes and tell him that i have somthing to say to him of more importance then eather Life or Death. god says them that them that shewes mercy shall find it

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: Joseph Radcliffe reports the attack on Vickerman to the Home Office

Sir

I received the favor of yours of the fourteenth yesterday, & the 2 Troop of Dragoons are at Hudfd as mentioned in mine of Saturday last, but not adequate to our wants, for had my repeated request been attended to, I am confident the mischief of which I now enclose an information, might have been prevented. Infantry, might have been quartered at Vickerman's, where the Mob commited their destruction before the Cavalry guard, having their horses at Hudfd (near two miles off) could get to their sleeping quarters, & I do hope Mr S. Ryder will see before it is too late, the necessity of giving us Infantry, as well as cavalry.

To convince the Commander of the District the more of the necessity of our having the 100 Infantry applied for, I wrote to him yesterday, the Letter, as see copy inclosed. The dirty piece of paper herewith also sent had been thrown into Vickerman's premises.—& from the Threatening Letters I have before transmited, & the offer wrote on doors, & walls, of 100 Gs for the Prince Regent's Head, it may be apprehended the present spirit may not end in the destruction of new inventions to expedite Manufactory.—On the 29th Inst I am obliged to go to Lancaster Assizes, & shall not return until Wednesday the first of Apl. Joseph Scott Esq of Woodsome will then be the next resident Magistrate to Huddersfield, should Mr. S. Ryder have any occasion to write, & from Mr. Scott what further Mischief is done will be communicated to your office.—

I also enclose a paper I last night received from the Committee desiring Mr. S. Ryder would send down one or two Bow Street officers. Their expenses will be defrayed by the Committee, & on their arrival at Huddersfield they will please to wait upon Mr. John Horsfall of Thornton Lodge, a short distance from Huddersfield, the Chairman of the Committee to consult upon what measures may be most advisable to be taken.—

& am Sir

Your most Obt
Hbe Servt
Joseph Radcliffe

Milnsbridge house
Marh 17th 1812

The Fate of the Luddites: Joseph Maples

At the time of his conviction for frame-breaking on 17th March 1812, Joseph Maples was only 16 years of age. Shirley Cook is a direct descendant of Joseph and lives in Australia. She contacted us with the results of her research into Joseph's life after his conviction, which we now publish below.

After Joseph Maples was convicted on 17th March, 1812 in the County Court of Nottingham, he was transferred from the Woolwich prison hulks to a convict ship 'Indefatigable' which left London on 4th June 1812, bound for Van Dieman's Land, (now Tasmania). He arrived on 19th October after sailing for 137 days with 200 other convicts on board.

Van Dieman's Land had become a British penal colony in 1803, and labor was needed to establish the colony. Joseph worked as a bricklayer - his occupation in Nottinghamshire - taking part in constructing government buildings.

On 13th June 1819, Joseph became a father to a son, James, but he had to wait until he had gained permission from the Governor to marry Louisa Atkins, also a convict, on 27th December, 1819.

He was granted a conditional pardon on 7th August, 1821, which allowed him to work for himself.

He was granted an allotment of land in Hobart Town on 31st December, 1823.

He & Louisa had four more children, but only 2 girls survived to marry.

Joseph died on 6th September, 1858. He was 63 yrs. old.

I am a descendant of his son James 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.

17th March 1812: Posted paper inscribed to “Mr lud," Chesterfield

Mr lud,

I Ham going to inform you that there is Six Thousand man Coming to you in Apral and then We Will go and Blow Parlement house up and Blow up all afour hus labrin Peple Cant Stand it No longer, dam all Such Roges as England governs but Never mind Nead lud When generel nody and is harmy Comes We Will Soon bring about the greate Revelution then all these greate mans heads gose of

Hear all Confution menchester and Derby and yourk and Chesterfield Shefild Nottingham mansfield local is going to fling Doon there harmes

The Nation Will Never Sattel No more till these great heads is Cut of We Will Nock doon the Presions and the Judge We Will murde whan he is aslepe.

16th March 1812: Troop movements

On Monday morning the 16th March, the Stirlingshire Militia marched out of Derby: military units could not be stationed in a town when the Court of Assizes was in session, and Derby Assizes were due to commence the following day.

16th March 1812: Nottingham Lent Assizes commence

The Nottingham Review of 20th March 1812 reported extensively on the Nottingham Lent Assizes, and described the Judge, Sir John Bayley's opening remarks on Monday 16th March 1812:

On Monday morning, the Grand Jury were sworn in: after which, the Learned Judge Bailey addressed them in nearly the following words:—

GENTLEMAN,—Nothing could give me greater satisfaction, amidst the troubled state to which this important county has been reduced by a number of misguided individuals, and to see so respectable a Jury assembled, as a barrier between guilt and innocence, as a safeguard to property, to our liberties, and to our lives. The calendar laid before me does credit to the moral state of the county, with the exception of one crime, which swells the awful list. It is not for me to enquire, whether the persons who have thus involved themselves in trouble, have any just cause of complaint; because, if grievances do really exist, the proper, and indeed the only way to get them redressed, is to apply to the legislature of the country. But this should likewise be particularly remembered, that while the complainants continue in a state of open violation to the law, even the legislature will not attend to their prayers; and, to add to their sufferings, partly brought about by their own misconduct, the law will be too strong for them,—many of them will fall victims to their own daring folly; for the law must and shall be obeyed. The violent proceedings, if persevered in much longer, may have the effect of driving the lace manufacture from Nottingham; for why cannot it be carried on in other places as well as at this? It is true, that this appears to be the native seat of this branch of the British lace-manufacture; and no doubt it will be grateful as long as it is treated with indulgence and care: but when that ceases to be the case, it may leave those who have been fed by its bounty in a state of deep repentance, for having exercised their own folly and violence. The length of time these outrages have been carried on, might almost make it a matter of enquiry, whether the Magistrates of the County have done their duty: but the highly respectable assemblage of Nobleman and Gentleman this morning, renders such an enquiry unnecessary; for none can doubt that that their duty has been done. His Lordship then gave it, both as his own and Lord Ellenborough's opinion, the latter of which he produced in writing, that it was the bounden duty of every good citizen, particularly the wealthy, to risk their lives for the protection of private property; and he hoped, by exertions like these, aided by the salutary rigour of the law, that the misguided would see their error. After stating that when he left the town, the Assizes would only be adjourned, and that upon the seizure of any rioters, a Judge would come down and act upon the present commission, his Lordship proceeded to stay, that the act of one individual, in a riotous multitude, became the act of the whole; and, consequently, that every man became accountable, in the eye of the law, for the misdeeds of his neighbour, when thus assembled. On the subject of collecting money for lawless purposes, his Lordship said, that the person obtaining money by means of intimidation, subjects himself to the punishment which attaches itself to that crime which is perpetuated through the application of such money; and that those who give money freely for the promotion of a lawless purpose, likewise stand amenable to the law in the same degree as the former. His Lordship concluded, by enjoining the nobility and gentry to remain at their respective seats, while the troubles, or the probability of their renewal, continued; and likewise with enjoining the Grand Jury to do their duty, without prejudice or partiality to one party or the other.

Monday's business did not involve any cases related to Luddism. The trials of the prisoners accused of frame-breaking and other offences would commence the following day.

15th March 1812: Bolton weavers meet in secret at the Rope Walk

Sometimes after mid-March, around 18 to 20 weavers met in secret at the Rope Walk on Bolton Moor. Robert Waddington was present again, and heard a man called Christopher Metcalf talk suggest that those present should form a Secret Committee, as had already taken place in other towns. Illegal oaths were also administered at the meeting.

Waddington and a handful of others took up this suggestion after the meeting: an impromptu meeting took place between Waddington, John Garrat, John Hurst & Samuel Ratcliffe who decided to form a Secret Committee and to include a man called Richard Charlton, who agreed to their suggestion the following night. The Secret Committee would thereafter seek to recruit and 'twist-in' (i.e. administer illegal oaths) as many people as possible.

15th March 1812: Attack on the home and workshop of Francis Vickerman

Up until Sunday 15th March, Luddite attacks in the Huddersfield area had been limited to the workshops of small master clothdressers who had installed relatively few shearing frames in their premises. But at 8.30 p.m. that night, an audacious attack was launched against a well-known merchant manufacturer, and a large business concern in Huddersfield, Francis Vickerman. Vickerman was on the 'Committee for Suppressing the Outrages' that had recently formed in Huddersfield, and had received a threatening letter prior to the attack. Furthermore, being so influential his premises were guarded at night by some of the Dragoons stationed in Huddersfield. They usually arrived at his home in Taylor Hill, Almondbury by 9.00 p.m., so by undertaking an attack earlier than than that time meant that the Luddites were breaking the pattern of attacks in the small hours and taking much more risks. The attack had to have been planned with military efficiency.

The group of Luddites had posted lookouts at Brooks Corner, close to where the Dragoons assembled to leave for Taylor Hill. Their job was to fire pistol shots to alert the Luddites to the progress of the military. In addition, 3 young men who served as bell ringers at Huddersfield Church were persuaded to ring the bells when alerted so that the Luddites would know the troops were on their way.

By 8.30, the main group of at least 50 Luddites had reached Vickerman's and announced their arrival with a gunshot. 2 Luddites entered the family home, demanding to know where Vickerman was. When he appeared one of them announced "Ned Ludd of Nottingham has ordered me to break this clock" and promptly smashed a nearby clock with the muzzle of his blunderbuss. Vickerman fled back upstairs into his room and did not emerge until the Luddites had gone. Meanwhile, more Luddites were placed to guard Vickerman's family.

By now, the rest of the Luddites had begun to smash open the doors of Vickerman's warehouse with hammers. They eventually gained access to the dressing shop, and set about destroying the 10 shearing frames and 30 pairs of hand shears that were kept there. Others set about breaking the windows of the warehouse and dwelling house.

By now, the lookouts had noticed that the Dragoons had assembled, and the church bells in Huddersfield began to ring. The Luddites knew time was short, but they completed their work, and when the machinery was smashed several of them shouted "Out! out!" In the warehouse, they had left 2 pieces of cloth and some wool on stove, in an attempt to start a fire, although this never took hold and was later extinguished without doing any damage.

Before leaving, some of them emptied their weapons into Vickerman's house, though other Luddites inside protested loudly about this and no one was harmed. The Luddites were summoned by their leader that night to a nearby field, and the roll was called to make sure all were present.

The lookouts now fired a shot to alert the Luddites that the Dragoons had reached Chapel Hill, and soon after one from Knowle Hill. But the Luddites had left Vickerman's and were making their way home. They had wrought complete destruction within the 30 minutes they had allotted themselves an struck a blow at the heart of one of their main capitalist enemies.

14th March 1812: Joseph Radcliffe writes to General Grey demanding more troops

Sir

I had the honor to receive yours of the 13th this day, in answer to mine of the 11th & am sorry to find you cannot comply with my request relative to the 100 Infantry very much wanted for the protection of the property of various individuals of Huddersfield and the surrounding Villages where Genl Snip-Shear & his people Commit Constant depredations on the Croppers. Nine houses have already suffered, & the rest in continual apprehension, had I known you required a return of what was done, it should have been sent, but having so done to Mr Ryders Office I thought it unnecessary, your letter (a Copy of) I sent there this day, I also call'd upon Major Gordon, & inclosed to Mr Ryder a return of His Squadron, who are not equal to our wants—

[Joseph Radcliffe]

Milnsbridge House
Mar 14th 1812

[to General H Grey]