18th May 1812: The Manchester spy, John Bent, files his latest report for Colonel Fletcher

On Monday 18th May 1812, Colonel Fletcher's spy 'B' (aka John Bent), finished another report for his master.

On 12th May, Bent had met a delegate called Taylor from Newcastle-under-Lyme from Staffordshire. Taylor brought the usual tale of high numbers of those 'twisted-in' and weapons ready to be used: he told Bent that 7000 men were sworn-in and they had 2380 guns, pistols and swords. Others were ready with Pikes. Irish delegates were passing through the town, bringing the usual news about hundreds of thousands being ready, that had been a feature of Bent's reports for months. Bent described Taylor as being 5'7" tall with a dark complexion, of slender build with dark eyes, a bold speaker, 'hath a good utterance' and dressed 'genteel' in black, wearing boots.

Bent had met another man from Huddersfield. He told Bent that all the local Croppers were twisted-in to an oath along similar lines they already knew about, but with the following difference:

they are to helpe haid & asist to the best of their power & ability in destroying all Mechenery who May be determental to them or deemed so and Bound to keep the secerit at the forfit of their life

Bent went on to say of the Huddersfield Croppers that "it is impossable to stop them at present".

Bent then related how the Committees in Manchester had now done all that they could to move away from machine-breaking and assassination. He related how the weavers had even stopped twisting-in, mainly because there had been a dispute between them and the spinners, tailors and shoemakers committees. Things were so bad that the spinners had stopped paying subscriptions.  The head of the weavers secret committee, John Buckley Booth, had sent his wife to the head of the spinners to demand payment, threatening to hand himself in to the authorities and to tell all if subscriptions were not paid up. The reply sent back was that Booth should 'do his worst'. In the meantime, the weavers' secret committee had destroyed their papers, fearing they were compromised. Bent gave a description of Buckley Booth: 5'4" tall, thin, 'tallow complexion' and an ex-dissenting preacher.

Bent believed that these three committees would not be allowed to send delegates to the Committee of Trades meetings and the different direction this group was now taking - that of petitioning for peace and parliamentary reform. He reported that despite the occupation of the area by the military and the other measures in place that the spinners, tailors, shoemakers, bricklayers, fustian cutters, joiners and other trades still met at least once a week.

That day, the 18th, Bent had attended a meeting of trades, to take forward the petition for peace and parliamentary reform. Delegates attended from Huddersfield, Saddleworth, Glodwick, Hollinwood, Ashton, Audenshaw, Denton, Stalybridge, Stockport & Manchester. The meeting lasted 6 hours and passed 5 resolutions: all agreed to the wording of the petition, which was read out. The committees from Saddleworth and Stalybridge funded the printing costs, contributing £1, 11 shillings and 6 pence. Bent himself was again elected to the role of treasurer and gave receipts. Bent promised to send Fletcher copies of the petition and resolutions as soon as he could.

Bent ended his report by stating that the drowned militia Sergeant Moore was an informer who had been found out. He had been working undercover for a Colonel Taylor.

18th May 1812: Edmund Eastwood, William Horsfall's companion on his final journey, dies

On Monday 18th May, Edmund Eastwood, a manufacturer friend of William Horsfall, died. He had ridden alongside William Horsfall during part of his final & incomplete journey, and had never recovered from the injuries he sustained in trying to obtain help. The Leeds Mercury of 23rd May carried his death notice:

On Monday last, Mr. Edmund Eastwood, of Slaithwaite, near Huddersfield.—This gentleman was the intimate friend of the late Mr. Horsfall, of Marsden; and soon after Mr. Horsfall had received the fatal shots upon Crossland Moor, he was thrown from his horse near the place where the assassination took place, and considerably hurt. Indifferent to his own injury he ran on foot to Huddersfield, to procure surgical assistance for his friend, and on his return he again mounted his horse and repaired to Huddersfield a second time, for a supply of medicine, when he was again thrown from his horse at the corner of the church yard in that place, and so much injured by his repeated accidents and arduous exertions as to occasion a complaint in the abdomen, which terminated in his death.

18th May 1812: Troops build up in Nottinghamshire

On 18th May 1812, the Times reported that a new camp was being formed in Sherwood Forest, 7 miles from Nottingham, which would accommodate 3,000 infantry and 500 cavalry.

'Repression And Resistance In West Riding Luddism' by Alan Brooke

(A Paper delivered at the ‘Enoch’s Hammer’ conference, University of Huddersfield, 12 May 2012).

Machinery...is a thief and would rob thousands, we shall find that it shall be the destruction of this country. America won’t get a deal by it – it will be the destruction of that country and in the end, I will venture to say, it will be the destruction of the universe.’[1]

So spoke William Leadbeater, a local ‘operative’, (his occupation is not recorded), at a meeting in Huddersfield in 1830. We may laugh, at the hyperbole, as did those at the meeting, but this quote illustrates a couple of vital points.

Firstly and obviously, that hostility to machinery remained long after 1812. But the main point lies in consideration of the context in which it was made. This was a meeting on distress in Huddersfield following the 1826 bank crash. And this was not the only reference at this time to machinery being a primary factor responsible for unemployment and poverty.

At a meeting on Almondbury Bank on 15 June 1829 one speaker made specific reference to 7 out of 8 cloth dressers being deprived of work by machinery, so earlier struggles were clearly remembered.[2] Indeed one prominent middle class Huddersfield radical claimed that in 1826 he had helped channel local agitation from murmurings about machine breaking to more constitutional political channels. ‘there had been a meeting and some men had been amongst them encouraging them to burn the factories and to rob , rather than to pine or starve...’[3]

The Operatives Committee behind these meetings was composed mainly of handloom weavers, particularly the fancy weavers of Almondbury. Out of such meetings grew the local Political Unions for parliamentary reform, which in the 1830s dovetailed both with trade unionism and with that of the Factory Reform movement, one of the main aims of which, articulated both by radicals and ‘radical Tories’ like Oastler, was preservation of the domestic system of production. Although by now most of the weavers in that sector, particularly in the fancy trade, were proletarianised wage workers.

Therefore, the machinery question, the defence of domestic manufacture and political struggle were all clearly interlinked right through to the Chartist 1840s.

Consider another quote, from another meeting, which discussed: ‘what were the first steps they would take...it was concluded that they should pull down all the machinery, which would return the manufacturing business to the old channel.’[4]

This is from a decade before 1812. It is in the report which was passed on to the authorities of a meeting in Almondbury in 1802 of suspected United Britons, a Jacobin cell.[5] There is clear evidence of Republican activity in the area and no reason to disbelieve that one of the concerns of this group was the impact of machinery. After all, in parts of France machine breaking was part of the revolutionary movement.[6]

But the machinery question was not just a concern of a small group of clandestine Jacobins. In the 1807 Yorkshire county elections the defence of domestic production, machinery and the apprenticeship question was the concern of many of the small freeholders. It contributed, if was not the main factor, in the defeat of Henry Lascelles. Lascelles was the chair of the parliamentary committee in 1806, which found that the domestic woollen industry would not be adversely affected by the repeal of the ancient laws regulating it. William Wilberforce, who was also on the Committee, was elected, but he had not exhibited the same vociferous hostility to the clothiers and cloth dressers as Lascelles. This committee in its report appeared more concerned about the subversive threat from the ‘Institutions’, the organisations representing the clothiers and cloth dressers, than about the threat to domestic manufacture from machinery.

Clearly, both prior to the outbreak of Luddism in the West Riding in 1812, and for a long time afterwards, the machinery question was inseparable from resistance to the factory and defence of the domestic system as a whole. And this resistance implicitly, and often explicitly, had a political dimension.

By political activity I do not simply mean that people were drawing up political programmes expressing their grievances, or were engaged in activities intended to influence or change the parliamentary system. This paper does not consider the wider political concerns of the croppers, such as parliamentary reform and the movement to end the war with France. Nor does it look at their role in elections as enfranchised freeholders, or as non-electors who could at least shout and perhaps kick up a riot. By political I mean that they were forced into a position of responding to and resisting increasing state repression.

This was a state that was shaped by the need to push forward industrialisation at home and to maintain Britain’s commercial predominance abroad, as manifested in the war with France. This was not a remote state apparatus. It was evident on a daily basis in the organisation of the Volunteers in 1794, against not only invasion but ‘intestine commotion’.[7] It was evident in the role of the local magistrates, who since the Combination Acts of 1799-1800 had a direct role in suppressing illegal combinations. And it was increasingly evident in the realisation that parliament was clearly on the side of the manufacturers regarding the machinery question. The armed, the judicial and the legislative arms of the state clearly revealed their class bias, nationally and locally.

Did the active element of the croppers, the occupational group out of which WR Luddism grew realise this? Were they politically conscious in this respect?

The first opposition to gig mills in the West Riding was apparently an attempt to invoke ancient Tudor legislation prohibiting this machine in order to prosecute the Atkinsons of Bradley Mill in 1787. Whether there was any organisation behind this legal initiative is not recorded.[8] According to the Halifax cropper, John Tate, speaking before the 1806 Select Committee on Woollen manufacture, the croppers organisation known as the Institution dated from 1796. In 1799, as a result of the Combination Act, the Huddersfield cloth dressers society, which was presumably the local form of the Institution, was dissolved and its funds disbursed. It called in over 500 membership tickets.[9]

The Institution reformed as a sick brief Institution, ostensibly a friendly society concerned with relieving members in distress. Tate claimed that unlike its predecessor it did not have a Bank of funds, although the suspicion that it did was one of the main concerns of the authorities. It was also an oath-bound society, always grounds for suspicion. Whatever the role of the Institution at this time its’ activities were certainly circumscribed by the Combination Acts. But the limitations of these Acts were shown by the willingness of some croppers to use direct action to resist machinery.
In November 1799 Johnson’s gig mill at Holbeck was destroyed. The description of the event by the merchant and magistrate William Cookson prefigures later Luddite attacks.

‘many hundreds were present and some disguised, ...and though a considerable reward was offered from the government and from the magistrates, and the parties were summoned up who were known to be there, and who could not prove an alibi, no argument or entreaty could prevail upon anyone to confess who were active parties in the business’. (1806).

Similarly, in the West of England disturbances of 1802, a semi clandestine Institution employing strike tactics co-existed with a movement employing direct attacks on the mills housing shear frames. This Institution was clearly linked with the one in the West Riding. Delegates moved between the two areas. The same membership ticket was used showing the Leeds coat of arms and crossed shears and no shearman from the West of England, or West Riding cropper could get work in either area without one.[10]

In the West Riding, where each town had its own committee and sent delegates to central meetings at the White Swan at Birstal, 1802 saw strikes against the gig mill, the employment of non Institution men and the employment of over age apprentices at Huddersfield and Leeds. This had some success since Cookson asked merchants to desist from installing machinery through fear it would lead to ‘horrid outrages’. Fitzwilliam, the Lord Lieutenant, wrote to the Home Office denouncing the ‘system of terror’ and describing the croppers as ‘the tyrants of the country, their power and influence has grown out of their high wages, which enable them to make deposits that puts them beyond all fear of inconvenience for misconduct.’ The powerful closed shop of the croppers had clearly back footed the authorities. Because of the Institution, Benjamin Gott, the merchant and owner of the largest woollen factory in Leeds, was unable to recruit strike breakers in Trowbridge.

But the resistance was not just from the croppers. In 1803 the Rules and Orders of the Clothiers Community, Leeds, established a ‘clothiers brief institution’, in defence of 7 year apprenticeships. [11] Behind that, of course, was desire to protect the domestic system of production as a whole. As one clothier put it in 1805 they were opposed to the ‘mighty factories ...erected ... by these monopolisers.’, wealthy manufacturers and merchants, who were setting up loom shops in their premises. As well as displacing independent clothiers the factory system was held to produce all sorts of baneful moral effects detrimental to the community.[12]

In Leeds in 1805 and 1806 there were numerous strikes both by weavers and other workmen, including shoemakers, tailors, joiners and cabinet makers, bricklayers and flax dressers. In January 1805 five shoemakers were sentenced to 3 months in York for illegal combination. [13] In May in Wortley weavers and spinners were discharged in order to break up the ‘institution formed among themselves for the purpose of relieving each other when sick.’ [14]  While in Farnley, two clothiers were convicted of illegal combination.[15]

In 1805 the merchants and manufacturers of the West Riding had formed a combination of their own. In Leeds 54 firms signed a resolution not to employ any Institution men. Joseph Stancliffe, a clothier, of Hopton, in evidence to the 1806 inquiry, thought that the decision not to employ Institution weavers, ‘has in some measure prevented them.’ But it lead to a bitter dispute. Non Institution men were referred to as ‘snakes’ and homes were attacked in Beeston,Wortley and Armley.[16]

Among the names of the 31 firms signing the Huddersfield resolution are many of those who also supported Lascelles in 1807 [17] and who backed the creation of the Volunteer force. They include the Atkinsons and Horsfalls who were the most prominent advocates of finishing machinery. The class lines were clearly being drawn in this struggle.

Although the main focus of the cloth dressers’ Institution was now on petitioning parliament against the repeal of the old laws regulating gig mills and apprenticeships, they still had enough funds to offer support to other workers. On this point their representatives before the 1806 select committee were intensely interrogated. Payments also included an allowance to Mrs Hilleker, mother of Thomas Hilleker, hung for his alleged part in the burning of Littleton Mill in Wiltshire in 1802.

The 1806 Select Committee concluded that the croppers Institution was not devoted just to petitioning parliament and collecting funds for this purpose, they found in clear reference to the strikes,

‘this explanation far from satisfactory and strongly to suggest the idea of a connection with some other transactions which had taken place not long before in the manufacturing district and in which from their nature the interests of all commercial men were deeply involved’.

Much was made of the membership ticket produced at the committee by Lascelles, and the fact that funds had been given to strikers, to support the finding that the Institution was an illegal combination. More sinister than that, the Committee concluded, 

‘that such Institutions are in their ultimate tendencies still more alarming in a political than a commercial view...a systematic and organised plan and one so efficient and so dangerous both from the amount of its force and from the facility and secrecy with which at anytime and for any purpose that force may be called into action...’

There is no doubt that croppers were aware of the political forces which confronted them. In a last ditch meeting in Huddersfield in 1808 to protest the repeal of the legislation as recommended by the 1806 SC, local croppers stated that they were;

‘...not insensible that it had been the interest and objective of their adversaries to impress opinions upon the different committees of the most unfavourable kind and to describe their endeavours to save themselves and their numerous families from destruction and despair as factious and turbulent...’[18]

With the economic repression imposed by the advance of machinery, with its resultant deskilling of the artisan and imposition of factory discipline, if not the loss of livelihood entirely, combined with the political repression of the croppers organisation and the obstruction of any route to legal redress, the merchants and the government actually shaped the conditions out of which Luddism arose in the West Riding. The ‘Luddite response’ to this is best summarised in the oft quoted anonymous letter, ‘we petition no more, that wont do, fighting must.’[19]

There is no doubt that, even among the Luddites too young to have lived through the experience of the Institution themselves, there must have existed an awareness of the political processes and personalities which had led to the impasse, to a situation where machinery could only be stopped by force. There is clear continuity in the struggle against machinery and the erosion of the domestic system both prior to 1812 and afterwards. I believe that the burden of proof is on those who assert that the Luddites were somehow quarantined from this culture of resistance.

To Summarise. The cloth dressers and others whose lives and livelihood were bound up with the domestic system faced both increasing economic repression and political repression. There response was to resist, by legal channels when possible, but also by direct action. This resistance to machinery was both trans-regional, as is evident in the links with the West of England and trans-occupational, since opposition to machinery and the factory system came not just from croppers, but from the largest occupational group the clothiers, or domestic weavers. The croppers also had a history of strong organisation and of support for other workers. This is the milieu in which they lived and worked and which shaped their ideology. Much of the spilt ink and controversy about the nature of the Luddites has resulted from a failure to recognise this fact. The Luddites have been compartmentalised, pigeon holed, into simply a machine breaking movement.

This predates any retreat from any analysis that appears to be a ‘grand narrative’, though this trend in historiography has created its own problems of obscurantism and confusion. It stems from a reluctance to see the Luddites as part of a wider class struggle. This is not just a fault of the right, some dogmatic Marxists also see Luddism as a reactionary movement, aimed at holding up the inevitable development of the productive forces.

The paradox which both Luddism expresses, and which is evident in later struggles of handloom weavers in the West Riding, is that resistance to the factory system came mainly from workers outside that system. It was those faced with proletarianisation outside the factory, who, through struggle both against employers using machines and the state machine which backed those employers, first developed the clearest class consciousness. The level of political awareness generated by the Luddites left a clear legacy in the Huddersfield area. It cannot be coincidence that two more uprisings occurred in this area, in 1817 and 1820. There is clear evidence from the personnel involved and from the language used that this was regarded as a continuation of the Luddite struggle

This is not to say that the WR Luddites in 1812 were champions of working class liberation or wanted a workers’ revolution, which is a counter-parody of Luddism sometimes voiced on the left, but nevertheless, their struggles were an integral part of the process of the making of the working class. In this, E P Thompson’s seminal work is as valid as ever, and 50 years on, I maintain, it has stood the test of time.

16th May 1812: A Luddite-baiter is shot in Nottingham

On Saturday 16th May 1812, a Mr. Gaunt from Hucknall Torkard, a 'gentleman who had been particularly active in discovering the Luddites' (according to the Leeds Mercury) was shot in that town. At the time of writing, it was not clear whether or not he would live.

16th May 1812: Joseph Radcliffe informs the Home Office about prisoners committed to York Castle

Sir

With the concurrence of My brother magistrates, Messrs G. Armitage & F. Scott, acting in this Neighbourhood, I have the honor to inform you that different prosecutions are to be commenced at York on account of persons committed in various ways as connected with the riots.—The weighty expence of these in addition to the losses already incurred will bear most heavily on individuals. We therefore trust that we shall be excused by His Majesty's Government in making a request at the same may be carried on at the expence of the Public.—

I have committed one Haigh on strong Suspicions of being at the attack at Cartwrights Mill, & one other on Wednesday last, for forcibly obtaining arms in the night time.

Having been foreman of the Grand Jury at Lancaster in the spring, I am summoned to attend as such on the 23d Inst you will therefore I hope excuse my requesting the [illegible] to know if under any Special commission the prisoners at York are to be tried, and when. An early answer will highly oblige

Sir [etc]
Joseph Radcliffe

Milnsbridge house
May 16, 1812

N.B. I was sorry to hear from Ld [Fitzwilliam] on Thursday last, at a Genl Call of Magistrates & Deputy Lieutenants that an act to empower the magistrates to search for arms did not meet the approbation of His Majestys administration.—

On Sunday night last, within half a Mile of this place, an attack of destruction was made on an other description of Machinery.—

16th May 1812: More evidence given at the Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions

On Saturday 16th May 1812, more witnesses gave evidence at the Parliamentary Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions.

Edward Allen, who had given evidence the previous day, was the first to appear, again speaking about payment of wages in goods. He stated that it was particularly common in Sutton-in-Ashfield, where the effective value of the goods was inflated, and that this was particularly common, and was not related to any supposed scarcity of coins.

Allen also spoke of 'Colts' (i.e. unapprenticed workers) and said that in the Midlands they now accounted for two-thirds of those at work in the trade.

Next up was John Collumbell, a framework-knitter from Derby, who gave evidence about the Plain Silk branch of the Trade. He made a strong plea for the introduction of regulation. Collumbell showed that many of the practices that the other branches of the trade complained of were widespread in the plain silk branch.

John Green was next, a Nottingham Framework-knitter of fifty years. Green spoke about the damage done to the trade by the adoption of single-press cotton lace, as had Thomas Large 3 days before: shoddy goods destroying the reputation of the trade.

The final witness on the 16th was Thomas Allsop, a member of the United Committee of Framework-knitters from Leicester, who had worked in the trade for 16 years in the plain cotton branch. He talked about Colting, and how the widespread adoption of it in Leicester had led many to flock to the trade, leading to shortages of labour in other occupations, but also to Colts training Colts.

16th May 1812: Dates of Lancaster & Chester Special Commissions confirmed and more prisoners committed

On Saturday 16th May, the Lancaster Gazette brought more news about the forthcoming Lancaster Special Commission. It revealed that the trial was to open a week later on the 23rd May, and would be presided over by Baron Thompson & Sir Simon Le Blanc. There was also news of the Chester Special Commission, which would commence on Monday 25th May.

In addition, there was news about more prisoners committed to Lancaster Castle by Magistrates sitting at the New Bayley Court in Salford, viz: John Burney (for administering an illegal oath); Adam Bullough, Ann Butterworth (daughter or Robert Butterworth), Ann Butterworth (daughter of William Butterworth), Samuel Howarth, Alice Partington, Milicent Sothard, and Ann Dean, all for rioting.

15th May 1812: 'General Ludd's Army' rescue a Luddite at Stalybridge

The Leeds Mercury of 23rd May 1812 carried the following report about the escape of a suspected Luddite in Stalybridge and his subsequent rescue on the 15th May 1812:

Unsuccessful attempt to take a Luddite.—On Tuesday se’nnight, a person suspected to belong to this fraternity, was pursued by the peace officers near Staley-bridge. Being a collier, he naturally retreated to his underground-hiding place, sliding for that purpose down the rope, hanging in the shaft of the pit. A guard of upwards of forty of the patrole, were mounted at the mouth of the pit, which was kept up by necessary changes till the following Friday, determined to starve the besieged to a surrender, or confine him till death. On the night of Friday, however, a detachment of Gen. Ludd's army, consisting of more than forty men, appeared, drove the besiegers from their post, gave a whistle, when the besieged ascended the rope, and escaped to his deliverers.

15th May 1812: Letter from “I-G" at Leeds to Benjamin Gott at Leeds

I-G to Benjamin Gott,                                                                                               Leeds, 15th May, 1812.

Sir.

No doubt you are Informd as to the proceedins of the Ludites But feariful you Should Not to the Extent is the Caws of My Trublin you thus = a friend of Mine ad it from a Man that was Theair and on Sunday Night at Rounda wood to the Number of 400 thay theair Decreed the Death of 2 and with Great Diffecalty He Extorted from the Man that you was one = Be Carful of your Self for a few Weeks = alter your usal walks to yo1u' Busness = I will Giv you all the Information In My power Be of Good Currige But Be Carful = I Mentioned it to two of My friends who know your worth to the Town and world In general as well as Myself you do Not know Me But I will Be your Gardin angell as far as My abilities Go—rest Satisfide that if I Can find out the Tigars that is apointed for that Infernall job you Shall ave a Good account of them or Him. God Bless and preserve you through these difiicalt Times.

do not Cummunicate this to aney one==do Not Indevor to find Me ought and you May Rest Satisfide I am your well wisher I-G.

Leeds 15th May 1812

'At War with the Facts' – a rebuttal of Richard Jones’ 'At War with the Future’ in History Today, May 2012

Below is a response to the article about the Luddites written by Cambridge University Student Richard Jones and published in the May 2012 edition of 'History Today'. The article has been written jointly by Huddersfield Historian Alan Brooke, Luddite Bicentenary author Richard Holland, and the Luddites 200 Organising Forum. As we were delegates to the Huddersfield University Luddites Conference last weekend, we were pleased when we noticed Richard Jones appeared on the delegate list, but then disappointed when he did not attend. We were keen to discuss his work with him, and have contacted him asking to see his research. So far, he has not replied to our emails. We look forward to a rejoinder.

Richard Jones’ article ‘At War With the Future’ (History Today May 2012), while purporting to be based on new research, is a mixture of factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated generalisations, based mainly on secondary sources. In the opening paragraph, he introduces an Aunt Sally which he then proceeds to try and knock down with an array of old arguments and non sequiturs dressed up as a new perspective on the Luddites.

He claims that consideration of the long history of mechanisation in the woollen industry ‘makes it much harder to argue that the Luddites of 1811 and 1812 were motivated by a knee-jerk resentment of technological innovation’. This seems to ignore the fact that no historian of the subject makes that assertion. Quite the contrary. Resistance to machinery grew both out of grievances around new work practices employing long established machinery, as in the stocking trade, and out of a long history of opposition to relatively new machinery, as with the croppers. In neither case is there any claim that there was a ‘knee-jerk resentment’, but rather a complex response to the way that machinery was being used. Jones claim to have discovered the ‘moral economy’ governing perceptions of what constituted fair economic practice is also not revelatory, but an aspect of struggles of the time highlighted by Rude and Thompson and others.

Although Luddism in Nottinghamshire and the North West is subsidiary to his main argument this is no excuse for the inaccurate summaries he provides. Luddism in Nottinghamshire did not peak in the autumn of 1811, as he states: in fact there was a lull in activity after the initial outburst of proto-Luddism by the summer, which resumed in the autumn as full-blown Luddism. He lumps together the North West as Lancashire ‘and nearby’, ignoring the significant events in Cheshire and makes no mention of the Chester Special Commission in his resume of the trials.

If his brief account of the other areas is inadequate, his description of West Riding Luddism, on which his central argument rests, is totally flawed. He makes the sweeping assertion that here Luddism ‘emerged so rapidly [and] did not draw on exiting radical movements or long standing grievances as was the case elsewhere.’ This ignores the more than decade-long fight against gig mills and shear frames in the West Riding, the links of the croppers with the similarly aggrieved shearmen of the West of England and their precursor Luddism of 1802, as well as the existence of a strong radical reform and even republican tradition in the West Riding. The powerful cloth dressers ‘Institution’ active since the 1790s in one form or another, both before and after the Combination Acts, is also ignored.

His account of the origin of the first West Riding attacks is garbled, and, if not the product of bad editing, is an atrocious piece of historical misinterpretation. The attacks on frames he quotes from the Leeds Mercury of 1 February 1812 all took place not in Leeds but in Nottinghamshire! In his account of the initial attacks in the Huddersfield area he refers to Joseph Hirst of Marsh as Joseph Marsh [sic] and describes him as a ‘trader’, missing the whole significance that he was not only a master cloth-dresser but also one in the forefront of introducing shear frames. These crass errors indicate that Jones has little grasp of the structure of the woollen industry in general and cloth finishing in particular. His description of these attacks leads him to the astounding conclusion that they were ‘premeditated’. In line with his agenda of downplaying the significance of West Riding Luddism he refers to only parties of four to ten being involved, while in fact those depositions which do mention numbers record 16 to 30.

In another unfounded assertion linked to a non sequitur he claims that the role of public houses in Luddite activities has been ‘overlooked’ by everyone but himself. Anyone familiar with Luddite historiography knows this to be false. One well known contemporary letter, about placing spies among Luddites in Huddersfield, in fact names several pubs where contacts could be made. Pubs were the centre of communal life. It would have been strange if Luddites did not use them. But Jones then makes the bizarre and muddled claim that this shows that Luddite activity was ‘rooted within local society rather than consisting of those who were obviously criminal, detached from everyday life and breaking machines while in disguise.’ As if ‘criminals’ were not also ‘rooted within local society’. It is not clear who he considers were ‘breaking machines while in disguise’ and this paragraph adds nothing to our understanding of Luddism.

Jones then reveals one of his main authorities to be Frank Peel’s ‘Rising of the Luddites’ describing it as ‘mainly oral history.’ It is not. It is a combination of fact drawn from published sources such as the proceedings of the York Special Commission, fictional embellishment, plus a smattering of folk lore which may, or may not, be founded on genuine oral tradition. The fictionalised elements are certainly not a reliable source, as Jones himself seems aware, yet he nevertheless quotes the supposed meeting at the Shears Inn in some detail. He even uncritically includes the highly unlikely account of the singing of the Cropper’s song at what was supposed to be a clandestine meeting in a pub run by the hostile landlord and Sherriff’s Officer, James Lister.

Having wasted space on this story he omits the highly significant attack on Foster’s Mill at Horbury, only days before the Rawfolds Mill attack, which demonstrates just how extensive the Luddite movement in the area was by now. Witnesses claimed up to 300 were involved in the attack. Even allowing for exaggeration it undermines Jones claim that only 200 men were involved in the movement in the West Riding. He also omits the assassination attempt on Cartwright prior to the shooting of Horsfall, again making what was part of an emerging pattern appear unique. By jumping straight from Horsfall’s assassination to the trials he discounts all the intervening Luddite activity dismissing it as not ‘meaningful’.

Jones is also keen to make out that the case against the three accused for killing Horsfall was cut and dried, while ignoring inconsistencies in the prosecution case. His claim that it was just an ordinary murder trial and ‘definitely not a political show trial’ ignored the whole atmosphere in which the Special Commission was held. In sentencing Mellor, Thorpe and Smith, Justice Le Blanc made it quite clear that it not just for the murder’, but for Luddite activity, - destruction of property and administering an illegal oath - that they were being made an example of. Indeed, as far as the authorities were concerned, Luddite activity was criminal activity and so there was no distinction between political and criminal trials.

Jones then proceeds to claim that apart from the shooting of Horsfall and the Rawfolds Mill attack, ‘few’ of the cases were linked to Luddism, citing the ‘particularly absurd example’ of the case of Swallow and others for burglary. This is indeed one case where the burglary was carried out without any claim to be stealing arms, or otherwise following General Ludd’s orders. Nevertheless this trial does reveal the pervasive nature of Luddism. One of the witnesses, Samuel Parkin, who almost became implicated, claimed that he initially came along because he was told that, ‘there was to be a meeting at Grange Moor, of Ludds.’ The authorities clearly subsumed all lawless activity under the name of Luddism and there is nothing ‘absurd’, about the inclusion of this case in the Special Commission. Nor is it merely about clearing a backlog of “ordinary” criminal cases. By separating the burglaries from Luddite activity, even when arms were clearly the main aim, Jones further reinforces his point that after the assassination of Horsfall there was ‘no meaningful Luddite activity’. He creates his own neat and narrow definition of Luddism as a phenomenon entirely about machine breaking.

Not content with having thus defined Luddism, and separating it from the widespread unrest of 1811-1812 which saw many forms of social, economic and political discontent, Jones further reduces it to little more than a violent trade union struggle by a privileged working class elite, which was doomed to failure. Here his not-so-hidden subtext emerges! Like trade unionists they were just looking after their own ‘status...at the expense of the wider population.’ They were holding back economic development which would lead to cheaper goods for all – that is they were hindering the operation of the free market. Despite the claim that he has produced a new interpretation of Luddism Jones falls back on the most crude, simplistic and hackneyed parody of Luddism - ignorant men holding up progress.

The idea that the Luddites were merely protecting their own privilege and did not care about the wider population, and were not supported by them is not corroborated by the facts. Support for Luddism extended far beyond the occupational groups breaking machines, as the difficulties the authorities faced in getting anyone to grass on the luddites, shows, His suggestion that there was an alternate and dominant rationality which persuaded working people to favour the new factory system (and the opportunity for both them and their young children to work 12 hours a day for a pittance), instead of opposing it, because it might lead to them getting cheaper textiles sometime in the future is simply a projection of hindsight, not historical analysis.

While it can be argued that the Yorkshire croppers were in some sense 'privileged', in so far as they commanded higher wages and had some power in the industry, this is certainly not true for the stockingers or hand loom weavers, who were at that time already highly impoverished and at the mercy of the masters. His view that such groups were privileged is a typical laissez-faire reaction to any group of workers that is well organised and has the slightest success in advancing their interests in the face market forces - the norm for workers is supposed to be a position of absolute powerlessness and obedience, and any group that deviates from this is counted as 'privileged'. The historical importance and impact of a social movement cannot be reduced to the number of people involved, nor their apparent success or failure in terms of their own objectives.

His reduction of the heritage of Luddism to simply a form of nostalgia ignores the fact that for the Luddites then, as for the opponents of certain technologies now, opposition is based on a very hard-headed materialist analysis of the vested interests embodied in new machinery. It is because those interests persist, and are a structural part of capitalism that Luddism remains an inspiring and motivating force today. Jones interpretation of Luddism is one which has been rolled out time and again, to attack dockers, print workers, and car workers – anyone engaged in a struggle to maintain jobs and conditions in the face of unbridled capitalism. If he considers this to be a contribution to a reappraisal of the Luddites on the occasion of bicentenary he is deluding himself. His account is as historically threadbare as his ideological motivations, masquerading as Cambridge research, are transparent. This is the ‘emperor has no clothes’ history at its worst.

15th May 1812: John Blackner & Edward Allen speak at the Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions

On Friday 15th May 1812, two more framework-knitters gave evidence at the Parliamentary Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions in London.

John Blackner had been a framework-knitter for 32 years. His longevity in the profession allowed him to speak in detail about his profession not juts over his working lifetime, but in that of his forefathers also. He reflected that the legislation that had protected the framework-knitters allowed trade to flourish, and conversely that 'innovations' (not necessarily technological ones) had been detrimental. Blackner described how, when the quality of the goods began to fall due to shoddy practices, "the hosiers began to appear more determined on gaining profit from the smaller quantity of goods sold", which then led to 'cut-ups' being introduced, further deteriorating quality. Blackner stated that the particular branch of the trade that he was describing, utilising two-needle netted frames, had seen the number of frames fall from 500 in 1795 to 'one or two' in 1812, and he  advocated the prohibition of cut-ups for making stockings.

Blackner went on to outline the damage that speculators had done to the trade - i.e. those unconnected with hosiery who had invested capital in frames in order purely to extract profit from renting them, leading to exploitation of the workmen. Again, Blackner believed that those unconnected with the trade should not be allowed to own frames.

Edward Allen next spoke to the Select Committee. He gave evidence about how it had become increasingly common to be paid in goods rather than in cash for work done, which had included 'grocery, such as soap, candles, bacon, tea, sugar', all of which was much less in value than equivalent in cash. Although this practice was illegal where the workman did not consent to it, Allen stated that the hosiers evaded the law by raising the rent on frames and compelling the workmen to buy goods from their warehouses at reduced prices.

15th May 1812: Colonel Ralph Fletcher informs the Home Office about more prisoners and a new suspect

Bolton le moors 15 May - 1812

Dear Sir/

I have the Honor to inclose - Copies of the additional Examinations―relating to the Six Persons committed to Lancaster on the 9th instants – viz – Peter Smith – Arthur Holden - Thomas Holden - James Holden - William Holden and Thomas Shelton—and also Examinations relating to James Knowles – and John Fisher – committed yesterday – and of Joseph Greenhalgh committed this day.—One of the Examinations (that of an Informant Joseph Lomax) seems to merit particular attention – inasmuch as it implicates his Employer – Thomas Hulme – one of the Partners in the House of Cooke & Hulme – who are considerable Bleachers – residing in this Neighbourhood.—He Hulme was some time back a Chairman of a meeting the Parliamentary Reform—and it may, without any great want of Charity, be said that his Encouragement or at least Connivance - has been one of the causes that so many of his men have been found to have attended the late seditious meetings. He is a most violent Character and appears as likely as any person in this Neighbourhood to commit himself by some Illegal Act—unless the Inroad made strongest his Workmen by Commitment to Lancaster shall teach him more caution.

I shall hold it to be my duty to aid & assist in the prosecution of the persons committed—conceiving that it will accord with the general Tenor of the conversations - I have had with you & our Correspondence―And although the Evidence of the numerous Witnesses – will be large in itself – & more particularly so on account of guarding them from the threatened attacks of the disaffected—yet I trust that Government will approve of all such measures as may be taken to render the Conviction of the guilty more certain.–]

The Death of Mr Perceval has filled all good Loyalists with Grief – and what is to be particularly lamented is that the Mob should have expressed Joy at such a melancholy occasion. It would appear as if John Bulls Character had experienced a change—and that is become fit for Treasons Stratagems & Spoils. The Loyalists here cannot accede to what is stated in the Public Prints―i.e. that Bellingham had no political nature for committing the foul deed—We have from the general Language of the disaffected, and from some secret Information - of a suspected a Revolution (as mentioned in my Reports) expected to have taken place early in may – cannot refrain from entertaining an opinion that Bellinghams motives were revolutionary – but a little [Fear] will perhaps develop [more] of the System—

With the sincerest Respect
I remain [etc]
Ra: Fletcher

15th May 1812: The trial of John Bellingham at the Old Bailey

On Friday 15th May 1812, and less than four days after he had assassinated the Prime Minister Spencer Perceval at the Houses of Parliament, John Bellingham was put on trial at the Old Bailey in London. The Times carried the whole of trial, and set the scene and included legal arguments about whether or not the trial should be postponed, which is missing from the official transcript:

14th May 1812: The Town Clerk of Nottingham informs the Home Office of crowds celebrating the death of Spencer Perceval

Sir,

I am sure that you will give me Credit for most sincerely deploring the Death of Mr Percival as an Event which may forever tarnish the Character of the English People. We are yet to learn the Source from where this diabolical attack upon the Prime Minister of England originated & I will devoutly hope that it will be probed to the gutters; that if it arose from an organized Conspiracy against the Government the secret Agents may be brought to light & visited with exemplary punishment, & that if it should have sprung out of the disordered mind or devilish spirit of revenge of any isolated Individual the facts may be fairly & fully discovered & understood both by the English Nation & the rest of Europe.

I am sorry to be compelled to Detail to you the effects produced by this Intelligence at Nottingham which was received with the greatest Joy by the Populace here & before the Magistrates were aware of their Intention attempted to be celebrated by many noisy testimonies of their exultation such as shouting making Bonfires & in one Instance carrying a Flag & a Drum. It was indeed pretended that this was merely the assembling of some Journeymen Woolcombers to celebrate their Masters Birthday but however this might have been the original Cause of their meeting it was too apparent that they seized the opportunity of exciting others to join them in expressing their Joy at the horrid Event which had occurred. as they Declared they were no Percivals—No Symptoms of tumult or Disorder were observable until about 7 or 12 past 7 oClock when the [Nots] in the Market Place & the expressions of the People excited such alarm that the Magistrates assembled at the Police Office & sent for General Hawker who immediately called out the Somerset Militia & Directed a Body of Cavalry to parade in the Market Place. The Magistrates went with myself amongst the People & requested & insisted upon their dispersing & upon their wavering & not taking their Departure so readily as we could wish I proceeded in the presence of the Mayor & Magistrates to read the Riot Act where the People were the thickest assembled. After a moderate time they dispersed from the Market Place but they afterwards made Bonfires in several parts of the Town which the Magistrates Directed & enforced to be extinguished & it was not until 12 oClock that the Magistrates retired from the Superintendance of the Peace & Security of the Town. One or two men were taken into Custody but in fact altho to a liberal & well constituted mind nothing could be more truly offensive & disgusting than the disgraceful Conduct of the People no open Riot or Tumult occurred after the Interference of the Magistracy & the assembling of the Military.

You will excuse the Haste in which I have written this to save the post anxious that you should know what has occurred painful as is the relation of it.

I am [etc]
Geo Coldham Town Clerk

Nottm
14th May 1812

P.S.

The Magistrates intend to take immediate Steps for resuming the System of nightly military Patroles & have already conferred with General Hawker on the subject. I regularly have written without the Direction of the Magistrates because there were no time to [illegible] them previous to the Departure of the Post

14th May 1812: Government legal opinion on prosecuting Humphrey Yarwood & John Buckley Booth

Sir,

We had the honor to receive Mr. Beckett’s Letter dated May 9th, 1812 transmitting the inclosed Depositions which he states had been sworn before you under the Provisions of the Unlawful Oath Act 37 Geo: 3. C. 123 for the purpose of exculpating the Deponents from the Penalties of the Act they having fled from the jurisdiction in which the Offence was committed for the Security of their persons being suspected of being Spies, which it is stated in point of fact was the Case, they having got themselves sworn for the purpose of giving Information.

And our Opinion is requested upon the Facts disclosed in the Depositions whether they do not contain matter which renders it advisable to apprehend immediately any and which of the Parties implicated in administering the Unlawful Oath deposed to, and to seize their Papers, and with a view of instituting legal proceedings against such persons, whether it will be necessary to have the Depositions resworn before a Justice of the Peace of the County where the Offence was committed, and whether such justice must be within the County at the time of receiving the Information and of granting his warrant, or whether a Magistrate of the proper County being in London may receive the Information and grant his warrant there, the Informants being in London and afraid of returning into the County where the Oath was administered to them—

We have taken the same into our consideration, and are of Opinion that upon the Evidence of these two persons Yarwood may be indicted for Felony in administering an unlawful Oath contrary to 37 G. 3 C. 123.

That Bulkley [sic] who is probably the most criminal of them all, is less nearly affected by the Evidence than Yarwood. The Oaths are talked of in his presence, but the object of them is not stated, that being previously understood. The numbers that had been engaged are also spoken of, but the nature of their engagement is not explained in Bulkleys presence, that also being previously understood.

The utmost with which he can be charged upon this Evidence is the being present at an Unlawful Assembly, or perhaps conspiring with the persons there assembled to disturb the Public Peace, and these charges are also general a nature that we think it doubtful whether he would be convicted.

With this impression upon our minds we incline to think that it would be more prudent to watch him carefully hereafter than to prosecute came upon such proof as can now be obtained.

From Yarwoods account it does not appear probable that any thing would be gained at present by a Search for Papers.

We think it prudent for the Witnesses to reswear their Depositions before a Magistrate of Lancashire within the County, and for such warrants as are issued at all to be issued there.

We have [etc]
V Gibbs
Thos. Plumer

Lincolns Inn
14th May 1812

[To] The Right Honble
Richard Ryder
&c. &c. &c.

14th May 1812: Thomas Latham at Framework-knitters Select Committee hearing

On Thursday 14th May Thomas Latham, another member of the United Committee of Framework-knitters, gave evidence before the Parliamentary Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions.

Latham echoed Thomas Large's comments of the day before about why single press lace should be prohibited. But Latham also spoke of grievances in the plain silk trade: being forced to do 'coarse' work on too fine a gauge frame, resulting in lost income; hosiers reducing wages for 'deficiencies' in work that the framework-knitters can't do anything about. Latham advocated regulation to prevent these abuses.

Latham also spoke of the practice of 'truck' - i.e. wages paid in goods rather than cash. He cited one example of a framework-knitter who was owed £2, 8s, and was given cloth, buttons and other items which he could only sell for 10s & 6.

Latham was asked to talk about what he earned, and he told the committee it was presently 12s for a 6-day week, but that it had been as high as 18-20s up to 5 years ago, which he considered to be a fair wage.

Latham lay the blame on the production of bad or 'fraudulent' work, which had brought the trade into disrepute, and he noted that the retail price of the goods they were producing had not fallen as had the workmen's wages.

14th May 1812: William Sykes of Meltham charged with raiding for arms

On 14th May 1812, a shopkeeper from Meltham called William Sykes was charged with representing himself as being 'one of General Ludd's men', and raiding for arms in the area of Meltham. He was escorted to York Castle by a troop of Queen's Bays (2nd Dragoons) to stand trial of the next Assizes.

14th May 1812: Local Militia take part in Loughborough food riot

On Thursday 14th May, a food riot erupted in the marketplace at Loughborough.

The riot began with a row over the price of potatoes - 14 pence per peck was the asking price,  but a group of women wanted to offer 1 shilling. When this was refused, the women began to empty the bags of potatoes, with many of them being stolen, and others thrown about the market. At around 10.00 a.m., autoreduction then commenced in earnest, with lowered prices being offered for butter & eggs.

A magistrate, Richard Hardy, proceeded to the marketplace and was horrified to find that around 30 women were being supported by an equal number of off-duty members of the Local Militia: the militiamen had previously excused themselves from duty owing to sickness. Hardy was unable to summon Militia forces to quell the riot, even though there were only half a mile away at the time.

The riot eventually began to subside, but it had attracted a large group of people to gather nearby. At around 2.00 p.m., Hardy witnessed a woman seize a leg of pork from a stall and throw it into the air. The crowd then proceeded to play with the pork, taking it in turns to throw it to and from each other.

Later, the shops were all shut up, and with the main body of the Local Militia attending, the crowd eventually dispersed. Hardy later commented in a letter to the Home Office that:

I certainly cannot persuade myself that the Local Militia is, at any time, force calculated to suppress Riot, especially when the ostensible cause of that Riot is the high price of Provisions, & in a Town too, where most of the Men have Relatives or Families

13th May 1812: Parliamentary Select Committee on the Framework-knitters Petition commences

On Wednesday 13th May, a Parliamentary Select Committee was convened at the Houses of Parliament in London to enquire into the state of the Framework-knitting trade, owing to the petitioning of Framework-knitters over the past few months. Framework-knitters, Hosiers and members of the United Committee of Framework-knitters would be interviewed by the Select Committee over the next 7 days.

The proceedings commenced by examining Thomas Large of the United Committee of Framework-knitters.

Large attested that he had been a framework-knitter for 17 years, and was occupied solely in the plain silk branch of the trade, exclusively concerned with making stockings and gloves. He earned between half a guinea to 15 shillings a week. He told the committee that in 1807, the trade had been flourishing, with 1200 frames in use, but the decline had been so great that only 150 frames were now employed.

He considered that the loss of trade was the cause of 'fraudulent goods' - principally single-press lace that had been looped once rather than twice, and lost its shape after washing. Agreements preventing the manufacture of such lace had been broken, and the 'fraud' came about when some manufacturers had sold the single-press lace as the best type available, extracting huge profits and deceiving the consumer. Large considered that these practices had wrecked the trade, and also commented on the effect that the trade blockades of the Orders in Council and the American Non-Intercourse Act had had on the trade, and felt that their existence had in fact heralded the new practices of the Hosiers. Large stated that he felt that the prohibition of the production of single-press lace would greatly benefit the trade and also advocated the regulation of frame-rents, and the limitation of frames for rent, even though this would mean those employed by the trade would diminish.

Large also spoke of the practice of Colting (i.e. employment of non-apprenticed labour).