30th December 1815: Leeds Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary writes a corrective letter to the Leeds Mercury

Following the report of his arrest in the 23rd December 1815 edition of the Leeds Mercury, John Sunderland - the Secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') - wrote to the paper, who published the letter on Saturday 30th December 1815:

TO the EDITOR of the LEEDS MERCURY.

SIR,— I beg that you will correct a Paragraph in your last Paper, by the Insertion the following Statement:—On Monday Night, the Eighteenth Inst. John Sunderland, Clerk to the Cloth Workers’ Brief Institution, was apprehended in the Act of reading a Letter, paying the Sick, &c. and himself and Twenty-Four other Persons searched, along with Five Women, who were applying for Relief for their Sick Husbands. At the same Time the Books and Papers were seized, and all taken away. John Sunderland and others were immediately conveyed to the Black Lion, Mill-Hill, at Nine o'Clock, and there remained till Two the next Day in the Afternoon, without being examined by any Magistrate. The said John Sunderland, Joseph Tillotson, William Anderson, William Hampshire, and Samuel Wheatley, after being examined, were held to Bail, for persuading Thomas Marshall, (the Informant,) to leave his Employers, Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, contrary to the Statute in that Case made and provided.

I am, Yours, &c. 

J.S.

29th December 1815: Manchester Magistrates request troops due to worries about Calico weavers

My Lord,

In the efforts recently made by the master calico printers in this neighbourhood to resist the unlawful combinations which have so long and so injuriously prevailed amongst the journeymen, we find, from respectable representations, some reason to apprehend the latter may resort to plans of intimidation, either by destroying machinery where it is employed, or by other outrages of a similar tendency. The printing establishments are chiefly in the immediate vicinity of Manchester, Bury, Burnley, Blackburne, Clitheroe, Chorley and Stockport―

It is naturally the wish of the masters to be enabled to repel with effect, any attempts of the above description, and as their works are all within the range of thirty miles from Manchester it is conceived a sufficient force (about four troops) of cavalry stationed at the barracks there, for a few weeks, would fully answer the end.

Circumstances may render it expedient due to dispatch a portion of the proposed military aid to situations where, no violent proceeding has actually taken place, but where it appears to be threatened or meditated, and we beg leave to submit the propriety of directions to the officer in command at the barracks that he may not hesitate in attending to the request of the magistrate in cases of this nature. When we are honored with your Lordship’s sentiments we can if necessary communicate the same to acting magistrates near the several establishments we have mentioned. We are informed that only one troop of horse is now left at the Manchester Barracks.

we have the honor to be, My Lord,
Your Lordship’s most faithful obdt Servts

Ralph Wright
W Evans

New Bayley Court House
Manchr 29th Decr

To the Rt Honble Lord Sidmouth

23rd December 1815: 'The Thrashing Machine: A Tale'

THE THRASHING MACHINE.

A TALE.

Many ages ago, the inhabitants of a large, populous, and opulent island were divided into sects or castes, distinguished from each other by the kind of corn which they grew and consumed. The principal of these were the Wheatites. There were the Oatites, the Barleyites, the Ryeites, and a great many ites, most of them composed of different mixtures of some of the above-mentioned kinds of grain. In these enlightened and liberal-minded times, it will be almost difficult to comprehend and believe, how much animosity subsisted between these different classes of the same community, for no other reason in the world, but because they each chose to grow, and live upon that food, which they believed would the most contribute to health and long life. My intention is not at present to enter into either the cause, the nature, of the effects of these animosities, otherwise the subject might be rendered both instructive and interesting. I shall therefore proceed to the relation and description of what is my more immediate object.

A distinguished and opulent Farmer from amongst the Wheatites, sailed to a far distant country where these islanders had long had a settlement. When there, he could not but notice and be pleased with a very simple machine, which had long been used in country for thrashing corn. The most unskilful person could manage it. It was certainly very rude in its construction, and did not rid much work,—but the Farmer saw at a glance of his "eagle eye," that it was capable of much improvement. With distinguished benevolence, he not only set himself to construct one on an improved plan but, without fear or reward undertook to instruct the natives in the use of it, and for several years continued to assist them in working it. Such was his success that every body who saw it, at once perceived and admired its beauty and utility.

A length he transmitted to his own country a full, clear and correct description of the apparatus, and the effects which it had produced. Strange as it may seem, little notice was taken of his invention by any of his countrymen at home. Not a Wheatite offered to profit by the valuable discovery. When the benevolent Farmer returned to his native island, he had the mystification of learning, that his suggestion had been by his caste totally unnoticed. Having himself for the business which fully engaged his time and attention, he suffered his own discovery to lie totally dormant, and so to this day, in all human probability, would it have lain, for any thing that the Wheatites cared about it. It happened, however, that before the return the Benevolent Farmer, a poor labourer, of the name of Joseph who had all this life been a thasher of corn, happened to see the statement which the Farmer had transmitted home, and being both a shrewd and industrious man, he at once recognized the value of the discovery, and determined to avail himself of it; at the same time he perceived, that it was capable of great extension and improvement.

Joseph was a kind of [illegible] [illegible], not so much inclined to [illegible] as many others; he therefore was not so narrow minded as to stand entirely aloof from those who ate different bread from himself, when he thought, that by joining together, they might benefit each other. He saw that machine might be constructed, and worked at little expence, capable of thrashing much more corn than could be thrashed by the poor, (for he intended it for their use,) of any one caste in any one neighbourhood. The only chance, therefore, which he had of proving the capability of the invention was, to induce the rich of all castes to contribute towards erecting the machine, and the poor of all castes to send their corn to be thrashed by it. This, in these times of christian charity, may be thought not only to be an easy task, but one which would meet with universal approbation and support. Poor Joseph, however, had the prejudices of other times to contend with. At first, notwithstanding these, such was the novelty of the plan, and such its evident utility, that it banished for a time all animosity, and rich and poor, of all castes, joined so heartily in the undertaking, that Joseph had soon more work for his machine than it could do. This, instead of disheartening him, served only to stimulate him to greater exertions; he enlarged his machine, he published an account of its success; the whole island rang with its praises; almost every town in the kingdom were at strife which should erect the first and the best, and they called them by the name of Joseph. The great and the noble of the land patronized him, and even ROYALTY itself visited, [advocated] and encouraged the use of the machine, [illegible] poor Joseph too much for weak human nature to bear without being the worse for it. Joseph’s heart not being devoid of the seeds of vanity,—and this rich manure so abundantly appeared, caused them to grow, and bear leaves, flowers, fruit so abundantly, that the appearance of the meek and humble man was in a great measure hid under their luxuriance. At this good may sigh, the gay may smile, but none but the bad will rejoice. Let him, who could have better withstood such temptations, throw the first stone at poor Joseph, yet the man who could have withstood such flattery, will be among the last to do it.

Now it came to pass, that when the rich Wheatites, and more particularly the great farmers among them, perceived that Joseph’s Thrashing Machines were then spreading through the whole land, that the rich of all castes supported them, and that the poor of all castes sent their corn to be thrashed [illegible], they began to look about and bestir themselves in good earnest, meeting together and saying "if this man be thus suffered to thrash the corn of our poor, we shall have half of them poisoned by their wheat being contaminated with pernicious mixtures,—some scattered grains of oats, or barley, or rye, cannot fail to get in amongst it, and let the other castes say what they will and thrive even better than they do, which is not necessary, we are well assured that no kind of grain is wholesome but pure wheat. If they will thrash for their own poor, we will take care that they do not thrash for ours. Besides, what business have they to use these Trashing Machines at all; much less to call them after the name of a man, who has no more claim to the invention than a thief to his stolen property? Did not our caste invent it, and shall we suffer another to claim the merit, and reap the advantage without asserting in supporting our title to whatever may have arisen from it? So saying they sent, and called the Benevolent Farmer from that useful retirement in which he had almost forgotten that such a machine existed. They told him of the mighty works which he had done. He stared a little at first, but he was soon persuaded,—(for who could not in such a case be soon persuaded)—that he had been the author of all these wonderful things.—They determined to erect Trashing Machines for the thrashing of wheat only, in all parts of the Island, to be called NATIONAL MACHINES; they appointed the Farmer Superintendent of them, and they raised him to great honour and riches.

Now, notwithstanding that Trashing Machines of both kinds were thus very numerous, the island was so fruitful in corn of every kind, that there was more than work sufficient supplied by the poor, for them all. The competition, therefore, was of the greatest advantage—since almost all the poor, of whatever caste, might now have their corn thrashed in an expeditious way for nothing, instead of knocking it on as well as they could themselves, or having it done for them by the old, slow, and expensive method. Thus far, therefore, the effect at least was good, and all might have thrashed away as hard as they could, in peace and harmony with each other, without any fear of wanting employment.

It, however, unfortunately happened, that some of the more opulent farmers amongst the Wheatites were not content to enjoy the advantages which their caste reaped from the greatly improved Machines, unless the whole world would confess that they and they only, had any claim to merit in the discovery and perfecting of the machine. They abused poor Joseph most dreadfully, called him very hard names, and probably, if they had had him fully in their power, might have employed their machines in thrashing something else besides wheat. Nay, they went so far as to affirm that all the alterations which he had made in the machine, were calculated to spoil it; wherefore they did all in their power to turn the whole into ridicule; and they determined, that not a nail, a screw, or a wheel in theirs, should resemble Joseph’s machine. They asserted, that the latter were without exception coarsely and clumsily put together; that the power was ill applied, and that many parts were introduced for no other purpose than to attract attention and produce surprise. They affirmed, that the oil used was not only injudiciously administered, but that it was in itself bad and unfit for the purpose.—They asserted, that these machines did not perform their work well, but that in spite of all the care they could take, each kind of flour would contract and retain a flavour of some of the others. The corn, they said, was too much agitated in passing through the machine, jumping about from side to side, kicking up a very great and unnecessary dust, in short, they affirmed that poor Joseph was more fitted for exhibiting dancing automata at a country fair, than for being the manager and conductor of a machine, which required the greatest solidity of judgment, with the most unwearying perseverance.

How much of this was true the account from which I have drawn this statement does not proceed to state; it however does affirm, that the Wheatites were not, in this instance, altogether actuated by those pure and disinterested motives which in our happier times prevail. Neither does the accounts go on to state the final result of this conduct in the Wheatites; perhaps it was written during the contest, and before the issue could be known. We, however, in these latter days, who have had more experience, and have, moreover, the happiness and the privilege to live in an age, when brotherly love so much more abundantly prevails amongst all sects, parties and classes, shall feel no hesitation in condemning and stating our conviction of the mischievous consequences of such unchristian conduct. We, supposing ourselves the place of the Wheatites, should no doubt have felt and acted very differently. We should have seen and acknowledged that each of the rival candidates had his respective share of merit.—We should have rejoiced in the success of our rivals in the good cause, as well as in our own.—We should have strenuously supported our own machine, without derogating from the advantages of theirs:—nay we should have been happy, whenever they had hit upon any improvement, to adopt it, as well as to have furnished them with any useful idea which had suggested itself to us. Thus should we have gone on in love and charity together, mutually encouraging and assisting each other in the good work. Let us not, however, too severely condemn the errors of men who have prejudices of time country, station and self  interest to combat, which, probably, under all the same circumstances, we might not have been able to overcome. Let us, therefore, be thankful but not censorious.

A FRIEND TO THRASHING.

22nd December 1815: The Nottingham Review exposes the Mary Stainsby 'Luddism' hoax to the public

Hoax extraordinary.—It is known to our readers, that an advertisement appeared in our last, offering a reward of two hundred pounds to any one that should be instrumental in convicting one or both of the persons who shot at, severely wounded, and thus attempted to murder Mary, the wife of Thomas Stainsby, of Mansfield, in a street called Blind-lane, in the evening the 12th Instant. The conclusion was, that Ned Ludd had re-commenced his depredations; and fear, for a moment, induced the most unpleasant expectations; but why a woman should be the object, or what the cause of the vengeance, no one could conjecture. In confirmation of the daring outrage, one celebrated character, who wishes to the King’s letters patent for permission to assume that name of Fielding, who is very great in his own eyes, and in other people's when known, declared that he had picked a quantity of shot out of a wall near to whence the woman was said to have been wounded, which probably might have been exhibited in a court of justice as confirmatory evidence, if any one had been found to impeach a suspicious character. Thus the thing appeared conclusive; when behold, the following Hand-bill made its appearance on Saturday, and a number of them were immediately sent to Nottingham.

NOTICE.
MRS STAINSBY.

The Public are informed it is most clearly ascertained, that Mrs. Stainsby was NOT SHOT AT MALICIOUSLY, or from motives connected with LUDDISM.

By Order of the Magistrates,

Mansfield, Dec. 16, 1815.  W.M. LANG.

We, with great pleasure, offer our tribute of thanks to the Magistrates concerned in this business, for their prompt exertions in setting the public opinion at rest on so foul and false a charge; the truth of which is, as we have been informed, that the woman had retired, for conveniency’s sake, with an enamoured captive, into the fields during the shade of evening, at least a mile from Blind-lane, where they were seen by two persons returning from a shooting excursion, when, for the sake of a little fun, though very improperly and censurably, one of them drew his charging of shot, and discharged the powder at the loving pair; but it appears that a few shot-corns remained in the piece, which severely wounded the lady. And for reasons which we need not explain, a conspiracy was formed, which, if not detected, might have been attended with very unpleasant consequences to Mansfield and its neighbourhood.

18th December 1815: Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary arrested in Leeds

In the evening of Monday 18th December 1815 John Sunderland, the secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') was arrested in Leeds. The two local newspapers carried reports of the arrest.

From the Leeds Mercury of Saturday 23rd December:

On Monday night last, John Sunderland, Secretary of United Cloth-Dressers’ Society, was apprehended at a public-house in this town and committed to prison, on a charge of aiding and abetting an illegal combination for preventing the use of Machinery in the dressing of woollen cloth, and at the same time the papers of the Society were seized and inspected by the Magistrates. On the following day Sunderland and three other persons were held to bail to appear at the Quarter Sessions to answer to the said charge.

From the Leeds Intelligencer of Monday 25th December:

Monday last, five men, members of a Committee of Cloth-dressers, were convicted at our Rotation Office of having entered into an illegal combination for preventing or their fellow-workmen from following his trade, unless he paid the sum of five pounds, which this Committee thought itself entitled to demand of him. They have appealed to the Quarter Sessions. It might have been hoped that the awful example at York, would have been a sufficient warning to workmen of every description, of the danger of entering into illegal combinations. Though any Class of workmen may set out with a resolution not to give way to such daring acts of outrage, as drew down that terrible infliction of the law, they ought to be aware that, having once entered upon an unlawful career, it is impossible for them to foresee where the evil may terminate, and that, however guarded they may be in their proceedings, detection, must, sooner or later, overtake every deviation from that course which the laws of the land, as well as every principle of policy, of necessity, and of justice, have marked out. The object of dislike to the present combination, is that species of machinery, employed for the dressing woollen cloth, called Gig Mills. By this machinery, some are of opinion that the manufacture can be finished, at the same expence, in a style much superior, to that which the Cloth-Workers are either able or willing to affect by manual labour. Several manufacturers, therefore, exercising that opinion, (which is their undoubted right) have determined on employing such machinery. Against this system, it appears, the Cloth-Workers have combined; and having demanded, as we have above stated, five pounds from an individual who had worked with machinery in Ireland, before they would allow him to earn his subsistence here by his wonted avocation, he gave information of the system, and the Committee, with their books and papers, were taken into custody. An extensive correspondence and combination have in consequence been discovered. As the next sessions must determine the business, it would be improper here to dwell further on the subject.

17th December 1815: James Stevens explains to the Home Secretary the reality of the attack on Mary Stainsby

Mansfield 17th Decr 1815.

My Lord,

Since I had the honor of addressing your Lordship on the subject of a female having been shot at in this place & wounded on a supposition that the Spirit of Luddism was reviving, the Hand Bill circulated (of which a Copy was transmitted to your Lordship) has had the Effect of bringing to light the Circumstances occasioning the Accident―It appears from the Confession of such female (who is a married Woman) that at the time she received the Shot she was in Company with a respectable Tradesmen in a private Lane near the Town of Mansfield, and that a young Man who was returning from shooting in Company with another person had imprudently fired off his Gun and the Contents struck the female, she being a married Woman and desirous that her Husband should not get to know the knowledge of her Infidelity, had represented the Case in a deep laid plot to give Colour to the Accident having arisen from a Spirit of Luddism, but in Consequence of certain circumstantial Evidence collected and being closely interrogated as to the Truth of the Circumstances she made the Confession.—

I inclose your Lordship one of the Hand Bills which has been issued by direction of the Magistrates in pursuance of such Confession.

I have the Honor to be
My Lord
Your Lordship’s humble Servt
James Stevens

To
The Right Honble
Lord Sidmouth

16th December 1815: Mansfield Magistrates issue handbills saying attack on Mary Stainsby is unconnected with Luddism

NOTICE.

Mrs. Stainsby.

The Public are informed it is most clearly ascertained, that Mrs. Stainsby was NOT SHOT AT MALICIOUSLY, or from any motives connected with LUDDISM.

By Order of the Magistrates,
Wm. Lang.

MANSFIELD, Dec. 16, 1815.

14th December 1815: James Stevens of Mansfield blames an attack on Luddism

Mansfield Notts
Dec 14th 1815

My Lord—

By the advice of Col Need the acting magistrate of this place, I am again under the necessity of troubling your Lordship upon the subject of Ludism which I am sorry to inform you Lordship has again made its appearance in this neighbourhood

—On Tuesday night last a Woman was Shot at and severely wounded in the act of taking her work to the House of her employer―this took place as early as half past six in the Evening and the inhabitants feel alarmed—as a great quantity of the Work (which has I conceive occasioned this daring attack) is Manufactured in this place—a reward has been offered a Bill of which I have enclosed

I am most Respectfully
Your Lordships
Humble Servant
James Stevens

[The enclosed reward notice is reproduced below]

ATTEMPT AT 

MURDER.

200 Pounds 

Reward.

WHEREAS, 

LAST NIGHT, about HALF-PAST SIX O'CLOCK, MARY STAINSBY, Wife of THOMAS STAINSBY of his Town, was wilfully and maliciously SHOT AT, and SEVERELY WOUNDED, by TWO MEN, in Blind Lane, leading from the Church to Cockpit; the one a TALL Man in a Light Coloured Coat, and the other a SHORT Man in a Dark Coloured Coat.

WHOEVER will give such Information that they may be brought to Justice, shall receive the above Reward, on conviction of the Offenders: One Hundred Pounds of which will be paid by the INHABITANTS of MANSFIELD, the other Hundred Pounds by the ASSOCIATION of the HOSIERS for the protection of the Persons and Property of the Trade.

If the Person in company with the Man who actually Shot the Woman will impeach his Accomplice, he shall receive the above Reward, and every interest made to procure his Pardon.

Mansfield, December 13th, 1815.

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

Rawfolds December 12. 1815

My Lord

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

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

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

[To: Lord Sidmouth]

8th December 1815: The Warwickshire JP, William Hamper, informs the Home Secretary about a man selling pamphlets about the Luddites

Birmingham, Decr 8th, 1815—

My Lord,

A Man named William Cooper, who appears to have been formerly a Grocer at Nottingham, is now travelling through this neighbourhood, under the pretence of offering for sale a Pamphlet of his writing containing some account of the Luddite Disturbances. He talks largely of being patronized by many of the Nobility, & in a List of Benefactors (whose donations amounted upwards of One Hundred & Forty Pounds) your Lordship’s Name is set down for 5£ in an handwriting which I shall now endeavour to give in Facsimile:

Lord Sidmouth . . . . . . . . 5

Some of the Signatures in his List appear to be genuine, but others have every appearance of being artfully fabricated for the purpose of deception; and I trust your Lordship will not consider me as overstepping my Duty in enquiring whether or not the Man has been a partaker of Your Lordship’s bounty.—I have detected so many Plunderers on public Benevolence, in Persons travelling with Petitions & false Certificates, that I make a point of thoroughly investigating every Case of that description which comes before me. I have the honour to remain, with the greatest Respect,

My Lord
Yr Lordship’s faithful Servant
Wm Hamper.
One of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Counties of Warwick & Worcester

PS. From the colour of the Ink, it is not improbable that Your Lordship’s name was written a year or two ago.—

23rd November 1815: 3 threshing machines destroyed by 100 labourers in Suffolk villages

On Thursday 23rd November 1815, mass machine-breaking broke out in Suffolk. The Bury & Norwich Post of 29th November carried a brief article about the events:

On Thursday last nearly 100 labourers in the parishes of Kenton, Ashfield, and Monk Soham, assembled in a tumultuous manner, with the avowed design of destroying the threshing machines in the neighbourhood, and threatening violence to all who refused to join with them. Three of these machines were destroyed in a short time: but it is hoped that the interference of the magistrates will put a stop to their unlawful proceedings

Three days prior to this, a barn belonging to a Henry Luffe, which contained 100 coombs of barley, had been torched at Benhall, 14 miles from the later machine breaking outbreak.

22nd November 1815: Chepstow Magistrates write to the Home Secretary about the recent destruction of Threshing Machines

Chepstow 22nd November
1815

My Lord

We the undersigned Magistrates acting for the County of Monmouth conceived it to be our duty to inform your Lordship of the following circumstances & most respectfully Solicit your advice and Assistance

On the night of the 7th of October 1815 two Barns belonging to William Curre Esqr were set on Fire as detailed in the account we have the Honor of enclosing and the Jury who sat on view of the Body of the Man who perished in the Flames having returned a Verdict of Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown, a meeting was held by the principal Inhabitants of Chepstow and its Neighbourhood to consider of means for discovering the Incendiary, the minutes of which meeting we have the Honor of enclosing also to your Lordship,

The reason of our delay of making this Application was our wishing to obtain some information which might lead to a Suspicion of the probable perpetrators of this outrage and laying such circumstances before your Lordship respectfully to request your advice as to what other steps ought to be taken and your assistance in obtaining (should your Lordship think such a measure adviseable) His Majesty's Pardon for an accomplice making a discovery and a reward from Government to any person giving such information as may lead to the Conviction of the offenders.

We have the Honor to be My Lord
Your Lordships
most obedient Servants

[N. Wells]
[J: Robson]

To the Rt. Honourable
Lord Sidmouth Secretary
of State &c. &c. &c. . .

10th November 1815: The death of the prisoner William Walker

'A view near Woolwich in Kent, shewing the employment of the convicts from the hulks', a hand-coloured engraving printed for Bowles and Carver, no. 69 St. Pauls Church Yard, c.1790-1800

On Friday 10th November 1815, William Walker, a Collier from Gee Cross in Cheshire, found guilty of riotous assembly and grand larceny on 21st April 1812, died on board the Retribution prison hulk at Woolwich.

Walker had been sentenced to 7 years transportation at Chester Special Commission, and seemed to have been singled out for punishment principally because he dubbed himself 'General Ludd' during the events of 21 April 1812. However, despite the sentence, he had evidently never left England.

The prison hulk register is the only source of information about Walker's fate, and the cause of death is not recorded there. He would have been aged around 62-63 at the time. Given his age, Walker had done well to survive for over 3 years - the prison hulks were notorious for their poor conditions.

It is not known where Walker's remains are buried.

9th November 1815: Simon Orgill case is brought before the Court of King's Bench

On Thursday 9th November 1815, the appeal of the Hundred of Westgoscote against the awarding of damages to Simon Orgill, whose lace frames had been destroyed in a Luddite attack in 1814, was heard at the Court of King's Bench in London. The Nottingham Review of Friday 17th November 1815 carried a report about the hearing:

Court of King's Bench, November 9. 

ORGILL v. SMITH.

Mr. Clarke moved for a rule to shew cause why the verdict for the Plaintiff in this case should not be set aside, and a non-suit entered. It was an action brought on the statute of the 52d of the King, chap 130, and was tried before Mr. Baron Graham, at Leicester. The action was brought against the Hundred, and the declaration stated, "that certain persons had riotously and in a disorderly manner assembled, and unlawfully demolished and destroyed twelve frames, the property of the Plaintiff, and some frames being ENGINES employed in carrying on his manufactory of framework lace." The objection which he (Mr. Clarke) made at the time, was, that these frames did not come within the meaning of the statute under which the action was brought. The Learned Judge however, directed the Jury otherwise, but gave him leave to move the Court upon the subject. In consequence of which permission, he now addressed their Lordships. It was proved that a number of persons had entered the shop of the Plaintiff, and had destroyed the frames in question. 

Sir S. Le Blanc—"There was no doubt as to the manner in which these frames were destroyed!" 

Mr. Clarke—"None, my Lord; the only doubt is, whether the frames come within the meaning of the Statute." 

The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the Statute in question, which, after reciting various Acts, which had been previously passed, enacted, that any person destroying or demolishing engines, &c. should be guilty of felony, and upon conviction thereof, the person whose engines, &c. had been destroyed, would be entitled to a remuneration for his loss, from the hundred or county in which he resided. He now had to contend, that the frames, which formed the subject of the present action, were mere movable machines, six or seven of which might stand in one shop, and be removed from room to room at pleasure, and therefore not such engines as contemplated by the Act, which he considered ought to be fixtures. 

Lord Ellenborough—Is there nothing to steady them? 

Mr. Clarke—They are heavy enough to steady themselves. They are not fixed to the floor. 

Lord Ellenborough—With reference to the subject of this Act of Parliament, you consend that an engine must be fixed. Now I think ex vi termini, an engine not be fixed. The engine one is best acquainted with, namely a fire-engine, is movable very rapidly. It is said this particular frame is fixed by its own weight. I remember an incident of an ingenious engineer who proposed to erect a bridge at Hexham without piles. He succeeded in his plan, but the very first flood that occurred, carried his bridge away. This, to be sure, proves the necessity of fixing some engines. 

Mr. J. Dampier—Mangles are seldom fixed. 

Lord Ellenborough—I think the point deserves some consideration, but if you can agree upon the facts, with the assistance of the Learned Judge's notes, it had better be turned into a case. 

Mr. Clarke acquiesced in this suggestion, but for the present took a Rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a Non-suit entered.

It would be another 18 months before this case would return to the Court.

7th November 1815: Charles Sutton appeals to the Court of King's Bench

Almost four months after his trial for political libel and guilty verdict at Nottingham Assizes, Charles Sutton and his legal team had applied to have the verdict set aside. The hearing was held on Tuesday 7th November 1815 at the Court of King's Bench in London.

The Nottingham Review of 10th November 1815 carried a lengthy account of the hearing, which is below:

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 

Tuesday, Nov. 7.

THE KING v. SUTTON, 

Mr. Denman moved to set aside the verdict given against the Defendant, who was tried in Nottingham for a Libel, the last Lammas Assizes. The grounds on which he made this motion were first, that improper evidence had been received; second, that the learned Judge had misdirected the Jury in point of law. It had been found necessary, on the part of the prosecution, to introduce into the information a variety of averments of facts regarding the riots that took place in Nottingham and in its neighbourhood, headed, or supposed to be headed, by a person of the name of Ludd. One of the averments was, that divers of the persons engaged in the perpetration of these offences, &c. were reputed to act under the direction and orders of some supposed and unknown person, called General Ludd, and that the rioters were generally called and known by that name of Luddites. In order to make intelligible the innuendos charged in the libel, it was necessary these allegations should be proved, and for that purpose, after evidence of the publication, the Counsel for the prosecution put in the Proclamation of the Prince Regent, of December 18, 1811, which stated "that it had been represented to his Royal Highness, that such acts of outrage had been committed." The Counsel for the defendant objected to this piece of evidence, contending, that even supposing it had distinctly and positively asserted the fact, the Proclamation could then only be considered as a certificate, which, in the case in Wills, 556, had been rejected as inadmissible. Mr. Baron Graham, however, over-ruled the objection at the trial. 

Mr. Justice LeBlanc.—From your statement of the averment, it seems that certain persons called Luddites were reputed to act under the control of a supposed person called General Ludd. Does that appear in the Proclamation? 

Mr. Denman.—I am not certain of that, 

Lord Ellenborough.—If it had, that might have been evidence of the supposed person, because the Prince Regent recites such a supposition. 

Mr. Denman could state most distinctly, that the Proclamation was adduced as evidence, not of the supposition, but the acts of outrage stated in the information. He conceived also, that the next head of evidence had been improperly admitted by the learned Judge. It consisted of the preambles of two Acts of Parliament, 52 Geo. III. c.16 and 17, the first of which, without mentioning the name of Ludd, recited, merely, that the provisions of former acts had been found insufficient to prevent the outrages, and that they had been carried to an alarming extent: and the second, that a number of disorderly persons had assembled together, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, whereby the property of his Majesty's subjects, &c. was injured. The defendant’s Counsel at the trial had also resisted the admission of this evidence, on the ground that the recital of a fact in the preamble of a statute was not evidence to go to jury, and that even supposing the act had contained an assertion, that the house of an individual named had been feloniously destroyed, so as to enable the owner to bring an action against the Hundred, yet that the preamble of the statute could not be sufficient evidence to support such action. All the facts that were to influence the Jury in their verdict, ought to be proved by witnesses upon oath. 

The Court observed, that these were public Acts of Parliament. 

 Mr. Denman admitted, that upon all great state questions of peace or war, the recital of the legislature was to be taken as the best evidence, but there was, he conceived, a material distinction between those and the present. In order to put this in a clearer point of view, he had extracted the preambles of two acts, the first of which was the 7th Anne, c.12 reciting that most that "whereas several turbulent and disorderly persons have, in a most outrageous manner, insulted the person of the Ambassador of the Emperor of Russia, &c., by arresting him, and taking him by violence out of his coach, in the public street," &c. He submitted, that if it were necessary, in any proceeding, to prove that arrest, it would not be enough merely to produce the statue. The second was the 9th Anne, c.16. reciting that, "whereas Anthony de Gulscard, &c. was charged with holding a traitorous correspondence with France, &c. and being under examination before the Privy Council for the same, perceiving his said treason to have been fully detected, being fully conscious of his guilt, and dreading the pain and infamy of his approaching punishment, &c. did with a pen-knife in a barbarous and felonious manner, stab the Right Honorable Robert Harley, Esq. &c. and endeavoured to wound others of her Majesty's Privy Council, &c." If the Marquis de Gulscard, had survived the momentary indignation excited by that attempt, and had been incited for murder, Mr. D. apprehended that the Act could not be employed as proof of the murder. For the same reasons in the present case, the preambles of the 58d Geo. III. c.16 and 17, could not be admissible evidence of the averments in the information. The distinction, he submitted, was this, that Acts of Parliament were evidence of all great acts of State, such as the making of peace, declaring war, treaties, &c. of which all persons are bound to take notice. 

Mr Justice Baillie.—As you state it, the Acts of Parliament would not establish all the allegations, and the residue was made out by the proclamation. 

Mr. Denman continued, that some parole evidence had been adduced in addition, but so defective, that he had contended that the prosecutors had made out no case to go to the jury. The learned Judge, however, was of a different opinion and it was then argued by the counsel for the defendant that the averments were not sufficiently established. The second ground on which Mr. D. now supported his motion to set aside the verdict was, the misdirection of Mr. Baron Graham in point of law, who, in his charge to the jury, had supported the assertion of the counsel for the prosecution, that to supply any defects in evidence the jury might retort resort to their own personal knowledge. 

Lord Ellenborough—I apprehended that the rule now is, that if any one of the Jury is to supply a defect by his own knowledge, he must be regularly sworn, and examined as a witness. 

Mr. Denman, in support of his Lordship’s opinion, read the following passage from Blackst. Com. III. 375, "But this doctrine was gradually exploded when attaints began to be disused, and new trials introduced in their stead. And therefore the practice seems to have been first introduced, which now universally obtains, that of a Juror knows any thing of the matter in issue, he may be sworn as a witness, and give his evidence publicly to Court." 

Lord Ellenborough wished to hear the precise terms of the Learned Judge’s direction; and Mr. Denman read them from his own note taken at the time, stating that the Jury was at liberty to resort to their own personal knowledge, if they had ever seen any acts of outrage committed. 

The rule to shew cause was granted, and the Attorney-General consented, that the defendant (whose presence on such applications is required in Court) should continue at large under his former recognizance.

Sutton's case would not be heard until the new year.

8th October 1815: 2 Threshing Machines destroyed at Chepstow

The Gloucester Journal of Monday 16th October 1815 reported an incident that took place on the night of Saturday 7th October 1815, in which 2 threshing machines were destroyed in an arson attack:

Alarming Fires.—On the night of Saturday se'nnight, a most destructive fire broke out on part of the premises at Howick Farm, belonging to Wm. Carre, Esq. of Itton, near Chepstow. About midnight one of the buildings, in which was erected, at great expence, a powerful threshing machine, and the straw-house adjoining thereto, were discovered to be in flames; and a poor man who slept in the latter building unhappily perished! The blaze of light on the dwelling-house disturbed the servants, who seeing that any efforts of theirs to extinguish the sire would be unavailing, hastened to their master's residence, about half a mile from the farm, where, to their great astonishment, they found that a building that contained another threshing machine was also on fire! The family at Itton being summoned to assist in extinguishing the flames, they used such judicious methods of cutting off the communication of the fire with the numerous ricks of corn, hay, &c. (the air being most providentially very still) that no further damage was sustained than the loss of the building in which the fire first appeared, and the machine. Mr. Curre's introduction of a variety of machinery for the improvement of agriculture, is supposed to have instigated the villainous act. The perpetrators have not yet been discovered, but every possible means are using to bring them to justice.

26th September 1815: Nottingham Council pays tribute to the late George Coldham

The memorial to George Coldham, in St Mary's Church, Nottingham (image by Andrew R Abbott, cc licence)

The Leeds Mercury of 14th October 1815 reported on a meeting of the Common Council of the City of Nottingham, which had taken place on Tuesday 26th September 1815, and which paid tribute to the late George Coldham, who had died in an accident in Brighton 8 days before:

Mr. Henry Enfield, (son of the Rev. Dr. Enfield, late of Norwich), has been unanimously elected town clerk of Nottingham, in the room of his late partner, Mr. George Coldham. As an honourable tribute to the memory of the deceased, the Mayor and Common Council assembled on the 26th ult. and unanimously resolved, "publicly" to express their high sense of the probity, ability, and signal advantage to that corporation, with which for the last twenty-four years he had executed the several functions of his office, and their warmest commendation of his meritorious exertions in the preservation of the peace of that populous town during the late threatening period: "likewise," "that his portrait be placed in the Council Chamber, and a tablet to his memory erected in the church of St. Mary in that town:" and "that every member of the hall be requested to appear at the ensuing sessions, and all the Common Hall days for the next three months, in mourning, as a tribute of respect for Mr. Coldham's memory."

18th September 1815: George Coldham dies in an accident in Brighton

George Coldham by William Artaud (c.1810)

On Monday 18th September 1815, George Coldham, the Town Clerk of Nottingham and the Luddites principal enemy in the Midlands, was killed in an accident in Brighton. The Stamford Mercury of 22nd December carried the report of his death, which is below: 

DEATH of Mr. COLDHAM, Town Clerk of Nottingham. 

A fatal accident, very similar to that which has deprived the county of Lincoln of a most estimable character, occurred on Monday last, at Brighton, to Mr. George Coldham, an eminent solicitor and Town Clerk of Nottingham. A coroner's inquest sat on the body, at the Castle Tavern in Brighton on Tuesday. It appeared that the deceased left that Tavern on Monday morning, in a gig, for Worthing, accompanied by Thos. Buckley, Esq. of Park-street, Grosvenor-square, and followed in another gig by a Mr. Lumley and his daughter. The parties visited the Devil's Dyke together, and dined at Worthing. In returning to Brighton, the horse which was driven by Mr. Coldham became restive, and dashed off with the chaise, on the summit of the Church-hill, owing, it was apprehended by Mr. Buckley, to the pressure of the chaise upon the animal in the descent, from the want of a breeching to the harness. The horse became totally unmanageable, and brought the vehicle in contact with a post on one side of the road, the shock of which precipitated both gentlemen to the ground. Mr Coldham never spoke afterwards, but was taken from the church in a chair, in a senseless state, to the Castle Tavern, where he soon after expired, in consequence of a rupture of a blood-vessel on the brain. Mr. Buckley was also borne from the place of the accident to the Castle; but his principal injuries were about the knees and ancles. The Jury were exceedingly minute in their enquiries, but could not find that any particular blame attached to the stable-keeper, or his servants, the ommission of the breeching to the harness being allowed to be common, and Mr. Coldham was aware of its absence when he hired the gig, which he had often used before, with the same horse, to the latter of which, from his former quiet behaviour, he was smuch attached.—The Jury gave a verdict of accidental death, with a deodand against the carriage and horse of twenty shillings only. The deceased was unmarried and about 50 years of age.

28th August 1815: Thomas Holden's parents write to him from Bolton

Bolton y/e 28th 1815
Aug

Dear Thomas we jointly take this oppertunity of send\ing/ you a few lines to inform you that we are all well at this time hope you are the same -- Likewise yours of the 14 of sept 1814 Came safe to hand makeing the Fifth from you and this will make the same number that we have sent you to N.S.Wales If you have had the Fortune to receive them we hope that it will give you some Consolation for you appear to say or Think in your letters that we have all forgotten you, Dear Thomas as it is not posible that we Ever shall while god [sp]ares Our life and we do assure you that it allways gives us pleasure to hear from you at all times and under all Circumstances, that may happen to you, was it in our power to bring you back your stay from us would be Very short in your Present time of life but we fear that you will have to stay the period of time you was sent for, thoug we have made all the intrest in your favour in our power, hope if you have to stay as above that you will make yourself as Content as your situation will admit of looking forward to the time if god spare that you will have to return to us all again ----------- we have heard that all Transports have had one year taken off

Dear Thomas we have to inform you that Thos [illeg] is Return'd home again and at the same time we wish to acquaint you that we are inform'd that the parson you have with hath it in his power to do some thing towards getting you a passage and your liberty now if Mr Alen Esq would condecend in this Ou[   ]quest it would Leave a lasting Testimoney our love and Esteem that nevere Cou'd be Ereased from our minds and we wish you to Speak to your master on this subject, Dear Thos your
wife hath pettioned Three times Over to Come to you but the secretary of state gave for answer that your [Term] wass so short that nothing Could be done for her, we [    ] you will Excuse this our short hand and believ[ ] [   ] to be untill death

your Father Mother and Wife
John Elen and Mary Holden

PS we have to say that we are all together the sam[  ] [   ] when you life and intend [ ] ] Remain so untill your Return your daughter ann is a Very fine Child and often speakes about her dad Brother Will Remember his love to you as doth Mary sister and Father and Mother together with uncles and aunts & Please to Write on all Oppertunitys and not fail and we will do the same

Margin:
your grandmother and your uncle R[   ] dead [R    ] intered the first [ ]unday this year

[To] Thomas Holden
at Commissary Allens Esq
sidney Cove
New South Wales
or else where

[In different handwriting]
From Jhon Houlding
to be Left hat the
Sine of the Goudin Lian
Curch Gare Boulton
Lee mours
Lankshire

26th August 1815: The Leeds Mercury publishes a final editorial on the Charles Sutton affair

In the last Intelligencer a boast is put forth by the new Editor that he contributed to bring down upon a rival publication at Nottingham, the vengeance of law! After this we should not be surprised to hear those loyal vagabonds, the common informers, who go about the country seeking whom they may devour, boasts of their patriotic services in inflicting upon the inadvertent offenders against the revenue laws the terrors of the Exchequer. There is, indeed, this difference between the two characters—the one is actuated by a spirit of revenge, the other by a spirit of avarice; but, as to their loyalty, they are exactly upon a par. This literary informer finding himself incapable of contending with his adversary in the fair field of political combat, was, according to his own confession, obliged to summons to his aid the assistance of the Attorney-General, against whose ex officio logic all other arguments are unavailing. But when he boasts of having scorched his rival, he ought, in justice, to have added, that he destroyed himself. The Nottingham Review, which he opposed, was prosecuted; but the Nottingham Gazette, which he conducted, was annihilated. If this egotist only succeeds as well as at Leeds as he did at Nottingham, his master will have no great reason to exult in his powers, and his absence will be as little regretted here as it is there. For ourselves we have only to say, that a tolerable share of vigilance has, we believe, been exercised for the last dozen years over the productions of this press, but hitherto without any very distinguished success. For the future we rely more on our own discretion than upon any forbearance in the quarter in question. In fact, we asked no forbearance—we shall acknowledge no favour; and we despise alike the threats and the clemency of all the servile slaves of power.