29th January 1816: Tipton Colliers win concessions after holding mass assemblies

On Monday 29th January 1816, and following riots in nearby Dudley three days earlier, the mere assembly of Colliers in Tipton led to concessions. The Derby Mercury of 1st February 1816 carried a report:

The neighbourhood of Tipton was on Monday morning alarmed by the collecting together several hundreds of Colliers. About two o'clock the military quartered in Wolverhampton were sent for, and a troop of the 9th Light Dragoons, and a detachment of Berkshire Militia, accompanied by the Rev. A. B. Haden, immediately proceeded to the spot, where they were met by the Rev. D. Lewis, another Magistrate, with a military force from Birmingham. The Colliers have not committed any acts of violence, and they all not only professed, but evinced a disposition to act in the most orderly manner, by dispersing, after being reasoned with and desired to do so. The motive for their collecting, they said, was to resist a further drop of sixpence per day in their wages, by their chaster masters. A satisfactory arrangement was made with them, and they have returned to their employment.

26th January 1816: Colliers riot in Dudley, West Midlands

On Friday 26th January 1816, major disturbances took place in the town of Dudley, in the West Midlands. The Derby Mercury of 1st February 1816 carried a report:

We regret to add, that the vicinity of Dudley has also, during the last week, been disturbed by illegal and riotous assemblages of colliers, who have in several instances proceeded to acts of atrocious and unprovoked violence.—It appears from an advertisement in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, that an assault of the most outrageous nature was on Friday made, by a party of these misguided men, upon the person of a respectable gentleman in the neighbourhood of that town. We are happy to find that a liberal reward has been offered for the apprehension of the offenders, and we trust they will be speedily given up to justice. A large party of colliers, armed with sticks and bludgeons, passed through Dudley on Friday evening, on their way towards Tipton. They halted opposite the town hall, where having given several shouts of defiance, accompanied by signs of resistance should they be interrupted, they proceeded forward. Military aid reached on the following morning (Saturday) from Coventry; and we hope, under the able guidance of the magistracy, they will effectually intimidate them from further acts of excess.

The Lancaster Gazette of 10th February 1816 went into more detail about the 'outrageous assault' on the 'respectable gentleman':

A few days since a mob of colliers assembled in the vicinity of Dudley, and seizing a Mr. Parker, put a rope round his neck, and threatened to hang him, unless he acceded to their demands. 

The Leeds Mercury of the same date related the same incident, albeit with slightly differing detail:

...a party attacked Mr. Zephaniah Parkes, near Holly Hall, put a rope round his neck and threatened to hang him, unless he acceded to their illegal demands

22nd January 1816: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury replies again to Francis Raynes

Treasury-Chambers, 22d January, 1816.

SIR,

I have received your letter of the 5th inst. and I am induced to trouble you with this in reply to it, rather to satisfy your fears of your letter being thrown aside, than because I have any information to communicate. When you wrote to me in November, I was absent from this country, which was the cause of my not writing to you. Since my return, I was at first very unwell, and since then, I have been so much occupied by my official duties, that I have not had one moment of leisure to give to applications such as yours: but I can now assure you, that I will take an early opportunity of speaking to Lord Sidmouth about you, and that, when I have any intelligence that may be agreeable to communicate, you may depend upon hearing from me.

I am, Sir,

Your faithful humble Servant,

C. ARBUTHNOT.

20th January 1816: Fire at a Scribbling Mill in Leeds, 'cause not yet ascertained'

The Leeds Mercury of Saturday 27th January 1816 reported a fire that had taken place in Leeds the week previously:

Saturday morning, about half-past 3 o'clock, an alarming fire broke out in the manufactory of Messrs. Glovers, in Park-Lane, in this town, from some cause not yet ascertained, The flames spread with such destructive rapidity, that in less than an hour, the scribbling-mill in which the fire originated, with all the machinery, was totally destroyed, and for some time the most serious apprehensions were entertained for the adjoining buildings, but at 6 o'clock the fire was happily got under, and the dwelling-house, and warehouse, with the engine-house, all adjoining, were preserved. It affords us pleasure to add that the stock, machinery, and buildings were insured in the Royal-Exchange office. Providentially the morning was extremely calm, and to this circumstance, combined with the most active exertions of the inhabitants; the preservation of  any part of this extensive property is to be attributed.

19th January 1816: 19 men imprisoned for machine-breaking in Suffolk in 1815

On Friday 19th January 1816, the Cambridge Chronicle carried reports from two recent Quarter Sessions in the county, where cases of machine breaking that had taken place in Suffolk in 1815 were dealt with.

At the Ipswich Quarter Sessions 12 men (4 more than were initially charged) were tried for destroying a threshing machine at Holbrook, Suffolk the previous August:

At Ipswich sessions, Daniel Grimwood, Thomas Seager, Joseph Cook, Martin Gosling, ____ Sells, John Driver, Jerry Lucas, ____ Bayley, Robert Payne, Samuel Page, Robert Page, and S. Turner, were indicted for appearing in a riotous manner in the parish of Holbrook, on the 3d of August last, and there breaking and destroying a threshing machine, the property of John Roper, of Wilby.—Mr. Stocks, for the prosecutions, insisted upon the urgent necessity of supporting the laws, and after the evidence, which was full and conclusive, had been gone through, the prisoners were called upon for their defence, but they had little to urge except the difficulty of gaining employment, which they attributed to the use of machines.—Several persons were called, who gave them excellent characters. The Jury brought in the whole Guilty, and the sentence of the Court was,  that Grimwood, Seager, Cook, and Gosling should be imprisoned for twelve calendar months; Sells and two others, for nine months, and the remainder of the prisoners for six months.

At Woodbridge Quarter Sessions, a total of 7 men were tried for destroying 3 threshing machines in disturbances that had involved a total of 100 people the previous November:

At the quarter sessions at Woodbridge, Edmund Prime, Wm. Garnham, Wm. Bannister, John Abbott, Wm. Barker, and Thos, Stevens, charged with breaking machines in the parishes of Kenton and [Monk]-soham, and also for subsequent riot and misdemeanour, were found Guilty, and ordered to be imprisoned twelve months in the county gaol.—John Brunwin, for the like offence, was sentenced to be imprisoned six months in the same gaol.—It is much to be hoped that these necessary examples will have the effect of preventing such excesses for the future—excesses not only disastrous to the objects of them, but ruinous to the perpetrators.

17th January 1816: Cloth belonging to Wormald, Gott & Wormald damaged in Leeds

Some time in the evening of Wednesday 17th January 1816, some cloth upon the tenters at the Park Lane factory of Wormald, Gott & Wormald was cut and damaged. The subsequent reward notice gave more detail:

REWARD OF

One Hundred Guineas.

ASSOCIATION

For the PROSECUTION of FELONS.

Tenters Cut. 

WHEREAS, late last Night, or early this Morning, some Person or Persons, did wilfully and maliciously CUT TWO PIECES of COARSE MIXTURE CLOTH, in various Directions, on the Tenters in the Front of Mr. Gott's House, in Park-Lane, Leeds, the Property of Messrs. Wormald, Gott and Wormald, of Leeds, Merchants. 

F Whoever will give Information of the Offender or Offenders shall, upon Conviction, receive a Reward of NINETY GUINEAS from the said Messrs. Wormald, Gott and Wormald; and a further Reward of TEN GUINEAS, at Mr. Smith's Office, Trinity-Lane, Leeds. 

Leeds, 17th January, 1816.

16th January 1816: The Leeds Cloth Dressers Union case comes to court

On Tuesday 16th January 1816, the case of the Union Officers arrested and charged with aiding and abetting an illegal combination (i.e. Trade Union) by Leeds Magistrates in December was heard at Leeds Borough Quarter Sessions. The Leeds Mercury of 20th January 1816 gave a good summary of the proceedings:

TILLOTSON, SUNDERLAND, & OTHERS, Appellants, REX, Respondent. 

The Appellants, who are cloth-dressers, were convicted on Tuesday, the 19th of December last, by Whittell York, Esq. Mayor, and Thomas Ikin, Esq. on a charge of combining to hinder Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, cloth-merchants, of this town, from employing Thomas Marshall, as a cloth-dresser. Mr. Williams, who came from Preston for the purpose of sustaining the appeal, had been especially retained by the Appellants at a very considerable expence. His assistance, however, turned out to be unnecessary, as Mr. Maud, who was Counsel in support of the Conviction, stated to the bench that it was impossible the conviction could be legally sustained, as the Magistrates before whom the the conviction had taken place had no jurisdiction in the case, the act having especially provided, "that no Justice, being a master in any trade or manufacture, concerning which any offence is charged to have been committed should act in execution thereof." On this ground Mr. Maud said, the conviction must necessarily be quashed, for if that Court should affirm it, the Court of King's Bench would, would, under the circumstances of the case set such conviction aside. He concluded with moving that the conviction be quashed, to which the Court of course assented.—Conviction quashed.

10th January 1816: The Duke of Montrose continues to stall Francis Raynes' hopes

Windsor, 10th Jan. 1816.

SIR,

I have received your letter of the 5th January. I informed you I was acquainted with the existing difficulty to your remuneration being obtained, namely—the difficulty of the Secretary of State to find a situation for you. This you do not seem to give credit to; but this I believe, and was convinced from the beginning, that to reward was the intention of Lord Sidmouth or he would not have said so. I shall again mention your name to his Lordship, and should have sent your letter to him, but that I thought the last part of it looked so like a threat, that I conceived it might do you an injury.

I remain, with esteem, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

MONTROSE.

Capt. Raynes.

5th January 1816: Francis Raynes makes more desperate enquiries about his case

Having now heard nothing from the government about the possibility of a job or remuneration for his services during the Luddite disturbances for over 4 months, Francis Raynes wrote again to both the government and his former commanding officer on the same day:

Three months after [receiving the letter from Lord Sidmouth], hearing of the vacancy of a situation in the customs, and not willing to let my age become an additional difficulty in the way of remuneration, I immediately made application to the Secretary of the Treasury, and then, after waiting a considerable time longer, I once more addressed myself to the Duke of Montrose, and, likewise, to Mr. Arbuthnot. 

Fenton, 5th of January, 1816. 

SIR, 

I had the honor to address you a letter, dated 10th November, on the subject of a remuneration for my past services. I should not have taken such a liberty, had I not considered myself as having been referred to you by His Majesty’s Government. Not being honoured by a reply, I am led to infer that what I have suggested is unsuitable. 

I would not be thought troublesome or obtrusive, but, at the expiration of three years, it is natural I should wish the suspense I have been kept in terminated. 

It would, Sir, be a great relief to me, to be informed what my prospects from the Government are, and when, if ever, I may expect a realisation of them; for is, after such a lapse of time, a remuneration for acknowledged services, rendered, to use my Lord Sidmouth’s own expression, “at a very important period,” cannot be found in a country like this, all reasonable, all rational hope ought to cease. I have been compelled to throw up my commission, from feelings every one must understand, who knows the derision unfulfilled expectations ever excite; and very many other inconveniences I have been subjected to, which might have been avoided, had I not been led to expect, from Sir Thomas Maitland himself, an immediate acknowledgement. 

I am aware, Sir, that letter from individuals to men in exalted situations, are frequently thrown aside, as being too trivial to merit a reply: this I never found to be the case, when my services were required: and I trust my letters will not be classed with this description only when the reward of those services is the subject of them.  I have the honor to be, Sir, 

Respectfully, 

Your most obedient humble Servant, 

FRANCIS RAYNES. 

The Right Hon. Charles Arbuthnot, &c. &c. 

 

Fenton, 5th January, 1816. 

MY LORD DUKE, 

I regret I am again compelled to renew a subject which cannot be as unpleasant to your Grace, as it is painful to me; and I did flatter myself such circumstances might have arisen, as would have precluded me every again troubling your Grace on so worn out a theme. You have, my Lord, informed me, that you are acquainted with the existing difficulty of my remuneration being obtained. My knowledge of it, so far as to enable me to form some idea of its probable duration, would materially conduce to my interest; domestic reasons making it necessary I should not let pass an opportunity of forming a permanent establishment, unless I have a certainty very shortly of obtaining the reward for my services, but which, a much longer delay in the accomplishment, will render it of little importance to me. 

I do not, my Lord, means to fatigue you with a recapitulations of what I have so often urged. Your Grace is well acquainted with all the leading features of my case, as well as with the neglect I have experienced. Neglect I must call it, for, at the end of three years, I find myself but where Sir Thomas Maitland left me, save that I have in my possession many expression of favorable wishes. Can credulity go so far as to believe a country like this, after such a lapse of time, has nothing to bestow on acknowledged services, but favorable intentions? My services, at the time were thought of no ordinary nature, or I should not have been honoured by the marked attention I received from your Grace, in the camp at Manchester, at a period which Lord Sidmouth himself acknowledges was an important one, and which will long be remembered as critical by every inhabitant of that part of the country. 

I cannot, my Lord, help owning that may mind is sore and irritated by the treatment I have received. I do not wish to give up expectations; but the folly of much longer entertaining them, can only be equalled by resigning them, without justifying myself to the world for every having formed them. 

I have the honor to be, 

With the utmost respect, 

Your Grace’s most obedient and humble Serv. 

FRANCIS RAYNES. 

His Grace the Duke of Montrose, K. G. &c.

3rd January 1816: The remaining Halifax 'Twisters' are given Free Pardons

On Wednesday 3rd January 1816, the prisoners William Blakeborough, George Duckworth & Charles Milnes were all given a Free Pardon & set free from the Prison Hulks at Portsmouth.

The three men had all been convicted of administering an illegal oath to an undercover agent in Halifax during the height of the Luddite disturbances in West Yorkshire in 1812. At their trial in early 1813, they and two others had been found guilty and sentenced to transportation, but the sentences were not carried out, and they had remained aboard the prison hulks. During that time, two of the prisoners - John Baines the elder and John Baines the junior - had died in captivity.

Little is known about the circumstances surrounding the Pardons, as any relevant paperwork does not appear in the Home Office documents for this period, other than a note recording the date of the pardon applied to all three men in the Prison Hulk Register.

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.—