20th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse summarises day 4 of the Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 20. 1816.

Dear Sir,

After I dispatched my Letter yesterday, we convicted of a Robbery the Prisoner, who has been previously acquitted (as I stated to you) by the Kindness of his Dulcinea of a transportable offence.

Today we have tried an Indictment against 9 Prisoners for Robbery of a Shopkeeper in this Town, & the Jury convicted 8 of the 9.

This makes the present Catalogue of Prisoners finally disposed of as follows. There have been other Acquittals of Prisoners, against whom there are other Charges yet untried.

Atkins, Wm.}
Beamiss, Wm Junr.}
Benton, Mark} capitally convicted
Butcher, Christn. Acquitted—

Chevll, Aaron.}
Cooper, John}
Crabb, Robt.}
Dann, Wm.} capitally convicted—

Dennis, John — [capitally convicted] twice.

Easy, Joseph — capitally convicted.

Freeman, John}
Gaultrip, John} Acquitted—

Hardy, Isaac}
Hobbs, Sarah} capitally convicted—

Jefferson, John}
Jessop, Richd.} [capitally convicted] twice—

Lavender, Joseph — convicted of G. Larceny.
Layton, Aaron capitally convicted.

Newell, Jas.}
Prieke, John}
Rutter, Richd.} [capitally convicted]
South, Thos. [capitalIy convicted] twice—
Stubbard, Joseph—Acquitted—

We are now trying an Indictment for Stevens’s Robbery [against] four Prisoners, already convicted, & two others. This will probably occupy the rest of the day. If it should not, we must select for the [Professor] a case of small dimensions, free (as far as human Foresight can reach) of Difficulty of an Alibi.

I think it is hardly likely that the Business will be finished by Saturday Night.

We were let down so easily on the first Indictment, that you may be assured we incurred no Disgrace. A new Indictment has been found against all the Prisoners included in the first, except those who have been since convicted of other Crimes, and will probably be tried tomorrow morning.

I have not been inattentive to Ld. Sidmouth’s Wish to inform himself of the origin of the Disturbances, & I will continue to collect as much Information as possible on that Point.

I am sorry to hear that a Threshing Machine was burnt yesterday near Mildenhall.

I am Yrs. truly
H. Hobhouse

20th June 1816: William Bolland writes from the trials at Ely Special Commission

William Atkin}

Aaron Layton}

a second time John Dennis}

Sarah Hobbs}

John Prieke}

John Cooper}

a second time Richard Jessop}

a second time John Jefferson} Robbery at Ely on William Cooper.

Dear Beckett.

I write in Court, it is now ½ p 2. We have just convicted the above 8 men, William Beamiss was found guilty of Robbery yesterday after I had closed my letter.—We have 6 others under Trial for the Robbery of Stevens, 4 of them. Viz. Dennis, Layton Atkin and Jefferson, are already convicted. I will report the result to you provided the Verdict is brought in before 5 o'clock. The total of Capital convicts is now 18. We have some few Littleport capital offences still to try. I think we shall finish them tomorrow we shall then take a Larceny or two of bad description, and one or two Indictments for Riot.—Burrough is now summing up.

It appears to me that we shall finish on Saturday time enough perhaps to reach Cambridge.—Littleport is panic struck & the events of today will strike terror into the bad part of the Inhabitants of this place A threshingmachine was burnt at Worlington on Tuesday night, It is in Suffolk about 12 miles from hence. The crime was committed by some incendiary, who was probably alone at the time, as there was no ferment in the place. It appears from the Evidence in the different Cases that so far from distress being the cause of the riots & demands of money, the leaders of the Mob have been [purport] above want & the Money obtained instead of being divided or given to the families of the poorer sort of the persons composing the Mob, has been [distributed] at public houses very soon after it was obtained from the persons, who had been robbed of it, at least that portion of it which the Leaders did not put into their own pockets.

The Jury are out and not likely to return their Verdict on time,

In haste

Very truly

W. Bolland

Ely June 20th. 1816.

20th June 1816: The Mayor of Leeds request troops from the Home Secretary

To the Rt Honble the Lord Visc Sidmouth
His Majesty's principal Secretary of State
for the Home Department

My Lord

I had the honour to Address Your Lordship some time since from a Meeting of the Magistrates of this Borough, requesting some Military aid in Support of the Civil power, which Your Lordship was so good as to send us, and which we found to be adequate for the purpose of protecting the Inhabitants against the mischievous disposition which then prevailed,. But that force was soon withdrawn, and some Acts of Violence having been lately attempted, and the delinquents taken into Custody, but afterwards rescued, for want of sufficient power to retain them, there is reason to fear that the spirit which prevails may produce some sudden ebulition & serious mischief without the presence of some Military to support the Civil Authorities.

I am requested by a Meeting of the Magistrates here this day, to entreat your Lordship, to send us a Small force of Military Cavalry, to be Station’d at Leeds as soon as may be, to prevent any disorder or danger to the peaceable inhabitants, by exhibiting adequate support to the Civil power in case of need.

I have no doubt but the wise Caution given to us by Your Lordship of the former Occasion, will be Strictly obeyed by the Civil Magistracy here

And I have [etc]
W. York
Mayor

Leeds 20 June 1816

20th June: Day 4 of the Ely Special Commission

The Bury & Norwich Post's coverage of the Ely Special Commission continued (from the 26th June edition of the newspaper):

THURSDAY, June 20.

William Beamiss the younger, and Joseph Lavender, stood indicted for having, on Wednesday the 22d May last, feloniously stolen and carried away from the dwelling-house of the Rev. J. Vachell, at Littleport, in the Isle of Ely, several silver spoons, of the value of 40s. his property; and Christopher Butcher having received the same, knowing them to be stolen.

Elizabeth Carter was called; she was the servant of Mr. Waddelow, of Littleport, who sent her about 11 on the night of the 22d May to Mr. Vachell’s, to preserve what she could and carry it to him. When she got to the house, she found the people rioting; many were in the store-room. She saw Beamiss and Lavender there. Beamiss took five table spoons, which she supposed to be silver, off the shelf. Lavender was putting two gravy spoons into his pocket; and had a basket in his hand.

The Rev. Mr. Vaschell said he had no spoons in his house which were not silver. He had two silver gravy spoons, but could not tell the value of them.

Christopher Crabb said his master had four silver gravy spoons, a pair of them were lost that night.

Mr. Justice Burrough having summed up the evidence, the Jury returned the following verdict: Beamiss, Not Guilty; Lavender, guilty of stealing only, by which the capital offence was done away; Butcher, Not Guilty.

John Gaultrip was arrainged for having feloniously stolen and carried away from the house of the Rev. John Vaschell, two large silver spoons, his property.—The jury acquitted the prisoner, he having proved an alibi.

William Bemiss, the younger, was next indicted for highway robbery on Hugh Robert Evans, Esq. of Ely, on the 22d May last, at Littleport, and for having taken 14s. in silver from him.

Mr. Evans said he was coming through Littleport with Mr. Martin about 10 o'clock; when the mob came up to both doors of the chaise, opened them, and demanded a 1l. note. There were 20 persons on the sides, and just behind the chaise: some of them had sticks. He gave them about 14s.; one half to the persons on one side and the other half of those on the other side, being that was all he had. He parted with the money under an apprehension of violence.

Mr. Hunt called three witnesses to the character of the prisoner: they all stated they had known him from a child, and that he had been always peaceable, [illegible] and industrious; and he was by trade a shoemaker.—The prisoner, being called upon for his defence, said he opened the chaise door, but did not take any money.

Mr. Justice Abbott addressed the jury. On the evidence of Mr. Evans, it had been clearly proved that a robbery was committed by some person; the only question was, whether Beamiss was one of them come. The prisoner himself had acknowledged that he opened the door, but did not take the money. This however, was perfectly immaterial, as he was one of those who stopped the chaise.—The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

John Dennis, Richard Jessop, William Atkin, Aaron Layton, Sarah Hobbs, John Pricke, John Cooper, John Freeman, John Jefferson, were indicted for [rioting] on Thursday the 23d May last, put W. Cooper, in Ely, shopkeeper, in bodily fear, and feloniously stolen from him several books and canisters, and 10l. in notes.

Mr. Gurney addressed the Jury.—He said every one of the prisoners took an active part, but Dennis was the ringleader. He struck at the window [obscure] with a gun which he had in his hand, and received part of the money for the Littleport rioters; Atkins and Layton took the other part for the Ely men. When the [object] was effected, Dennis held up his gun as a signal, which the mob obeyed. The Learned Counsel mentioned that because Dennis had stated yesterday that he was forced to join the mob: but it must appear that he was afterwards very active. This was the only case in which a woman was indicted: but it was not the only case in which women have been guilty of great violence, and they must not understand, that they could engage in things of this kind without being responsible for the consequences. She was the wife of a soldier, and had been very active in persuading the mob to go to Mr. Cooper's, saying, he was a bigger rogue than Rickwood; and she assisted in breaking the windows of the house.

Wm. Cooper examined—Kept a shop at Ely and dealt in flour and grocery; hearing that a mob was coming to his house, he withdrew from fear of violence, leaving a Mr. Watts in it to do as well as a he could with them. He was absent about ten minutes and could not see what was passing. On the return, he saw a large assemblage of people before his house; they were near 500—.He went in by the back room; they were then very [illegible] but all the windows were broken. When they saw him, some called out, "five pounds, five pounds!" he had [illegible] 1l. notes, which he gave to the Rev. Mr. Metcalfe, who was outside of the house against the window. Mr Watts had sent him a message, that they would have ten pounds or pull the house down. He gave the money to Mr. Metcalfe to hand to the mob, for fear of his house being pulled down. He had no other fear at that time; they did not seem to have any design against his person. When Mr. Metcalfe had given the money, Layton and Atkin said, the Littleport people had got that, and the Ely people had a right to have as much. He then got 5l. more [in] notes, and handed them to Mr. Metcalfe, to give to the Ely people. The men then gave three huzzas, and went away.

The Rev. Mr. Metcalfe and the Rev. Mr. Law, (magistrates who exerted themselves to appease the mob) with Messrs. Spooner, Hutlock, Apsey, and several other witnesses, corroborated Mr. Cooper's evidence.

Mr. Justice Abbott charged the Jury at great length upon the evidence, as it applied to each of the prisoners, and the Jury, after retiring about a quarter of an hour, brought in a verdict of Guilty, against the prisoners, with the exception of Freeman whom they acquitted.

Dennis, Jefferson, Atkin and Layton, with James Camel and John Walker, were then tried upon another indictment, charging them with a robbery and stealing 10l. from the person of Geo. Stevens, Miller, [illegible]

The Jury pronounced a verdict of Guilty against four of the prisoners, viz. Dennis, Layton, Atkin and Cammel.—Jefferson and Walker, Not Guilty.

Aaron Chevill and William Beamiss were also capitally convicted of stealing from the person of Henry Tansley, by putting him in fear, two 1l. notes.

19th June 1816: Threshing Machine set alight at Worlington, Suffolk

In the evening of Wednesday 19th June 1816, a Threshing Machine belonging to a farmer called Mr. Booty was set alight at Worlington, near Mildenhall in Suffolk.

19th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse summarises Day 3 of the Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 19. 1816.

Dear Sir,

After I wrote yesterday, four Prisoners were tried for a Robbery on Mr. Vachell, all four were clearly proved Guilty, but the circumstances of Aggravation were greater against two than against the other two, and the Jury in their Discretion thought fit to acquit the two former.

Upon the whole of yesterday there were nine capital Convictions.

This day we began with an Indictment for robbing Robt. Edwards of this place of £50, which was clearly proved against five Prisoners, but the Jury only convicted three.

We intended to proceed with the Trial of the other Offences at Ely, but the last mentioned Indictment not having concluded until near three o'Clock, it was thought best to take some shorter Cases.

Mr. Justice Burrough tried an Indictment against two Principals and one Accessory for stealing Spoons at Mr. Vachell’s. One of the Principals was convicted, but the two others were acquitted by the Evidence of a Girl, whom we called as a Witness, and who proved to be a Sweet heart of the Prisoner.

The next case was not unfortunately tried before the Chief Justice. The Indictment was for Larceny at Mr. Vachell’s, & the Prisoner set up an Alibi, with which the Judge did not in the least know how to deal, and the summing up was such, that no one could be surprized at the Verdict of Acquittal.

I am
Dr Sir
Yr obed Servt
H. Hobhouse

19th June 1816: WIlliam Bolland sends an update from the Ely Special Commission

John Jefferson}
John Dennis}
Richard Rutter} Robbery on Edwards of the Ely Bank.—

Dear Beckett.

The Case of the above named Prisoners has lasted till this hour, 3 O'clock. The Jury acquitted Flanders Hopkins & James Cammell, who were indicted with them. All goes well; our Judges are excellent; all around is tranquil, and it is evident already that the Commission has produced the best effects—I will leave open the letter as long as I can to inform you of this the results of the other trials of today.—

Nothing more has taken place worth notice. The post is going

Very truly

W. Bolland

Ely June 19. 1816.—

19th June 1816: The Earl of Derby appeals to the Home Secretary about the distress of weavers in Bolton

[19th June 1816]

My Lord

A Deputation of the very respectable Gentleman whose names are affixed to the inclosed Memorial has waited upon me this morning, with their earnest Request that I [should] immediately lay before his Majesties Ministers their representation of the very distressing & alarming state not only of that particular part of the County over which their Superintendence as Deputy [Lieutenants] extends, but also generally over all parts of this County in which weaving constitutes nearly the whole means of support of the Inhabitants I think it my Duty to lose no time in transmitting this Statement to your Lordship in the terms in which it has been made to me, but I likewise consider myself as bound to add, that I am fully persuaded neither the distress of the People, nor the dreadful Excesses to which (if not some alleviated) it may compel them to have recourse, have they in the smallest Degree exaggerated: I am desired further to state that the People are at present quiet, & no hopes have been held out to them of any specific Remedy, nor do I feel myself qualified or entitled to show to your Lordship any Plan for that purpose, I am however confident that the Business calls for the speediest & most earnest attention of his Majestys Ministers & as such I beg him earnestly to recommend it, (thro’ your Lordship) to their Notice

I have [etc]

Derby

[To: Lord Sidmouth]

[Bolton magisrates memorial follows]

Bolton June 17th 1816—

My Lord

From an attentive observation of the circumstances, in which the weavers, resident in Bolton & the neighbourhood are at this moment plac’d, we, the Deputy Lieutenants of the division, in which that Town is situated, have assembled for the purpose of investigating to the utmost of our power, the cause & extent of their present distresses, & the probable effect which their urgent wants may have on the peace of the County—

We feel it to be a difficult & most delicate task, to trace the suppos’d causes to their first origin, that we beg to state to you, for the information of his Majesty's Government this simple fact—that, while every other branch of the manufacture of piece goods is declining with a rapidity unexamp’ld—the unlimited exportation of Cotton Twist, is energising the spinning trade to an unparalleled degree—With respect to the extent of the distresses of the Weavers, we have a most painful duty to perform in recommending them to your notice—The Master Manufacturers are lessening the number of those employ’d—the wages are reduc’d to a sum totally inadequate to the support of individual want  & even at this low average—the work to be performed by them is generally limited—The season of the year & the moderate price of provisions have tended to redress the cry of discontent, but such is the general stagnation of the trade that unless His Majesty's Government can afford immediate relief to their wants, & permanent support to their manufacture, we feel ourselves bound to declare, that no influence nor exertion of ours can long maintain the peace of this neighbourhood—Under these impressions, we have thought it our duty to lay before your Lordship this statement, trusting that it will meet with your Lordships forceful aid in a recommendation of it, to the attention of His Majesty's Government—We remain

My Lord
Yr Lordship’s
Most obt Hble Servants

Wm Hulton—
Benjn Rawson
John Pilkington
Richard Ainsworth

19th June 1816: Day 3 of the Ely Special Commission

The Bury & Norwich Post continued their coverage of the Ely Special Commission:

WEDNESDAY, June 19.

John Dennis, F. Hopkins, James Cammell, John Jefferson, and Richard Rutter were put to the bar, and indicted for stealing from the dwelling house of Robert Edwards, of Ely, the sum of 50l. in bankers’ cash notes.

Mr. Gurney requested the serious attention of the jury to this case, and after stating the facts afterwards proved in evidence, called the following witnesses;:

Margaret Rickwood said her husband was a miller, resident in the town of Ely. She saw the mob at her door between eight and nine o'clock on the morning of the 23d. Dennis was among eight or nine others who came into the house. He had a gun in his hand, which she was positive had a lock to it; others carried stable-forks and bludgeons. They asked for her husband, who was not at home. She told them she did not know where he was, and inquired what was their wish. Somebody replied, they must have 50l. or the house and mill would come down immediately. She said, "My good men, you shall have it, but don't break destroy any thing." She desired her son to go to Mr. Edwards’s, and get 50l. from his bank immediately. Before his return, Dennis said, he could not quell the mob if the money was not forthcoming, and she then heard two or three of the windows crack on the outside. She exclaimed, "You shall have the money for I see I am going to ruin." She went up Broad-street with them to the bank, but seeing the mob demolishing her windows, said, she would go no further, unless they were restrained from doing further mischief. Some them brought them away, saying, "Come along, we are going for the money." On her way, she met Mr. Edwards to whom she communicated her purpose. He desired her to take his arm, said, if there were a thousand of them they should not have a penny. She begged him to let them have the money, as it was impossible to pacify them otherwise, when a person whom she did not know struck Mr. Edwards on the head, and the blood followed. Mr. Edwards afterwards observed, that if the money must be paid, they must send three persons into the house to receive it; and the three were, Dennis, Hopkins, & Sanderson, (last not in custody.)

Robert Edwards stated that he was chief constable of Ely, and agent there for Messrs. Mortlock and Son, bankers, of Cambridge. The mob arrived at Ely between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning of the 23d. their numbers might amount to about 200, they came from the Littleport road. Most of them were armed either with guns, bludgeons, or stable forks. They brought with them a waggon drawn by two horses, and mounted with large fowlers’ guns, which projected forwards, and commanded the street. They were assembled in the market-place, when the younger Rickwood came to him with a message from his mother. He took his staff, and proceeded towards the house. Having met them, he asked them what authority they had to demand 50l. This question was answered with a general cry of "we will have it," and he was immediately struck on the head by some person with a bludgeon. Finding himself likely to be assailed by others, he went back, and the mob followed him, shouting all the way. He placed his back against the door of his house, resolved at that time that they should not enter, and desired his family to remain within. They drew round him, and he received a second blow; when, conceiving himself to be imminent danger of his life, he thought it necessary to submit, and he desired that three of them would come in and receive the money for the rest. Dennis exclaimed "I'll go for Littleport." He considered, however, that Dennis was of service to him in preventing the mob from doing him any injury, and he observed in general that he made great exertions to restrain them. One very turbulent person in particular was repressed by him from the commission of mischief. He heard the prisoner Hopkins say he would take for Downham, and Sanderson for Ely. They came into his shop; when he told them that they have made a very improper demand, and before he gave them the money he must have their names. There was a fourth person present, and Dennis mentioned the name either of Wilson or Burridge, but not his own. He then gave to each of the remaining three 16 one pound notes and 13s. and, holding the remaining shilling in his hand, he asked who was to receive that. They said it must be equally divided, and he accordingly gave them each a groat in copper. The mob then quitted the place peaceably. He gave the money not only at the express desire of Mrs. Rickwood, but from fear for his own person and property. He was agent to Messrs. Mortlock, to whom he was responsible.

The Rev. G. Miller observed the prisoner Jefferson very active among the rioters at Mr. Edwards’s house, and crying "go it, go it." The mob after receiving the money, at which the witness was present, went away.

The Rev. Mr. Metcalfe, a magistrate of Ely, stated that he went out to meet the mob, and met them about three-quarters of a mile from the town. They brought with them a waggon, upon which were mounted several guns with their muzzles projected. He desired to know what was the reason of this disorderly conduct, and they replied they came for redress from the magistrates. He told them that their complaint should be examined by the overseers, if they conducted themselves peaceably. They said they did not come to hurt any body. He was not certain that Cammell was among them.

Wm. Marshall saw the rioters enter the town, and all the five prisoners among them. He remonstrated, when Rutter said 2s. a day would not do; they must also have beer at 2d. a pint.

The Rev. Mr. Law, a magistrate of Ely, saw Jefferson and Rutter among the mob. He entreated Rutter to go home, which he refused to do, and said he might as well be hanged than starve. They might, if they pleased, hang him up on the next thorn-bush.

Mary Howe was in the service of the prisoner Dennis. She recollected the mob coming to her master's house on the night of the 22d, and asking for bullets. They came armed three times, and said Dennis must go with them. Under cross-examination she said her master was in bed when they came, and that he went with them reluctantly. They said they would shoot him if he did not go.

The prisoner Dennis, in his defence gave a recital of the circumstances in the evidence, for the purpose of showing that he had acted under constraint.

Mr. Hunt submitted, that the capital part of the charge could not be maintained, as no legal property had been proved to vest in Edwards. The Court reserved the objection, but considered in the mean time that their case ought to be submitted to the jury.

Mr. Justice Abbott recapitulated the evidence to the jury, and observed, that if they should be of opinion that Mr. Edwards was induced to part with the money from the violence actually used towards him, and from the fear of greater violence, it was not material whether it was the money of Rickwood, or of the bankers, or of Mr. Edwards; he was the person in possession of the property, and in point of law the prisoners could not say it was not his property, but that of another. The indictment, however, was so framed, as to meet the case in every view. Dennis, in his defence, had said, that he was not a free and voluntary agent, but took part with the mob from fear of violence; but it was incumbent on a person to show most clearly and satisfactorily, not merely that he was in the outset forced to join an unlawful assembly, but that he continued in it only so long as that force was upon him. They would judge from the evidence, whether the prisoner had made out a case of that nature. Several witnesses had been called to his character; but it was proper to observe, that however peaceable he might have been at Littleport the night before, he must be answerable for his conduct on the day laid in the indictment. As to character, it could not have any weight with the verdict of a jury, if his guilt was clearly established. With regard to Hopkins, if they thought that his real object was to afford Mrs. Rickwood protection, they would acquit him, and if they doubted that statement, they would give him the benefit of good character which he had received. It was not material whether Cammell, Jefferson, or Rutter came in with the mob or not, if they took part with them after.

The jury deliberated for some time, and then returned the following verdict:—Dennis, Guilty; Hopkins, Not Guilty; Cammell, Not Guilty; Jefferson, Guilty; Rutter, Guilty.

19th June 1816: Henry Hobhouse writes an early letter from the Special Commission

Ely
Wednesday morng

Dear Beckett,

I wrote you a short Letter yesterday in Court, stating merely our Progress, & had not time for more. I am happy to tell you that the Trial before Christian well off very well. His summing up was unexceptionable except that it was too [illegible] and too pompous. I hear that the Language he uses to his Confidants here is that he has been most ill used by the Chancellor, but I do not find that he has suggested in what way he would have had the Commission framed more respectfully towards himself. For the sake of giving daily Proofs of this Absurdity, he refuses to come into Court in the Bishops Carriage with the other Judges, & follows them alone in some Vehicle of his own Purveyance.

I am happy to learn that the Convictions of yesterday have had a very salutary Effect on the minds of the People at Littleport, which were previously very much subdued; and I trust there is no doubt that the general Result of the Commission will entirely bring about the Effect which it was the object of Government to produce.

Having heard that Mr. Dering, the Norfolk magistrate, was a friend of Mr. Justice Abbott, I took an Opportunity yesterday afternoon of speaking to him on the subject of Mr D’s recent malverisation. He told me that he had known Mr. D. from his Boyhood, & was satisfied of his being a most honourable & right intentioned man, & with Firmness sufficient to execute at any Risque any thing which he conceived to be his Duty, but not unlikely to err in a case where he has not a strong Conception of the Line which it is incumbent time to pursue. I have thought it right to state this Testimony in Mr. D’s favour for Ld. Sidmouth’s Consideration, when he finally determines on this Subject.

I have sent for the magistrate’s Clerk from Downham for the purpose of getting Information respecting the Prisoners committed from thence.

Before the Post goes out to day I will write again.

Believe me

Yrs truly
H.Hobhouse

18th June 1816: The Treasury Solicitor, Henry Hobhouse, writes from Ely Special Commission

Shire Hall
Ely
June 18. 1816

Dear Sir,

I send you the Shorthand writers Note of Mr. Justice Abbott’s Charge the Grand Jury yesterday.

The first Indictment selected for Trial was one against [the] Prisoners for Burglary at the House of Rebecca Waddelow at Littleport, in which we made a complete case against all the Gang, but the last Witness unfortunately moved that he had a joint Property in the dwelling house (which was quite unexpected), and upon this Point arising the Case was withdrawn for the purpose of preferring a new Indictment, & the Prisoners were of course acquitted on that before the Court.

We have since tried two Indictments, the first before Mr. Justice Burrough against 7 Prisoners for breaking the House of J. Dewey at Littleport, of whom 5 were convicted, & the other two acquitted by Consent, the Evidence coming out with less force against them than was expected: the second before Mr. Chief Justice Christian against one who had before been convicted, & two others, for breaking Speechley’s House at Littleport. All 3 were [found] guilty

We shall fill up the day with other Littleport Cases, & tomorrow proceed with those at Ely.

I would have written yesterday, but I had nothing to say but what you have ere this heard more satisfactorily from Sir John Byng.

I am
Yrs truly
H. Hobhouse

18th June 1816: The prosecution solicitor, William Bolland, writes a hasty letter from Ely Special Commission

Thomas South}  Robbery
William Dann}  Robbery
Robert Crabb.} Robbery
Aaron Chevell }
Richard Jessop}
Joseph Easey}
Mark Benton}
2d: [Indictment] Thomas South} Stealing to the value of 40 [shillings] in the dwellingH

Dear Beckett.

I have only a moment to say that the above Prisoners  are capitally convicted. You will be able by referring to the Calendar I sent to know their offences more particularly We have now just begun Vachell’s robbery. Hobhouse will put into the Cover Mr: [Justice] Abbott’s Charge

In haste
Very truly
W. Bolland

Ely—4 O'clock—
June 18. 1816.

18th June 1816: Day 2 of the Ely Special Commission

The Bury & Norwich Post's coverage of the Ely Special Commission continued (from the 26th June edition of the newspaper):

TUESDAY, June 18.

This morning, at nine o'clock, the Court reassembled, where John Easey, Joseph Easey, Richard Jessop, T. South the younger, John Walker, Mark Benton, Robert Butcher, George Crow, Isaac Harley, Richard Nicholas, Wilson Wyebrow, and William Jefferson, were indicted for having on Wednesday the 22d day of May last, burglariously broken open and entered the dwelling-house of Rebecca Waddelow, of Littleport, in the Isle of Ely, shopkeeper, and feloniously stolen and carried away therefrom one hat and five shirts, the property of Harry Martin, of Littleport, aforesaid, farmer, and divers articles of grocery and drapery looks, together with 3l. and three promissory notes, the property the said R. Waddelow.

The Jury having been sworn, Mr. Gurney opened the proceedings on the part of the Crown.

Some farming servants of Mr. Martin, who on hearing of the attack had gone to Mrs. Waddelow's house, where their master resided, proved the forcible entry of the premises, and many acts of violence and plunder. The mob seemed particularly inverterate against Mr. Martin, whom Mr. Gurney stated to be a respectable farmer, but become obnoxious to the rioters for his conduct in transacting parish affairs. Hearing their approach, Mr. Martin escaped from the back of the house, which was fortunate, as they threatened his life.

After much evidence had been gone through, a conference took place among the Judges, and Mr. Justice Abbott told the Jury there was a mistake in the framing of this indictment, which would lead to the acquittal of all the prisoners, as far as their lives are concerned, in consequence of the description of the property given by the last witness; and though it was open to the counsel for the Crown to proceed to the minor felony, he understood from them that they would not press it, and therefore all prisoners must be acquitted—The Jury accordingly returned a verdict of—Not Guilty.

Aaron Chevill, Richard Jessop, Jos. Easey, Thomas South the younger, Mark Benton, Wm. Dann, and Francis Torrington, were then indicted for having, on the night of the 22d May last, burglariously broken upon open and entered the dwelling-house of Josiah Dewey, in the town of Littleport, and for having stolen and carried away therefrom 100 guineas in gold, and divers articles of furniture and wearing apparel; and with having assaulted and put in bodily fear the said Joseph Dewey, in his dwelling-house, taking from this person a 1l. bankers note.

Mr. Gurney, having described the case on the part of the Crown, called the following witnesses.

Joseph Dewey deposed, that he was a retired farmer, residing a Littleport; that he was 68 years of age, and that his wife was upwards of 70. He saw the mob on the 22d approach his house at eight o'clock in the evening. They were armed with bludgeons, but he saw no guns. Their conduct was extremely riotous and violent. Chevill was the first who demanded money; and, on the mob breaking in, he exclaimed, "go it." Joseph Easey and Richard Jessop assaulted and knocked down both him and his wife, uttering various imprecations against them. A bureau was broken open, and he afterwards missed from them two bags, containing 100 guineas. The drawers were thrown about the floor, and Dann was seen with a bundle of linen, which, however, he restored to Mrs. Dewey. He could not say that he himself saw either Dann or Torrington in the house. On his cross-examination he admitted, that in a conversation among his neighbours, subsequent to the transaction, he had expressed his belief that one Pattison took the money; but he had not seen him in the house, and formed his belief only upon the representations of others.

Martha Dewey, the grand-daughter of the last witness, stated that she was at his house on the night in question, and saw Torrington in the house.

Thomas Dewey saw  a mob proceeding from the house of Josiah Dewey about half-past eight o'clock, and heard one of them exclaim "we have got the money." It was not so dark as to prevent his distinguishing the faces of the individuals.

Mr. Justice Burrough observed, that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Torrington had been guilty of any offence. The charge of burglary laid in the indictment could not be substantiated, because it did not appear to have been dark when the breaking in was affected; but by the course of law the prisoners might be convicted of the capital felony in stealing from a dwelling-house. The evidence not be sufficient against Torrington and Dam, the Jury would probably deem them entitled to an acquittal; but he must leave to their consideration whether any doubt must be entertained as to the other prisoners’ guilt.

The Jury, in five minutes, gave a verdict of Guilty against Chevill, Easey, Jessop, South, and Benton; and acquitted Dann and Torrington, who are detained to take their trial upon other indictments.

Thomas South, Wm. Dann, and R. Crabbe, were indicted for forcibly entering and felonious stealing from the house of Robert Speechly, yeoman, of Littleport, sundry articles of wearing apparel, plate, linen, china, &c.

Mr. Gurney having stated the case on the part of the Crown, called Robert Speechly, who deposed, that on the night of the 22d May last a mob came to his door, and knocked violently. It was about half past 10 o'clock. His wife went to the door, and desired the servant girl to open it, when the house was instantly filled with people. He could not say that he saw any prisoners in the house except Crabbe, who carried a bludgeon his hand. For some time he did nothing with it; but afterwards struck a glass door with it, and broke two panes. Crabbe then rushed up stairs into witness’s chamber; and somebody, but he did not know who, followed him. There were drawers in the room, and they remained there about a quarter of an hour. He was not at all intimidated at the entrance of the mob, but did not know recollect that he asked Crabbe to protect him.

Sarah Butcher, servant of the last witness, was in the house when the mob rushed in. Among others she saw the three prisoners at the bar. The prisoner South carried a cleaver, with which he chopped open the bureau. He waved it also over the head of her mistress, and said, that if they did not receive money, they would do as they had down at Dewey’s, and not leave her a chair to sit on. Her mistress gave them four three-shilling pieces, which they divided among them, and said they must have more, and she must give them some bills. She then gave two 1l. notes to them. The mob carried away a great deal of linen, china, and some silver spoons. The mob was extremely riotous, and broke the windows of the house.

Several witnesses gave Crabbe a good character for honesty & industry previous to these disturbances.

Edward Christian, Esq. Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely, recapitulated the evidence, and observed that if the larceny was accompanied with the infliction of any terror, if the value of what was stolen amounted to more than a shilling, the capital part of the charge was sustained against the prisoners; and if it should appear that no person had been put in fear, then, if the value of the goods feloniously taken amounted to 40s. the prisoners were still within the meaning of the last-mentioned statue.

The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty.

Jos. Warner, Joseph Stibbard, Isaac Harley, James Newell, & William Gotobed, the latter not in custody, were indicted for forcibly entering the house of the Rev. John Vachell, putting him in bodily fear, and taking from his person, two 1l. notes, his property.

Mr. Gurney described this case to be equal, if it did not exceed, in violence and atrocity, the circumstances are those that had already engaged the consideration of the jury. This gentleman, with his wife and daughter, were obliged, in order to save their lives, to escape from their own home at midnight, and leave their house a scene of pillage and destruction.

The Rev. J. Vachell deposed, that he first observed the mob assembling about 9 o'clock at night, and went out with a view of persuading them to disperse. They complained of the lowness of wages, and his endeavours to repress the tumult were ineffectual. About 11 o'clock he heard a great noise, and rapping at his door. He directed his servant to unlock it, and he asked them what they wanted. The prisoner Harley said they wanted money, and they must have it. He gave them two 1l. notes, with which they were not satisfied, some saying, "two pounds will be of no use to us, we must have ten." Witness desired if the two pounds were of no use to them, that they should return them to him, which, however, they refused to do. He told them that he had not got 10l. when the pressure became so violent upon him, that he was obliged to give way, the mob entered his house. Newell was the man who received the notes from him.

The Jury found Harley and Newell Guilty, but acquitted Warner and Stibbard.

17th June 1816: The prosecution solicitor, William Bolland, sends his first report from Ely Special Commission

Ely June 17. 1816.

Dear Becket

We got to Cambridge about 4; the Judges arrived at 2. At 7 this Morning we started for this place. The Judges were met about 2 miles from the town, and escorted by a very fair collection of persons on Horseback to the Bishop’s Palace. There are at present in the Cathedral hearing a Sermon from Sir: H. B. Dudley. In a few minutes I expect to be summoned to the Court to hear Mr: [Justice] Abbott charge the Grand Jury, which we are given to understand is composed of some of the most respectable Men of the Isle. The Court is; (as you may suppose it to be, in so confined a Jurisdiction) miserably small and inconvenient, altho great alterations have been made in it to render it, as commodious as possible. I still however doubt whether the Judges will sit in it, The doors, and windows are so situated, as to make it dangerous for Mr: [Justice] Abbott to venture upon a trial if it, as the least draught of Air affects his Eyes so far, as to produce blindness, and he is too cautious I think to run any risk of inducing such a calamity. As however he has not seen it, he has not yet decided. If our place of sitting is changed I presume the Cathedral will be resorted to for accommodation.—I am going into Court, and will finish my letter when I come back.

It is determined to sit in the Court house, a few further improvements being made in it. Mr: [Justice] Abbott gave a most excellent charge to the Grand Jury, the great respectability of which justified all we were led to expect of it. I hear from Mr. [Justice] Borrough that the Judges were met by the Bishop, and every thing has been done to give solemnity to their entrance at the opening of the Commission.

The post is going, so adieu. I have enclosed or, I should rather say, sent you a Calendar in order that when I refer to the different prisoners in my future letters you may have a guide to their offences.

I am Dear Beckett
Very truly yours
W Bolland

[To: John Beckett]

17th June 1816: The Ely Special Commission commences

The Bury & Norwich Post of 26th June 1816 carried a full report of the Ely Special Commission, which commenced on Monday 17th June 1816:

SPECIAL ASSIZES AT ELY.
MONDAY, June 17.

This day, at 10 o'clock, the Hon. Mr. Justice Abbott, Mr. Justice Burrough, and Edw. Christian, Esq. Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely, arrived in that city, (As mentioned in last week's paper) preceded by a cavalcade consisting of the principal inhabitants, and immediately repaired to the Court-house, where they opened a Special Commission for the trial of the persons charged with having riotously assembled, and committed various felonies at Littleport and Ely. The Commission having been read, the Judges went to the Palace, and breakfasted with the Bishop of Ely.—At half-past 11, the procession moved from the Palace to the Cathedral, preceded 50 of the principal inhabitants, who attended on foot, with white wands: The Judges and their attendants, with the Bishop of Ely, and Hugh Robert Evans, Esq. the Deputy High Bailiff, were met in the Cathedral by the Dean and Prebendaries. Divine service was read by the Precentor, the Rev. W. Metcalfe; in the course of which Handel’s beautiful air of "Why do the Heathen so furiously rage together," with the Chorus of "Let us break their bonds asunder," were performed by the choir—Previous to the sermon, an anthem, composed for the occasion by Mr. H. Skeats, the organist, from the 96th Psalm, v. 10 "Tell it out among the people that the Lord is King," was admirably sung by Mr. Ling.—An excellent sermon was preached by the Rev. Sir H. B. Dudley, Bart. Prebendary of Ely, from 1. Tim. i. 9. “The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".—After the sermon, the choir performed Handel’s, grand chorus, "Hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth," 

The Court re-assembled at one o'clock, and the preliminary business being concluded, and the Grand Jury sworn, Mr. Justice Abbot addressed them to the following effect:—

“Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,

You have been called together at this unusual period, and with the present solemnities, in consequence of some very daring acts of outrage committed by various misguided individuals in this town and its neighbourhood, which must be still fresh in your recollection. In contemplating the nature of these atrocities, it is impossible to consider without commendation the conductors of those prompt and efficacious measures by which, after it had domineered for several days together, the spirit of tumult and devastation was finally subdued. The natural progress of triumphant insurrection is to increase in fury, and to grow larger in its demands, until from robbery it proceeds to the burning of houses and the murder of their inhabitants. Although no offences of this last and highest kind will be laid before you, yet it appears by the depositions that some crimes of a very deep die have been committed. Of some of these, considering the situation of their perpetrators, it may be difficult to penetrate the motive, and it may be, as often happens in such cases, that it was hardly known to the offenders themselves. The pretence fur these lawless disturbances seems to have been the necessity of advance in the wages of husbandry: but the circumstances of some among the offenders do not correspond with the supposition of such an object. It had happened, that the hardships necessarily incident to a state of poverty, were aggravated by the peculiarity of the seasons, and the temper of mind which was thus produced appears to have been inflamed by designing persons into a settled hostility against the higher orders of society.—This spirit soon manifested itself in the destruction of property, as if labour could he encouraged, and wages raised, by the ruin of those who are to employ the one and to pay the other. In no country in the world are there so many institutions for the humane purpose of administering to the wants and necessities of the poor—in no county does both public and private bounty flow in so many streams for the comfort and relief of the distressed classes of the community. It is to be observed, too, that the money which was taken from individuals on this melancholy occasion was not applied to the support of the families of the offenders, but was consumed in riot and intoxication, by which the blood was heated, the understanding confused, and the spirit inflamed to acts of further and more violent aggression against the persons and property of their neighbours. The number of persons engaged in the commission of these atrocities is so considerable that it has been deemed necessary thus suddenly to call you together, in order that the innocent may be restored to liberty without delay, the guilty brought to punishment, and the peaceable inhabitant convinced that the laws are effectual for his protection and his vindication. It is the first time that such a proceeding has been deemed necessary in this place, and I sincerely hope it may be the last. I am not aware that the task which you are now called upon to execute, however painful, will be attended with any extraordinary difficulties. Judging from the depositions which lie before me, the capital felonies which will be presented before you resolve themselves into the three different crimes, viz. burglary, robbery from the person, and stealing in a dwelling-house. It is fit, however, that I should here maker one observation, which is, that there are many offences committed by large assemblies of men, in which the guilt is not confined to the individual whole hand executes the felonious act. All those who are present at its commission, who favour it with their approbation an concurrence, or who aid and encourage by their voice and action, are involved in the same legal culpability. This is a principle dictated by reason, and established in law; for without the presence of others the actual perpetrator might not have been able to accomplish the criminal purpose, or might have been deterred from attempting it by the exertions of the well-disposed. With regard to the particular crime of burglary, it may be proper for me to remark, that it consists in the breaking into a house at night with intent to commit some felony. What the nature of this felony may be is not material; nor is it necessary, in order to constitute burglary, that the felonious intention should have been carried into effect. The circumstances under which the breaking at night has been effected, must form the evidence of the intent with which it was done. All who then enter are equally guilty; and the same rule applies to those who keep watch whilst others enter. Even if the entry should he made in consequence of the door being opened by the owner himself under the influence of artifice or threats, it is in contemplation of law a burglary; for the law will not suffer its wholesome restraints to be evaded by the shifts and contrivances of a felon. Upon the subject of robbery from the person, it may be important for you to inquire, whether the money raised by a riotous assembly is to be considered, in the cases to which your attention will be drawn, as a voluntary contribution of the individuals from whom it was taken, or as extorted by violence, or under reasonable fear. In the consideration, however, of what amounts to this offence, it is not necessary to advert either to the time or place of its commission. To steal in a dwelling-house has been made a capital felony by many statutes, but it is necessary that the larceny should be actually committed. Without troubling you, however, by reciting a series of legislative enactments on this subject, I should advise you generally to return the several bills as they are presented to you, and leave any difficulty of legal construction to that more accurate investigation which it will afterwards receive in this place. On the nature of ordinary riots and breach of the public peace, you can require no instruction from me: but on every occasion, as well as the present, the Court will be happy to afford too all the assistance in its power. With regard to the description of proof which will be laid before you, there is but little to be remarked, further than that there is no reason to believe it will in most cases be satisfactory—the evidence of eye-witnesses upon facts done in open day and without any disguise, in some instances by neighbour upon neighbour, so bold and daring was the violation of the public peace. If the evidence of accomplices in these transactions should be offered to you, you will receive it with caution, and give credit to it only when confirmed or supported by more unexceptionable testimony. I cannot conclude this address without exhorting you to proceed with a calm and temperate, but with a firm and manly determination—on the one hand, not to conclude, from your Indignation at guilt, too hastily against the prisoners; and on the other, that the serious nature of the charges shall not deter you from presenting them to the justice of your country. It is of the highest importance to the peace and safety, not only of this isle, but of the surrounding country, that all who are present on this solemn inquiry, and all who read the account of its proceedings (and there are few parts of the kingdom in which it will not be read) may he convinced by the awful lesson which may here be taught, that whatever wild or chimerical notions may prevail of the power of an armed multitude, the law is too strong for its assailants: and that, however triumphant or destructive their sway for a few days, these who defy the law will ultimately be compelled to submit either to its justice or its mercy.”

[In the course of this eloquent charge, the learned Judge adverted to the meritorious conduct of Sir Henry Bate Dudley, Bart. to the judicious promptitude of whose personal exertions, and numerous inhabitants of Ely. the country was greatly indebted for its deliverance.] 

The Grand Jury then retired, and the Court adjourned till the next morning.—Messrs. Gurney, Bolland, and Richardson, were Counsel for the Crown, and Messrs. Hunt, Hart, and Whittred, for the prisoners.  

15th June 1816: Two men committed to Nottingham Gaol for Luddite attack at New Radford

On Saturday 15th June 1816, two men - John Chettle & Thomas Glover - were committed to Nottingham Gaol accused of takig part in the recent Luddite attack at New Radford. They would both stand trial at the forthcoming Nottingham Assizes.

Their trial would be one of the most extraordinary spectacles in British legal history.

15th June 1816: 'On the Impolicy of Using Thrashing Machines'

THRASHING MACHINES.

To the Printers of the Norfolk Chronicle.

GENTLEMEN,—In the Farmers’ Journal of this week is a letter "ON THE IMPOLICY OF USING THRASHING MACHINES," which I earnestly recommend to your notice, for insertion in the Norfolk Chronicle. As I have, through the whole of the late winter, endeavoured to discourage the use of these machines in this neighbourhood, letter may by some persons be attributed to me. I beg leave to state that I do not know who is the author of it; that I entirely agree with him in the sentiments he has expressed, and thank him having made them public.

I am, Gentlemen, your’s, &c.

JEHOS. POSTLE.

Colney, June 12, 1816.

Norfolk, May 17, 1816.

SIR,—On reading a Letter in your Journal for last Monday, from your Correspondent S. requesting a more explicit explanation of the construction of the Cradle Churn, and the portable Thrashing Machine, exhibited at an Agricultural meeting at Otley, Yorkshire, I was so much surprised at the purport of it, I must beg of you to allow me to make a few remarks thereon.

It is not my intention to enter into the merits or demerits of the two implements; I have no doubt but the machinery itself is worthy of notice; my object is to endeavour to point out as far as I am able the glaring impropriety of introducing, at this time, new models of Thrashing Machines, on which implement I mean to confine my remarks. A few years since, Machines, upon the improved construction, might have been of real utility, inasmuch as they supplied the deficiency of labourers, but no further, even at that time; but at the present crisis, I conceive, indeed I am fully convinced, they tend to increase the farmers’ burdens. In this county, and from what I observe in your Journals, it is universal complaint, that the poor rates are considerably increased, and at a time when they are less easily paid. What is the cause of such an increase? The primary cause is, I conceive, want of employment. I have known instances last winter, and even this spring, of strong men who have been set to such work as not to be enabled to earn sufficient, by considerable, to maintain their families; at the end of the week these men were, and I think I do not err if I say still are, authorised by the Magistrates of the Hundred in which I live, to demand of the overseer of their respective parishes, the money they had earned to be made up 2s. for each individual in the family, by which means a desire of maintaining that independent spirit, which it is desirable a poor man should have, by endeavouring to bring up his family without parochial assistance, is entirely lost sight of:—whereas, if the old custom of thrashing corn were universally adopted, work would be more plentiful, the labourer could be better paid, and he would have the heartfelt satisfaction of gaining his livelihood by his own industry and labour. If every expence is fairly estimated, it will be found corn may be thrashed as cheap by hand as by a machine; I am confident it is the most regular and therefore the most desirable plan. All agricultural improvements are at a stand, except what are absolutely necessary; and having a great quantity of men spread in the country more than a few years since, such a change must ultimately take place.

There is another objection, and not a trifling one, to Thrashing Machines, which I cannot omit mentioning: the barn in which one is placed is the nursery of vice, and in that may be considered a national nuisance. Girls of different ages are the persons generally employed; on such an occasion, their morals are degraded, they become unfit for service, they have a dislike to any sort of confinement, and may be considered as useless members of society.

The number of accidents is also a most serious objection, which ought to have great weight in favour of the abolition of Machines: during the past winter, into neighbouring parishes here, two most dreadful accidents have happened—one person killed on the spot, the other a limb literally torn off and otherwise much hurt, and we are repeatedly hearing of something of the kind in different parts of the country.—Such facts as these will surely have some weight with farmers in general.

I am, Sir, your’s respectfully,
MAGISTER.

12th June 1816: Threatening letter to Needham Bray & Co from 'Edward Ludd', Hinckley, Leicestershire

To
Needham and Bray & Co

I learn you hare about to Bate your hands of their Prizes this week and by that you hare guilty of death—and you may both—repare for that change as you will not be suffred to live much longer if you purceed, sooner turn off.—

From me
Edward
Ludd

Hinckley June 12th.—

12th June 1816: A Brandon magistrates responds to John Moseley's letter to the press the previous week

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BURY POST.

SIR,

AS the resident Magistrate in Brandon, I feel myself called upon to express my concern, that reports are not only industriously spread, but accredited, to fix the origin and existence of all the riots in this neighbourhood, and even in the more distant parts of Suffolk and the Isle of Ely, upon the inhabitants of this town, because they impute a neglect of duty to the Magistrate residing here.

I believe the Assize Calendars will not shew more crimes to have been committed in the town of Brandon of late, than in any other parishes in the county.—But the strongest refutation of those reports, injurious to the Magistrate and the principal Inhabitants of the parish, is, that although charges are brought generally against the inhabitants of Brandon, for instigating and abetting the pre-existing and subsequent riots, and although I have used every means in my power to investigate and ascertain the truth of the reports, no proof has yet been substantiated before me, or information yet laid, against any individual of this town, which might on conviction of such offender, have led to the suppression of the riots in other places, and the prevention of them in the town of Brandon, by the immediate application and exercise of the Civil Authorities.

I am, Sir, your obedient humble Servant,

J. R. BURCH.

Brandon, June 7th, 1816.

11th June 1816: Henry Enfield reports the recent Luddite attack to the Home Office

Sir

With great Regard I sit down to report to you, for the Information of Lord Sidmouth, that the Luddites have again commenced their lawless outrages. Last Sunday morning about two oClock a party of them, consisting of about four or five & twenty, attacked, at the same time, two adjoining Houses at New Radford, in the immediate vicinity of Nottingham, broke to shivers the outer-Doors, & went up Stairs into the workshops, where they destroyed a great number of very valuable Lace-Frames, & a large quantity of Lace. They flashed a pistol at the woman of one of the Houses, who threw open the window, & upon her shutting it they sent a Volley of Stones at the Windows – They were in the Houses nearly half an hour – frequently using the word "Ned", & when they had completed their work of mischief, they mustered before the Door, gave a Shout, fired off two pieces, & then went away — The Daughters of the woman of the House before alluded to, spoke with great certainty to two of the persons engaged, & the two men are in Custody. on Saturday night they are to be again examined before the Magistrates of the County

The revival of these dreadful Scenes has, naturally, excited strong expectations of their early repetition; & the magistrates of Nottingham have in consequence been actively employed in making the [best] police-measures for their suppression – but the facility with which these practised Banditti heretofore so generaley eluded Detection, rinders the watching for them an almost hopeless Task — It is impossible that we should be without apprehension of popular Tumult, when we look at the unemployed & dreadfully distressed State of the Bulk of the frameworkknitting mechanics in this Town & neighbourhood. At present however there is not anything overt

They have been preparing a petition to Parliament for the redress of some alleged Grievances in the manufacture; & may, perhaps, be allayed by the expectation of Relief.—

Under these lowering appearances, it is a Source of great comfort & satisfaction to the magistrates, to see the military Strength in Nottingham so competent—They beg that Lord Sidmouth will be pleased to continue to them this important Force (which may be said to be constantly operating in Check) untill the prospect [shall] brighten—

I am
Sir
Your most obedt Servant
H Enfield
Nottingham 11 June 1816

[To] Jas. Beckett Esq
U. Secry of State
&c &c &c