21st February 1812: 5 frames broken in Nottingham - anatomy of an attack

At 5.00 a.m. on Friday 21st February, several men broke into the house of a Mr Harvey of West Street, Broad Lane Paddock in Nottingham. Using a ladder to gain entry to the second storey, some of the party stood guard over Harvey and his family, whilst the others set about breaking the stocking frames, in this case warp lace frames, apparently very valuable items.

Five out of seven frames were broken, with two escaping destruction as a woman from a neighbouring house called out 'murder' during the raid. Although a pistol was fired at the woman to make her stop, the Luddites decided they needed to make their escape. Climbing out of the upstairs window, they took 2 pistols belonging to Mr Harvey, and in the meantime, 25 other Luddites came down the street to meet them. It was reported by witnesses that some of the new group of Luddites wore military greatcoats, and one of the party carried a large staff. In their haste, the Luddites left behind the ladder, and one of the party had lost his hat.

It was another audacious attack, since Harvey's house was located close to the Regimental Hospital of the Buckinghamshire Militia stationed in Nottingham. Harvey had apparently recently moved from New Radford to Nottingham to try to lessen his chances of his frames being destroyed.

20th February 1812: Third reading of the Frame-breaking Bill in the House of Commons

On Thursday 20th February, the Frame-breaking Bill was read for a third and final time in the House of Commons.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill for the more exemplary punishment of persons destroying or injuring any Stocking or Lace Frames, or other machifes or engines used in the Frame-work knitted manufactory, or any articles or goods in such Frames or Machines.

Mr. Hutchinson: said, that he would be the last man in that House to defend or justify the outrages against which this Bill had been provided; but it was a material point to ascertain, before it passed into a law, whether it could have the desired effect of putting a stop to these outrages. He did not think it could; and he was fortified in that opinion by the frank declaration of the right hon. Secretary, who had, in introducing the Bill, protested against pledging himself to the ultimate success of his own measure. After so strange, but so explicit an avowal on the part of the originator of the Bill, he thought it became the House to be cautious of adding to the pile of their penal laws, one of which they only could be certain, that it might take away mens' lives without at all restraining their offences. The law which had been the professed model of the present Bill, made the offence of Frame-Breaking a transportable felony—the penalty, however, was departed from, and the offence made a capital felony. The reason for this change did not appear. It had been said that under the former act no persons could be brought to discover. If it had been so difficult to get witnesses to prosecute to conviction, when the offence was only transportable, would it be less so under the present act, when the conviction affected life? He thought rather that this very alteration would enhance the difficulty it was intended to obviate. But they had not merely the authority of the right hon. Secretary against his own measure—they had that of the minister himself, who bad expressed his apprehensions that this offence had not yet reached its height—that it might yet proceed to an alarming extent, and reach perhaps throughout a great part of the manufacturing system of the country. If the evil now to be provided against was so to en-crease, even under the operation of this statute, why enact it at all? They were not pledged to this particular act. Why not look anxiously for some better remedy? For surely gentlemen would not contend, that that which could do nothing was the best possible remedy the case admitted of. What had been the immediate cause of these outrages? Distress perhaps unparalleled. Did not this involve a consideration that bound them to reflect upon the measures that had created that distress? Why not then first inquire into the causes of that distress? If they had been pursuing a system which, in its consequences, threatened the people with beggary and want, it was their bounden duty to stop, and change, that system, before they sent out an act to hang op the people for outrages into which their own mal-ad-ministration had driven them. They had no right to be so very keen and prompt in punishing the madness which they themselves might have occasioned. They had been called upon to be firm—let them be firm in resisting the outrages of the lawless; but pertinacious obstinacy in resisting the complaints of a distressed people, was no part of that firmness. But according to their own shewing, where was the firmness in making an ineffectual shew of power—in doing that which could do nothing? Would this act do away the unparalleled distress that had provoked, and must continue to provoke, these outrages? And if it did not, why not try to trace that distress to its true cause, and remedy it at once? But mark the inconsistency of ministers, who admitted and denied the existence and extent of that distress, according as such admission or denial was meant to square with the topic then to be disposed of. If the efficacy of the Orders in Council was impeached, instantly this distress became comparative commercial prosperity. The trade, of the enemy was annihilated, and ours was progressively prosperous; but when the House was to be called upon for another penal statute, and when the unprecedented distresses of the people were attempted to be traced to their natural source—the unprecedented errors of the government—then, indeed, the extent of the calamity was admitted, and ascribed to the wide and heavy operation of those Decrees which they had been told, the Orders in Council had rendered altogether nugatory and futile. Could the people think them sincere in their professions to relieve their pressures, when they found them thus sporting with their distresses? An allusion had been made to that part of the Jewish law which condemned children who rebelled against their parents, to be taken without the gates of the city and there stoned to death—but were there no obligations on the part of the parent? If the parents profligately and desperately consumed the substance of their children, deprived them of their birth-right, and all means of living, were children so abused bound by all those strong ties of tenderness and piety which connect those sacred relationships in ordinary life? He, for his part, was shocked to see such total indifference on the part of ministers to the sufferings of this class of their miserable fellow subjects. In the name of those sufferings he called for inquiry into the causes of them. They were bound to know what those people suffered before they Could ascertain the amount of that criminality which their miseries had extorted, and which they were now going to punish with death. Was it the war? or the mode of carrying on the war? or were they to look at home for the fatal cause—was it to be traced to a total abandonment of ail economy at home? If it was one of those, apply the remedy to the source, and do not begin by unnecessarily cutting off the extremities. After vaunting so much about the prosperity of the country, was this the comment put by ministers upon it? They sent out this act to tell the people of their commercial prosperity—this first act of what may yet be followed by a bloody code—an act that professedly can neither remedy nor prevent, but hang the criminal without putting a stop to the crime. It was rather an inauspicious act for this new administration to commence with. They begin their new government of a new æra by adding to the capital crimes of the country, an offence arising out of the desperation of unexampled distresses—this, he must say, was rather an unfortunate beginning at so prosperous an sera for so unfortunate a set of ministers! He asked if they had yet given the people one practical pledge of their sincerity in the cause of economical reform? They had been lately making enormous additions to their civil establishments, and since that they had again thrown back the Reversion Bill upon the discontents of the country. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Herbert) had talked of the White Boy system, in Ireland, and said, that if the Irish Parliament had not resorted to those vigorous measures which were proposed in the present instance, that system might not have been put down. He (Mr. H.) could not help thinking this a most unfortunate allusion. The White Boys broke out in 1760—at that period, owing to a great dearth of cattle in consequence of a general murrain in the north of Europe, cattle in Ireland brought so high a price, that it became an object with many landholders to turn their arable into pasture—a system that, by taking in all the commonage, operated in the most hard way upon the poor peasantry. This produced the insurrection denominated White Boys.

Mr. Cripps:—Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to ask whether the hon. gentleman is in order.

The Speaker:—I hardly know how to answer that question. If the hon. gentleman is in order, I am at a loss to discover how he is so (hear, hear!)

Mr. Hutchinson:—The riots of the White Boys were adduced as analogous to those of the Frame Breakers. We were told that the same vigour which had checked the one would now be necessary to put down the other. I answer, first, that admit the analogy, because both species of outrages originated in iniquitous grievances and hardships; and, secondly, that as the White Boys were put down by redress of their grievances, and not by the rigour of law, that according to the same analogy, you are bound to inquire into the grievances of the Frame Breakers, and to remedy them without delay, as the most effectual way of putting a stop to these outrages. I know not, Sir, whether you can now perceive the applicability of my argument; or whether you are still at a loss to discover whether, in urging it, I am within the limits of order. I repeat, then, that the vigour of the law failed in putting down the White Boys—that it will fail in putting down the Frame Breakers. But is it meant that the one should be the pure model of the other? Would you introduce the pitch cap, and the other memorable insignia of torture, so well known in Ireland, though not understood here? Would you introduce them into England? The White Boy code was fit only for the meridian of Barbary, as it had, indeed, been well described by a most intelligent writer on the state of Ireland. But look at this subject as you will, you are forced to the consideration of the cause—are any portion of the people of England given to wanton riots? was this the national character? was it the character of the manufacturing part of the country? were they not proverbially a grave, plodding, quiet, discreet, sedate, business-involved class of men? What but intolerable distress could drive such a class to lawless outrage; and if the distress was too great to be borne, the legislature was bound to interpose some remedy, and not hang men because they could not suffer beyond human nature. I have now stated my objections to this measure, and condole with the new minister that such should be the first act of this new æra of the flourishing state of the empire. The proofs of such national prosperity were unfortunately but too equivocal, if they were to be found only in such a measure as that which they are now about to pass, or in a rupture with America; or in the midst of such general peril, in the alarming discontents and alienation of the Irish people. The man who can repose confidence in those ministers who have brought the empire to such a state, is not only, in my opinion, incapable of forming a sane judgment, but would deserve, while he ranted about our national prosperity, to be hung up in a cage to the gaze of the starving multitudes in this country, and himself be made the sport of those, upon whose miseries he could pass so cruel a mockery. If the Bill does pass without inquiry, I trust that the people of England will proceed to hold constitutional meetings, and resort to every constitutional mode of redress. I hope that they will at length make that voice be heard within these walls which has had for so long a time such little influence upon our counsels.

Mr. Sinclair: said:—I rise, Sir, to give my decided support to this measure, the necessity of which I both acknowledge and lament. Though for the most part disposed to concur, on the subject of capital punishments, with an hon. and learn" ed gentleman opposite (sir S. Romilly,) whose humane and enlightened exertions for mitigating the rigour of the Penal Code, entitle him to the gratitude of his country, yet on the other hand, I contend, that cases may occur (of which I conceive the present to be an instance) in which lenity to the aggressors, is cruelty to the injured. The first clause of this Bill, by which the perpetration of these outrages is rendered a capital offence, may not, it is true, facilitate the detection of the past, but will (I trust) be conducive to the prevention of similar enormities in future—whilst the second clause, which enforces the necessity of giving early information when an outrage has been committed, will powerfully second the exertions of the magistrates to bring the offenders to justice. When the punishment of death has long subsisted against a particular crime, it may perhaps be viewed with less terror by offenders, as the nature of the crime and that of the penalty attached to it are equally familiar to their minds; but when it is for the first time enacted against an offence, to which a slighter punishment was attached before, it cannot, I think, fail to deter many persons from engaging at all in the crime, and recall many others to a sense of what they owe to themselves and to their families. We need not be afraid of the judgment of posterity on the subject of this law. Whilst they deprecate its rigour, they will acknowledge its necessity; and only consider it as a temporary remedy for a temporary evil, arising, I trust, from temporary causes.—Sir, I should have thought that the candid and perspicuous statement of the right hon. Secretary on a former occasion, corroborated as it was by the members for the town and county of Nottingham, would have prevented any insinuations from being thrown out, that the government had acted with supineness or inactivity. To such insinuations an honourable contrast is afforded by the manly and impartial declaration of the member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread,) that in his opinion nothing had been left untried.—Sir, the protracted continuance of these disturbances does not prove any remissness on the part of the government, but aggravates the criminality of the offenders. From the secrecy with which their attacks were planned, the celerity with which they were executed, and the suddenness with which they were renewed in quarters where they least were expected, I cannot help inferring that their misconduct was not owing to the momentary impulse of distress or irritation, but to a premeditated plan of systematic aggression, which certainly rendered vigilance and energy on the part of the government doubly necessary, but must also in many instances have rendered them ineffectual.—Sir. I sincerely hope that the complete restoration of tranquillity may render it unnecessary to have recourse to the provisions of this act; but, on the other hand, I trust, that if a continuance of these disturbances should render it expedient, they will be enforced with vigour, and attended with success. With regard, Sir, to what fell from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, if I had entered the House in the middle of his speech, I should have supposed that we were discussing the state of the nation—a topic to which his arguments had a much more immediate reference than to the question now under consideration. I shall not pretend to comment upon such extraneous observations.—When the motion of which an hon. baronet has given notice for an inquiry into the State of the Nation, is brought forward, I have no doubt that most of these arguments will be repeated, and many of them. I trust, satisfactorily refuted.

Mr. Herbert: said, that he did not recommend the mode of punishment adopted in Ireland against insurgents here, but generally the necessity of having recourse to a capital enactment.

Sir A. Piggott: could not refrain, in this last stage of the Bill, from repeating his objections to it, being satisfied that it was a measure calculated to mislead the public, and at the same time to operate as no check upon the outrages sought to be corrected. He could not forbear expressing his astonishment that such acts as had lately been carried on for a series of months with impunity bad not called out the inquisitorial power of that House, but that, instead of such an inquiry, an act should be introduced, which was calculated for nothing but to mislead the public. If such acts as those sought to be provided against, could be carried on without detection, what did the present Bill do to deter from the commission of them? Increasing the degree of punishment only tended to add to the motives which now prevailed in favour of concealment, and to increase the reluctance to give testimony. Did they not, however, by the present Bill, furnish motives even for the commission of another crime of a still deeper dye? Did they not furnish persons already so well disciplined in the arts of concealment with a fresh motive, if detection could not otherwise be secured, to cut off the evidence against them? If in any one instance such an occurrence as this were to take place, must the House not feel that they had aggravated, instead of curing the evil?

Mr. Secretary Ryder: did not conceive it necessary to repeat over and over again, the reasons which urged him to the adoption of this measure. If he had, however, done so, he should only be following the example of his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down. He recommended this Bill to the legislature, not in the certainty, but in the hope of putting down the disturbances in Nottinghamshire, and to shew the country that every legislative means were used, before recourse should be taken to measures of greater severity. He was quite confident that the suffrage of the people would be with this Bill.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

20th February 1812: Robberies in Nottingham target Hosiers & Public Officials

On Thursday 20th February, several robberies took place in Nottingham. From the warehouse of the hated Hosiers Messrs Trentham & Co. were taken six dozen and five pairs of silk, and ten pairs of cotton stockings. Also raided were the premises of Messrs Woolley & Co., and also the houses of Mr Braithwaite and the Town Clerk, Mr Coldham. It's not clear if this Braithwaite was the same person who had frames broken in January.

The house of a Mr Burton was entered at mid-day, and large mahogany dining table was taken away seemingly without anyone noticing. It's not clear if this was the same Burton who was at the root of the Luddites grievances 12 months prior.

20th February 1812: Duke of Newcastle to Home Office

Clumber
Febry. 20,1812

Sir,

Since I last had the honor of writing to you a measure has suggested itself which I really think may be so applied as to make it highly beneficial in preventing the breaking of frames.

I would propose that the worker of the frame should be made answerable for the preservation of it and liable to prosecution for the loss to which he has subjected the owner in case of damage being done to the frame without any offer of resistance on his part or in consequence of his connivance at the act.

I would then propose that in whatever Town village or parish a frame should be broke, that such Town etc. should be obliged, without any reference to the circumstances of the case immediately to remunerate the frame owner or Hosier for the damage done to his property by the loss of his frame This Penalty should be most rigidly enforced, and no exception made.

Perhaps it would also be very expedient to give to the Town, Village or Parish in which the frame has been broken the power of coming upon the frame-worker for payment, on his part, to them of that sum which they have been obliged to pay to the Frame owner — and in the event of his refusal that they should be able to sue him if they think proper.

In this manner as it appears to me we shall be making it the Interest of Towns and Villages to prevent the commission of one of the chief outrages which disgrace our County; and I will beg of you to give it your most favorable consideration as I really have great hopes that this will be the most efficient measure which has yet been adopted for the prevention of frame-breaking.

Is it too late to insert these as clauses in the Bill which you have lately brought in?

I think it right to inform you that it is known that there are orders at Birmingham for arms for the rioters; and it is as far as I can learn certain that delegates are sent from hence into all the great Towns in this Country. The disturbances at Leeds were planned from hence, as I learn, and the people say amongst themselves, that it was a mistake and that they began too soon. I hear it reported that some machines were broken at Huddersfield a few days ago.

Before I send you the account of any reports which I hear I endeavour as much as possible to ascertain the fact. I cannot pretend to vouch for the entire authenticity of all that I have mentioned in the latter part of this letter I can only add that I am strongly induced to believe them.

I have [etc.]

NEWCASTLE

19th February 1812: Nottingham MP Daniel Parker-Coke writes to the United Committee of Framework-knitters

1812. February 19 Derby . . .

Sir

I recd your Letter only last night from the circumstance of its having been directed to me in London & therefore take the earliest opportunity of answering it. I should have been in London long ago had I not had a fall by which I hurt my Leg & have not since been able to put on a Boot. However I shall be in London the beginning of next week & shall be happy at any time to receive any communications from your Committee which may be useful towards restoring the peace & good order of Nottingham & it's Neighborhood—By your letter I see it is the wish of the Committee that the proceedings in Par[liamen]t should be postponed for ten or twelve Days in the expectation of receiving important information. If I had been in town I am afraid I could not have made such an application with any prospect of success because it is the Duty of Govt, to find a remedy if they can for an evil of such magnitude as soon as possible & you would observe from the Debates in the Newspapers that they were blamed for not bringing in Bills sooner. I mention this merely to shew that no advantage has been lost by such a proposal not being made in Par[liamen]t.

I shall be glad at all times to receive information from the Committee to whom I beg my best respects And I am Sir

Your very obedient Servant
Danl Parker Coke.

[Addressed]
To the Secretary of the Committee
at Sir Isaac Newton's Head
Glass House Lane
Nottingham.

18th February 1812: Nottingham Peace Bill debated in the House of Commons

A debate about the Nottingham Peace Bill took place in the House of Commons following the debate about the Frame-breaking Bill on the same day.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, upon the Bill for the more effectual preservation of the Peace within the county of Nottingham, and the town and county of the town of Nottingham.

Mr. C. W. Wynn: suggested the propriety of extending the provisions of the Bill to any other county where similar disturbances existed, or were likely to exist.

Mr. Leigh Keck: wished that they might be extended to the county of Leicester.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: observed, that the Bill had been suggested by, and drawn in the county of Nottingham, and then sent tip to him. After it had been revised by the law officers of the crown, he had sent it down again to the county of Nottingham, in order that he might be assured, before he submitted it to the House, that it had received the concurrence of the magistracy of that county. If any hon. member would declare that the magistrates of the county of Leicester, or of any other county, were desirous to have the provisions of the bill extended to them, he should have no objection to move an instruction to the committee to that effect; but it ought not to be forgotten that those provisions imposed a heavy mental and bodily duty on those who were to execute them.

Mr. Leigh Keck: although certainly he was not distinctly authorised on the subject, had yet no hesitation in declaring, en the part of the magistrates of Leicestershire, that they were ready to execute the provisions of the act; and he was sore that they would do it ample justice.

Mr. Babington: was persuaded that his hon. friend was completely justified in the declaration which he bad just made. The magistrates of Leicestershire were never disposed to shrink from their duty.

Sir O. Moseley: pressed the necessity of extending the provisions of the bill to Derbyshire, and mentioned several instances of extreme outrage in that county. He certainly could not pledge himself for the opinion of every individual magistrate in Derbyshire, but he, for one, would use all possible exertion to enforce the measure.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: after what he had heard, felt no reluctance whatever in moving that it be an instruction to the committee that they be empowered to extend the provisions of the bill to any other county in Great Britain.

Mr. C. W. Wynn: could (not see the impropriety that would attend the extension of the bill to all the counties in Great Britain, in which the magistracy might deem it expedient to put the provisions of it into execution.

The instruction to the Committee was then agreed to. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer: observed, that the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman who had last spoken, was one which, in his opinion, might be attended to with advantage.

Mr. Horner: asked whether it was intended that the measure should be permanent or temporary; and whether there was any intention of extending the provisions of the bill to the counties of North Britain.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer: replied that whatever might be ultimately considered as expedient, in the first instance he conceived that the measure ought to be only temporary. It might be wise to extend the provisions of the bill to North Britain, but in that case it would be necessary to submit them to legal opinions in that country.

Mr. Horner: agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the measure ought to be temporary. But was it meant to confine the operation of the bill to such outrages only as those in which the necessity for it originated, or to extend it to other outrages? If there was any intention of extending the provisions of the bill to the counties of North Britain, such a measure would require deliberation. In his opinion a separate bill would be necessary.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: remarked, that he had been induced, in the first instance, not to propose the extension of the provisions to all the counties of Great Britain, from the consideration that the provisions of it were chiefly, if not solely, applicable to the description of disturbance which they were framed to repress.

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the bill. After discussion the blanks were filled up, and the House having been resumed, the Report was brought up and ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.

18th February 1812: Frame-breaking bill debated in the House of Commons

On Tuesday 18th February, the House of Commons debated the Frame-breaking Bill again:

Mr. Lamb: rose, and said, he was anxious to state the grounds on which he should give the Bill his support. Those who opposed the measure insisted chiefly on the necessity which they conceived existed for going into a previous enquiry. If that enquiry should tend to ascertain the causes of the violation of the laws, it would certainly be beneficial; but he was against it because it would produce delay. The great cause of the disturbances he considered to be the decay of trade. The measures of the emperor of France were evidently their main causes; and it was nothing less than wilfully deluding the country, to hold out a hope that greater commercial embarrassments, greater severity of distress, than the country had hitherto felt, were not yet to be endured. As to the disputes between the masters and the workmen, he did not think it right to enquire into them, as causes of the riots;—such enquiry only tended to inflame the minds of the working-men, who generally concluded that they had rights which were infringed upon by the masters: and that they were justifiable in retaliating violence on thorn for the infringement of those supposed rights. The terror of death, he conceived, though it would have little effect on men habituated to guilt, would operate powerfully on the general mind. The atrocity of the offence against which the present Bill was intended, was as deep as any offence against property could be; and such, in his opinion, as called for the severest punishment. Another reason for having recourse to the punishment of death was, the difficulty of detection. When crimes became difficult of detection, the necessary and only resource was severity of punishment. As to the objections against the Bill, that it would involve persons who were within the letter, and not the spirit of it, there was little danger, he imagined, to be apprehended from any unfortunate result of that kind arising from it.

Sir T. Turton: contended, that the Bill was not directed against the real danger, which was combination; it only looked to individual offenders. He did not think that ministers had used either the ordinary civil means, or the extraordinary military means which they possessed, to active and proper advantage. The poor deluded people who were the objects of this Bill were greatly to be pitied. They were in want of bread; and any measure of the legislature would not, he was afraid, be 849 able to put down the risings of hunger. The great evil, and the spring of every minor evil, was the continuance of the war.

General Tarleton: said the debates on this subject had disclosed two important facts; in the first place it appeared that the late disturbances were caused by the decay of our trade: in the next, that a large number of the inhabitants of one part of the county had been almost in a state of insurrection. Far from thinking that there was any merit in the conduct of his Majesty's ministers, to him it appeared that great demerit was there to be seen. He thought the subject was not treated by the honourable House as so grave a subject ought to be treated. It ought to be most carefully looked into, as ministers had brought the country into a situation, to extricate it from which all the wisdom of parliament was required. He was averse to increasing the number of capital punishments. Were the laws of Draco the best the world had ever seen, because they were written in blood? Experience had proved the reverse to be the fact.

Mr. Ellison: defended ministers against the aspersions of the two last speakers. He was afraid that there was something of the spirit of party in the opposition made to the Bill. He did not profess to be the defender of ministers, except as far as truth and justice bound him; but if a charge should be brought against them on the head of supineness, in not using the means which they possessed 10 put down the disturbances, he was ready on that score to meet any hon. gentleman opposite. As to the crying, puling maxims so much insisted upon, and the noise made about humanity, and he knew not what, he asked, were not the sufferers by these outrages sufficient objects for that humanity? He wished not to be considered as agreeing by any means to the new doctrines on criminal law, which tended to cast reproach on the wisdom or humanity of our ancestors. The law proposed, appeared to him to be dictated by humanity; it was not like the laws of Draco to be written in blood. The dread of capital punishment might prevent the repetition of the offence, and if (as had been said would be the case,) no convictions should take place on it, no blood would be shed in. consequence of it. The conduct of ministers he thought had been perfectly correct, as they had done all in their power to put a stop to the evil by the means of the common law of the country.

Mr. Curwen: notwithstanding what had fallen from the last speaker, was still of opinion, that ministers had mean which were not used promptly or beneficially in quelling the riots. As to the argument deduced from the terror expected to be produced by the punishment of death, he had one curious fact to state to the House, by which they might judge what effect it would have. In the county of Cumberland, it was made a capital offence to steal lead, and what was the consequence? Why, that no conviction ever took place under that law, because witnesses were shocked at the disproportion between the crime and the punishment, and would not come forward. He was sorry to hear hon. gentlemen say, that no hope ought to be held out to the country of escape from the pressure under which it at present laboured. He believed that there existed other causes of these disturbances, besides the measures of the emperor of France; and those were the measures of his Majesty's ministers. He saw in their mistaken policy grounds enough for the decay of trade; and he was of opinion, that there were measures of moderation and wisdom, by the adoption of which the country might escape from its present embarrassments. Measures of moderation and wisdom were not, however, to be expected from his Majesty's present ministers. He attributed the decay of trade, and the consequent ruin of the country, to the mistaken policy of ministers. The sufferings of the people were great. They were great in many parts of the county with which he was personally acquainted; but their forbearance was also great. He should vote against the bill, because he did not think it would effect what it pretended to.

Mr. Courtenay: begged leave to adopt the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who spoke first (Mr. Lamb.) He particularly selected that hon. gentleman's speech, not only for its eloquence, but because all the other speakers for the Bill were opposers of the measures of an hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) relative to the Criminal Laws, which measures Mr. C. was inclined to favour. But he thought the present an atrocious crime, worthy of the very highest punishment, and should therefore vote for the Bill.

The question that the Speaker do leave the chair was then put and carried; and the House went into a Committee, on the clause enacting capital punishment for maliciously breaking the frames, machinery, &c. used in making lace.

Mr. C. W. Wynn: observed, that as the clause stood, it would appear, that a person tossing an old woman's lace cushion into the fire would constitute a capital offence. He asked whether it was to be so understood?

The Attorney General: did not think that such an act as that instanced by his hon. and learned friend could be prosecuted to conviction, because the bench and the jury would both be of opinion that the malicious intent to destroy that trade would not have been sufficiently made out.

Sir S. Romilly: said, that if the case supposed by his hon. and learned friend did not come within the meaning of the act, he conceived that it might still operate in a manner in which it was not intended to act. If an individual in a passion should damage or injure one of his master's tools used in that trade, as the clause at present stood, such conduct would come within the meaning of the act. It might be that in such a case the law would not be executed, but was it for parliament to make laws so cruel in their operations, that persons convicted on them were suffered to escape on that account? He would submit it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it might not be better to alter it, by inserting the words "any three or more combining maliciously to break, &c."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer: thought, if the proposition of his bon. and learned friend were adopted, the mischief would not be put a stop to by this act, as the rioters at Nottingham had acted throughout with so much system and contrivance, that he had no doubt but if that amendment were made, they would evade the law, by sending into the different cottages one man only to destroy the frames. However they might regret that to which the letter of the law might by possibility lead, he thought they ought to proceed on the established principle of comprehending to a certainty, that which the law was intended to meet, at the risk of including what it was not designed to include.

Mr. Abercromby: supported the amendment.

Mr. J. Smith: objected to the generality of the word "damaged," which he thought might be given up, as the Bill would be completely efficient without it.

Mr. Simeon: supported the clause as it stood, and was of opinion that the amendment would destroy the effect of the Bill.

Mr. Bathurst: thought that if the object of the Bill was merely to increase the punishment, the former act ought to be fallowed up to the letter in every thing else.

Mr. Leigh Keck: supported the clause.

The Attorney-General: apprehended that the object of the rioters was to prevent the work from going forward, and therefore maintained it was of the utmost consequence to check them. No inconvenience could follow from leaving a discretion to the judges.

Sir S. Romilly: declined pressing the amendment.

Mr. Lockhart: proposed a clause for the purpose of allowing the prisoners who should be tried under this act, the benefit of counsel. It was agreed upon all hands that the crime was great; by some it was represented as approaching to high treason, a circumstance which must expose those who were accused of it to the indignation of the community; but it occurred to him, that for that very reason the person to be tried should be afforded the privilege intended by his clause. All he asked was, that they should be placed on the same footing with those charged with misdemeanors. He never could find upon what principle persons tried for their lives were refused this benefit. It was stated by some, that the judge was counsel for the prisoner; but the judge was bound to state what made against him as well as what made for him; and therefore in that sense could not be said to be his counsel. In the case of Patch, it was stated by Mr. Serjeant Best, that the principle upon which counsel was refused was, that the case should be so clear against the prisoner as not to render counsel necessary. A third principle stated, was, that it would occasion the delay of causes. But neither of them appeared to him to establish the necessity of such refusal in all cases: he therefore should propose the clause as he had already stated.

Mr. C. W. Wynn: seconded the motion.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: said his hon. and learned friend had not stated any thing to shew that this case differed from ordinary cases of felony. With respect to high treason, it was an offence sui generis, and the reason why counsel were allowed was, because it might be made an engine of political oppression. He quoted the 6th of George the 3rd, to shew that for the protection of the woollen and velvet manufactories, enactments had been made 853 similar to that which he had proposed in the present instance, and that no exception was made of the nature of that submitted by his hon. and learned friend.

The clause was rejected.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: proposed an amendment, for the purpose of altering the preamble of the bill, so as to shew that it was framed to meet a particular occasion; which, after some desultory conversation, was agreed to. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration tomorrow.

17th February 1812: One frame broken at Stanton

On Monday 17th February, 5 men entered the house of Edward Orson of Stanton, Derbyshire and destroyed one stocking frame.

17th February 1812: Second reading of the Frame-breaking Bill in the House of Commons

On Monday 17th February, the Frame-breaking Bill was debated in the House of Commons again for its second reading: 

Mr. Secretary Ryder: having moved the second reading of the Bill for the more exemplary punishment of persons destroying or injuring any Stocking or Lace Frames, or other machines or engines used in the Framework knitted manufactory, or any articles or goods in such Frames or Machines.

Mr. Abercromby: declared, that in the present alarming situation of the county of Nottingham, he could have wished, instead of opposing, to have supported the measures of administration; but, after the most mature consideration, he felt it altogether impossible to concur in voting for this Bill. Every body felt the danger of a numerous body of men leagued together in active opposition to the laws of the country, and who had hitherto defeated both the civil and the military power. This danger was the more alarming from the connection between the county of Nottingham and other manufacturing districts of the country. But however strongly he, in common with others, felt this danger, he could not concur in the present Bill, without violating a most important principle in penal legislature—a principle which he had already had the good fortune more than once to join with a majority of the House in sanctioning. The mildest character of the present Bill was, that it would be ineffectual. They had been told that the riots had continued many months; that the local police had been aided by the efforts of the London police; that rewards had been offered for conviction; but that all the efforts of the civil power, joined to the allurements of profit, and the assistance of a military force, had been found completely ineffectual; and that with all this powerful array, not a single conviction had taken place under the existing law, which sentenced all framebreakers to transportation for 14 years. Now, if the House had been told that any individuals had been convicted, and punished with transportation, but that from the slightness of the punishment, the motives of the unfortunate persons had been found stronger than the dread of conviction, then he could conceive it might be proper to call upon the House for measures of greater severity. No such information, however, had been communicated to the House, and it was merely the state of impunity which they were called on to redress. The right hon. Secretary of State proposed for this purpose to make the offence capital. But how could this operate on persons in the situation of the unfortunate persons in question, among whom there had already been found to 828 prevail such an uncommon degree of union, concert, and good faith, if he might be allowed the expression, to one another, that not one of them had even yet been detected. If impunity was an evil, the effect of this severe penalty would only be to afford a greater security against any chance of punishment, because it would afford the rioters an additional motive for adhering closely together.—The hon. and learned gentleman then went into some illustrations respecting the different probabilities of conviction under pain of death and transportation, and concluded, that the former merely decreased the chance of it. The members for the county had not expressed any warm approbation of the measure of the right hon. Secretary; but they wished, they said, to agree to any measure which might have a chance of restoring tranquillity. But he would ask those gentlemen, how they could support a measure which would have the direct contrary effect to what they wished? After the body of information possessed by ministers on this subject, he thought the present Bill displayed a great poverty of invention. The distressed state of the country ought to make a deep impression on the House, and induce them to reconsider those measures which had plunged us into this dreadful situation. There were some effects arising from the decay of trade, which it was yet in the power of parliament to controul; and they might be assured, that while the cause of the evil remained in full force, all the remedies which they might apply would be found as unavailing as the prescriptions of a physician, directed merely to remove the outward symptoms of a disease, instead of communicating health and vigour to the whole system.

Mr. Orde: had no hesitation in declaring it to be his opinion, that the combination which existed among these misled people was so strong, that to break it effectually required measures of the utmost severity. He must support the Bill, on the ground that the terror of the punishment of death was indispensible on the present occasion.

Mr. W. Herbert: regretted that the House had been denied all previous enquiry on a measure which would go to affect the lives of so many of our fellow creatures. From all the partial information he had been able to collect, these disturbances owed their origin to two causes,—the decrease of employment, and disputes between the workmen and their employers. There had been no proof, however, that the punishment of transportation was inadequate to prevent the offence; and in fact the only desideratum which the House had to attain, was the best means of discovering the persons engaged in these mischievous practices. To this the attention of parliament ought to be turned, and not to the addition of new capital punishments to the already too numerous list in our statute books. Adverting to the statement made by the right hon. Secretary on Friday last, that many of these frames were let out to workmen at so much per week, and that these workmen, in many instances, either connived at or co-operated with the framebreakers, he proposed that some measure should be adopted for making the tenant responsible in law for the value of the frame, which would necessarily give him an interest in its preservation. Why was not some method of this sort resorted to, which would destroy the joint interest which the tenant too often had at present with the frame-breakers? He should have thought, also, that a Bill amercing the county of Nottingham in the value of the pecuniary damages sustained by individuals, would have had a good effect in repressing disorders, by producing a more general interest in their prevention. Upon the whole, he should oppose this Bill, as thinking that our long list of capital offences was already sufficiently disgraceful, and that many of the late atrocious crimes by which the country had been disgraced and alarmed, had originated in the frequency of such horrid spectacles.

Mr. John Smith: wished to observe, that though the destruction of stocking frames was punishable with transportation, yet there was no such law at present to protect the lace-frames employed in one of the most elegant manufactures of this country. That defect, therefore, ought to be immediately supplied. It was his firm opinion that some measure ought forthwith to be resorted to: the state of the county, to his certain knowledge imperiously required it; and he must support the present Bill till he heard of some preferable measure. He believed that the great cause of all the excesses was the decay of trade; and he hoped, that in due time, that subject would be enquired into. But this was not the precise moment for such enquiry: the disturbance Which at present existed must first be completely put down.

Mr. Lockhart: was convinced that the anxiety not to increase the number of capital punishments, was not confined to the hon. gentleman opposite, but that it was generally prevalent in the House. This was a case, however, in which he thought that the enactment of capital punishment would have a beneficial effect, and would particularly operate to deter offenders, through the medium of the impression which the fear of it would make on the minds of their wives and families. The offences in question were, indeed, of the most serious nature, and approached most nearly to constructive levying of war, that was, to high treason. Lord Hale mentioned a case of breaking looms in London, which five out of the twelve judges declared to be actually constructive levying of war, or high treason. All lawyers must be acquainted with the case of Damaree and Purchase, in the reign of Anne, executed for entering into an association to destroy all Presbyterian meeting houses; the judges holding that the offence was constructive levying of war, or high treason. He should support the Bill; but he conceived that the offender ought to have some guards similar to those possessed by any one accused of high treason; and, therefore, when in the committee, he should propose the introduction of a clause giving the prisoner the benefit of one counsel.

Mr. Herbert (of Kerry): supported the motion. The situation of Nottingham he conceived to be somewhat like that of some counties in Ireland, when those counties were agitated by the White Boys. At that time capital penalties were enacted against those offenders; and the effect was such as might be anticipated from the operation of the present Bill. The law would not be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, irrevocable, but might be, and ought to be, repealed whenever the emergency should cease.

Mr. Wrottesley: was of opinion, that the proposed measure would not have the effect expected from it. The greater the terror inspired by the act, the less he conceived would be the likelihood of detection. The preamble of the present Bill stared, that the 28th of the King had been ineffectual in putting a stop to the outrages complained of; but he would ask, where was the proof of the inefficacy of that act? Not one prosecution had taken place under it. He had the authority of Black-stone for saying that no capital punishment should be resorted to until one of a more lenient kind had been tried and had failed.

Sir S. Romilly: said, that there were two points on which the whole House had agreed:—one, that the punishment of death should never be recurred to, except in cases were all other species of punishment had been found ineffectual; the other, that an evil now existed to which a remedy ought to be applied as soon as possible. For his part, he was convinced that the remedy proposed was no remedy whatsoever; the evil would still continue to exist in spite of it. He confessed from whatever cause these disturbances proceeded,—whether from a spirit of malice against the master-manufacturers, or from the idea that the frames diminished human labour, and encroached on human industry,—that the existence of them was a monstrous evil. It was an evil, more over, which had existed in the face of a law; and he could attribute its continuance only to two causes,—either to conspiracy to suppress evidence against offenders, or to supineness in the magistracy. It was folly to talk of the terror which would arise from converting the punishment of transportation for fourteen years, into the punishment of death. The terror of the one would always have an almost equal influence with the other on the human mind; and he would answer for it, that this terror would not tend to diminish the evil. It was evident, if the existence of the evil were to be attributed to a conspiracy to suppress evidence, that the terror of a greater punishment would tend the more to keep witnesses from coming forward. If, on the other hand, the magistrates had not made sufficient exertions under the existing statute, it was plain that the change of punishment would not make them more active. The great evil to be complained of was, that the law had been converted into a mere dead letter, that it had been made only a lifeless scarecrow, from which custom had removed even the terror that might originally have been felt on beholding it. If, indeed, the statute of the 28th of Geo. 3, had been duly enforced, and these iniquitous proceedings had been persevered in, in defiance of it, then there might be some plausible ground for the measure before the House. As the Bill had only been delivered since the meeting of the House, the gentlemen who had spoken on the contrary side, might not have had time to read it, or they would have seen that it was in no way calculated to remedy that which the whole nation so loudly exclaimed against. One hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Lockhart) had said, that the Nottingham rioters were guilty of a crime little short of constructive treason. It was undoubtedly true, that a general combination to break all the frames might be so construed, and perhaps the late outrageous proceedings deserved a title little less severe; but on examining the Bill itself, it would be found that it was not at all calculated to operate against such conspirators. The four species of crime contemplated by the Bill were, first, entering houses by force, and destroying machines; second, entering houses by force, with intent to destroy them; third, wilfully and maliciously cutting in pieces machines; and the fourth, destroying any utensil, instrument, &c. belonging to the machinery. Would the House believe it, and yet it was true, that not one of those crimes partook of the dreadful nature of the evil complained of; and which evil was, as it was likened to high-treason, a conspiracy to destroy all frames? According to the present Bill, an idle apprentice, who, from a quarrel with his master, or any other cause, should break or destroy the machinery of his master, or the slightest utensil connected with it, might be capitally convicted under it. In fact, the Bill was totally directed against individual depredation, and not against the conspiracy which had given birth to the late disturbances. It required little skill, indeed, to construct an act far better for its purposes than that proposed by the right hon. gentleman. It did not even leave any thing to the humanity of a prosecutor; but in all cases compelled a prosecution.—Gentlemen on the other side no doubt thought that they were supporting a measure to secure the future tranquillity of Nottingham and the surrounding counties from these illegal combinations; but on looking at the wording of the Bill they would find themselves grievously disappointed, for the net, instead of being spread wide enough to secure all, could catch only a very few of the offenders. He, perhaps, would have recommended that offenders should not have been prosecuted, until it were clear that a combination existed, by several frames having been previously broken, or unless three or four men in concert committed the act.—In every respect this measure was totally inadequate: it did little credit to the legislative skill of ministers, and if passed would be a disgrace to the proceedings of the House. It appeared that the right hon. Secretary had brought the Bill ready made in his pocket, before he obtained leave to bring it in; and he (sir S. R.) was confident that in after times it would astonish an English House of Commons to find, upon the inspection of the Journals, that in a case of life and death their predecessors had upon only a few minutes consideration adopted a measure of such extent and importance.—He recommended, before such a hasty step were taken, that some examination of the ground should be made, and that a committee should be appointed to make inquiry into a subject on which the House actually knew little or nothing. What hon. member, let his connections be what they might, could say that he knew the cause of these riots; whether they originated in malice on the part of the workmen against their masters for ill-treatment, or from a determination to destroy machinery, which lessened the proportion of manual labour? Whether any, and what combinations had been entered into, and what subscriptions had been raised to resist the efforts of the legislature? These were questions of great importance, and to proceed without information upon them would be highly unbecoming the dignity and wisdom of the House.

Mr. Bathurst: thought, that after the long continuance of the outrages which had so much disgraced the country,—after they had so long braved the law, and had even been alluded to as a matter of exultation by the common enemy,—it was right that the government should adopt more efficient measures than had been hitherto resorted to. He regretted the mode of opposition which had been pursued against the Bill; and was particularly sorry for what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. As to any "reproach on the executive for not being sufficiently active, he had merely to appeal to the testimony borne to their exertions by the hon. gentleman, the member for Nottingham. The real question was, not whether the existing law was adequate or not to the putting down of the disturbances, but whether the terror inspired by a heavier punishment would not more effectually answer that purpose. The measure proposed was founded on that principle of all criminal law, pæna ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat.' The threat or terror would have the effect of deterring the many, and the punishment would fall only on, the few. It was a measure brought forward with a view not to punish, but to prevent the crime to which it referred; it had not for its object, as was supposed, the shedding of human blood, but to render the commission of this sort of offences less frequent. With respect to the preamble of the Bill, it certainly did not comprize the whole of the grounds for the adoption of the measure, nor did the Bill itself, as the hon. and learned gentleman imagined, provide merely for the punishment of idle or mischievous apprentices; it was intended to put a stop to the outrages. But if there were any objectionable passages in it, those passages might be obviated in the committee. The peace of the country would be cheaply purchased by the forfeiture of a few lives, in order to deter future outrages on the property of individuals, and the tranquillity of the state.

Mr. C. W. Wynn: said, that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had set out with a total misconception; for the question was not, as he had stated, whether the existing law was a sufficient remedy for the evil, but, whether the proposed new law was likely to be efficient? This he contended was not the case; for it signified little what punishment wag enacted, if persons could not be found to give information against the offenders. The use of a committee would have been, that an inquiry might have been made into the alleged insufficiency of the existing law—into the fact of any conviction having taken place under it—into the necessity for a severer law—or into the causes why evidence had been held back. Measures might have been devised for the suppression or prevention of those outrages, rewards might have been offered, or severer enactments proposed against persons who deterred witnesses from coming forward; instead of which, the authors of this measure came forward, for fear it should be doubted that the executive had done something, without any assurance that they had reached the root of the evil—which was the only means of preventing or remedying it. On the night when this Bill was introduced, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asserted, that it had not been brought forward earlier, in the hope that the former statute of the 28th of the King, would be found effectual, without any new enactment, and that finding themselves disappointed, government had suggested, unwillingly, this measure. In this statement the right hon. gentleman was contradicted by the fact, since tranquillity had been restored, according to his own confession, several days before this Bill had been brought into the House.

Sir Arthur Piggott: said, that if the Bill, from its provisions or its object, appeared to him simply to extend the act of the 28th of the King to lace frames as well as stocking frames, he should have thought it desirable; but he knew no way in which the purpose of the measure was to be collected except from the right hon. mover himself, or from the words of the Bill, by which he understood, that it was to be made capital in both instances to destroy frames. Now, if ever a legislature took a wrong step, it was when there existed a degree of indignation against persons who had committed violent aggressions against private property and public peace. On that part of the subject he was far from being convinced by the right hon. gentleman who supported the Bill. Here were offences against which a law existed enforced by no light punishment. Had the punishment been tried, or the law enforced? Before any one asked him to extend the punishment and to make it capital, he ought to prove that the law had been enforced, and had been found ineffectual, and then he might have a right to call for the enactment of capital punishment, but not till then. But that was not the case here, for he did not find that there had been any prosecution upon the 28th of the King, and perhaps there had been no occasion for it; so there was no authority to say that the law was not fully adequate to its purpose, except the necessity of extending it to the breaking of lace frames. But why was not the law enforced? Because the difficulty of detection prevented it. Would capital punishment increase the means of detection? If the difficulty of convicting offenders consisted in the reluctance of witnesses, was there any thing in the nature of capital punishment which would lessen that reluctance? He apprehended not. The only remaining principle on which the right hon. gentleman recommended the measure to the House was, that it would operate to excite terror; but how many instances were there of proofs to the contrary? And had not the House been lately engaged with the reverse of the proposition? He then commented on the precipitation with which the Bill had been hurried through the House; and hoped they would pause before they proceeded further. No one could deny the necessity of some protection being afforded to the property of the persons injured; but he conceived always, that the question for the second reading of a Bill was the proper period to protest against its principle; for, if that was defective, the committee would be useless. Objecting as be did to the principle of the measure, be should oppose it in its present stage.

Mr. Secretary Ryder: said, that having already spoken fully on the subject of this Bill, it would be unnecessary for him to do more now, than to make a few observations on what had fallen from hon. members in the course of the debate. The hon. and learned gentleman, who had just sat down, had objected to the punishment of death being enacted by this Bill; and for the reason, that no trial had been made of the efficacy of the penalty of transportation, because not one prosecution had taken place. The hon. and learned gentleman thought, therefore, that making the destruction of lace frames liable to the same punishment as that of stocking frames, namely, transportation, would answer the purpose. How, then, would the matter stand, according to the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman? The preamble of the Bill must run thus, "Where as the punishment of transportation exists against the breaking of stocking frames, and has been found ineffectual; therefore it is thought necessary, that the same punishment should be extended to the breaking of lace frames." It was, in his opinion, idle and nugatory to enact such a law, as it would be impossible that any good purpose could be answered by it. With regard to the objection of extending the punishment of death, he begged the House to recollect, that this was only intended as a temporary measure, to meet a pressing temporary evil; and that the hope was, that the terror of death might put a speedy end to the present unlawful and alarming proceedings in Nottingham, and the neighbouring counties. If the state of the town and county of Nottingham were considered, no gentleman would contend that the disturbances ought to be allowed to exist. He did assure those gentlemen who had done him the opportunity of viewing his conduct in a favourable light, that he highly prized their good opinion. In what he had done towards restoring order, however, there was no merit attached to him or his colleagues. In the execution of their duty, (a melancholy one it was) they had been guided by a wish to preserve the public tranquillity. He would much rather, however, have had the mischief attributed in some degree to his own supineness, than that its ravages should have occasioned unmerited censure upon the local exertions of the authorities with in the immediate scene of action. The conduct of the magistrates was exemplary throughout the county. With respect to the exertions of the town magistrates, these were limited to the district, but were not less laudable. In considering the Bill, the House would recollect that the mischief must be put down in some way or other. The efforts of the magistrates, though meritorious, were still found to be ineffectual. The question was not an insulated one; it was not a question which affected the manufacturing interests of that particular district, but the whole of the manufacturers throughout the kingdom. The outrages endangered the public tranquillity in a very great degree, and if by this Bill men should for the future be deterred from the commission of similar crimes, the House in passing the Bill had done their duty. He did not mean to affirm that the Bill could give facility of detection. That of making the offence capital, would have the effect of deterring men from crimes. When men knew publicly that parliament regarded their offences in a heinous light, and that it was the determination of the executive to send judges specially down, and not wait for the ordinary assizes, to try offenders, it was fair to conclude that the object would be accomplished. At all events, it was unanimously admitted that the evil existed, but no gentleman on the other side of the House had, though he objected to the present measure, come forward with a remedy for that evil. Therefore, under these circumstances the House would, he trusted, adopt the Bill now in progress, as the rejection of it might produce effects which no one could anticipate.

Mr. Bastard: said, that after the outrages which had been committed, he would vote for the Bill going to a committee; but when it had passed, he should be glad to know what security there would be for its being enforced: Why was the law already in existence suffered to slumber, without making any trial of its efficacy? Why had ministers suffered those riots to go on for two or three months? No one could persuade him that the right hon. gentleman deserved any praise. He should not have waited for any information, or expected to derive any assistance from the country magistrates. Was not the right hon. gentleman the chief magistrate, and ought he not to have directed the rest? He hoped the House would institute some enquiry into the proceedings of the Secretary of State's office, and take some measures to invigorate them.

Mr. Whitbread: acquitted the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department of any want of vigour; as it had been allowed on all hands, that he had done every thing that could be done by an early interposition both of the civil and of the military power. He must, however, object to the Bill, because it was a clumsy expedient, and because it extended the long list of our capital punishments. In his opinion, the great defect of the legislature of this country for the last century had been, that when they found the people prone to the commission of crimes, they, in order to put a stop to them, enacted the penalty of death; by which offenders had escaped punishment almost as much as if no law had been enacted at all. He was particularly averse from proceeding with the present Bill without enquiry, because the present was a period of tranquillity in Nottingham; and there was, in consequence, no cause for haste. The statute book teemed with sentences inflicting the penalty of death; and he thought it was a subject the revision of which would well become, the policy as well as the humanity of the House. So long back as 40 years, the penalty of death for offences was considered so lightly of, that the House came to a resolution, That no Bill imposing that penalty should be introduced without a previous committee. For that resolution the public were indebted to sir William Meredith, who, in 1772, being on an enclosure committee, accidentally heard some of the interested parties complain that several of the peasants were refractory and troublesome, and that the only way to get rid of them would be by hanging a few. The hon. baronet was so Struck by the injustice and wickedness of the observation, that he moved, and the House adopted the resolution. Following up the resolution, he (Mr. W.) intended to propose that it should be made a standing order of the House, that no Bill should be introduced having for its object the infliction of penalty of death without a previous committee. If a committee had been granted, as had been proposed by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Abercromby) they might have traced the origin of the evils, and found out other remedies perhaps; but as the present Bill did not seem calculated to reach those evils, and as its very principle was objectionable, he should certainly vote against its being read a second time.

Mr. Frankland: contended, that when the law was openly violated, it was the duty of the legislature to enact severer laws. If the parent were not obeyed, while mild and indulgent, who would maintain that he ought not to change his countenance, and express his indignation? The law proposed was a law not merely to prevent the breaking of frames, but to protect whatever was most dear to us in life. When gentlemen talked of sporting with the lives of others, he would ask, who sported with the lives of the people? Who neglected the general safety? and on whom must fall the awful responsibility, if a remedy were not promptly applied to those alarming evils which were under their consideration? If the law were openly defied, and force continued to be opposed to force, while they were speaking there, thousands of lives might be swept away, and thousands might fall the victims of a too refined sensibility, and mistaken and puling feeling of humanity. He denied that there were more crimes visited with capital punishment in our code of laws than in any other; and adverting to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, who had contended that capital punishment should only be inflicted where it was authorised by the Scripture, which it was said only justified it in one instance, where it is written—"Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," he was surprised how any man could read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and be of such an opinion. It would be found, in looking into those books, that they contained more capital punishments than any modern code of laws, and Europe had been convinced that it would be improper to adopt a code so sanguinary. In the Scrip- 840 ture it would be found, that by the law of the Israelites, he who "disobeyed his father and would not hearken to his voice," was sentenced to be led out and stoned till he died.—He then proceeded to show, by analogy, that exemplary punishment ought to be inflicted on those who opposed the parental mandates of the legislature: and concluded by giving it as his opinion, that it was incumbent on the legislature to express its disapprobation of such outrageous proceedings in the strongest manner, by enacting that they should be visited with capital punishment, and those who suffered in consequence of the passing of such a law, were to be regarded as the victims of their own illusions and misconduct.

The House divided.
For the second reading 94
Against it 17
Majority —77

List of the Minority
Bankes, H.
Busk, W.
Bennet, Hon. H. G.
Baring, Sir T.
Baring, A.
Folkestone, Lord
Guise, Sir W.
Green hill, R.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H.
Horner, F.
Hume, W. H.
Kemp, T. R.
Piggott, Sir A.
Moore, P.
Romilly, Sir S.
Whitbread, S.
Wrottesley, H.

TELLERS.
Wynn, C. W. W.
Herbert, Hon. W.

The Bill was then read a second time. On the motion of Mr. Secretary Ryder that the Bill be committed to-morrow,

Sir Samuel Romilly: moved as an amendment, That it should be committed on Wednesday; and observed, that he took this opportunity of rectifying some misrepresentations of his former statements. Remarks had been made, as if he had considered the subject as one of light importance; on the contrary, he thought and had stated the evil to be of enormous magnitude, and one which required a strong remedy. He had merely objected to the proposed method of furnishing a remedy. He observed, that the time allowed before the reference to a committee was so short, that he should not be able, if inclined, to frame a clause for insertion in the Bill; and asked what excuse the right hon. Secretary could give to the House and the public for not supplying some previous notice of the contents of his Bill? The present, he must also observe, was not a subject into which paradoxes and subtlety of reasoning ought to be introduced; nor could there be a time when such observations as an hon. and learned friend of his (Mr. Frankland) had made about "puling humanity" were more entirely misplaced. He agreed—the whole House agreed—that some powerful remedy was demanded under the present circumstances—that blood should be shed to prevent a greater effusion of blood; but he thought the Bill essentially deficient, as it suffered too much to depend upon the humanity of the prosecutor in some instances, and too much on the interpretation of the judge in others. The statute would be a dead letter with respect to the particular case it was framed to meet, while its effects would be deplored where it was not intended to operate.

Mr. Bathurst: disclaimed all idea of imputing to the hon. and learned gentleman any wish to under-rate the importance of the transactions alluded to; but complained that he had manifested some inconsistency in stating, at the same time, that the Bill would be a dead letter, and would also cause too great a sacrifice of lives.

Sir S. Romilly: in explanation said, that the right hon. member who spoke last had misrepresented—he would not say had misstated—his positions. His observation had been, that as far as regarded the case of conspiracy, the act would be a dead letter, though this was the case where it was intended to apply; while it would operate severely against individuals, a case not within the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Frankland: said, that he should wish the time to be enlarged, except the subject was one which frequently had come before the legislative body. Statutes already existed on the woollen, the silk, and cotton manufactures, and none on this branch of craft. It was also important that it should not go out to the public, that the House was not clear and decisive in its intentions on this subject.

The House divided,
For the Amendment 15
Against it 80
Majority —65

The original motion for going into the committee to-morrow was then put and agreed to.

List of the Minority
Busk, W.
Babington, T.
Baring, Sir T.
Baring, Alex.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H.
Horner, F.
Hume, W. H.
Knight, R.
Kemp, T. R.
Moore, P.
Piggott, Sir A.
Romilly, Sir S.
Wrottesley, H.

TELLERS.
Folkestone, Lord
Rennet, R. H. A.

17th February 1812: Address “To the Framework-Knitters of the British Empire,” Nottingham

TO THE FRAMEWORK-KNITTERS

OF

THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

THE United Committee of Framework-Knitters, in conformity with the Resolutions of a General Aggregate Meeting held at Sir Isaac Newton's in this Town, on Monday, February 17th, 1812, consisting of One Hundred and Six Deputies, (Seventy-six of whom were from the Towns and Villages within Sixteen Miles of Nottingham,) beg leave to present to the whole Trade of Framework-Knitters, the following RESOLUTIONS agreed therein:—

RESOLVED-That it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that the War, in which we are so fatally engaged, is the principal Cause of the Calamities with which the Framework-Knitters are so heavily oppressed.

RESOLVED-That for want of the Public being guaranteed by Legislative Protection against the fraudulent and deceptive Arts, practiced by disreputable Manufacturers, the Credit of several Branches of our Trade, hath been almost destroyed; and, that when any Branch of National Manufacture is essentially injured, the Public Revenues must feel a Shock!

RESOLVED-That Cut-up Goods (except Breeches and Waistcoat Pieces) wrought in the Plain or Ribbed Branches of our Trade, are reducing those extensive and valuable Branches to the lowest ebb of Degradation; and, if persisted in, will inevitably throw those lucrative Parts of British Manufacture into the Hands of Foreign Artisans.

RESOLVED-That Plain and Ribbed Stockings, or Gloves, made of whatsoever-material, ought to have their denominative Marks, regulated by the Gauge of the Frame, on which they are wrought, and the Sizes and Qualities by the Number of Jacks, to prevent both the Public and the Workmen from being defrauded.

RESOLVED-That every Species of Net, wrought upon any Principle upon a Machine, ought to be paid for by the RACK or COUNT, to prevent Impositions, of the most distressing nature, upon the Workmen; which every honorable Manufacturer is ashamed of, and which, in the end, are beneficial to none; except while there Impositions are a SECRET.

RESOLVED-That the making of Single Press Cotton Net, upon Point Frames, or Warp Two-course-hole Net, on Warp Frames, or the making of Net on any Principle of Single Cotton Yarn, is considered highly detrimental to the Lace Trade, and dangerous to the future existence of the British Cotton Lace Manufacture; and that is highly desirable, that a Legislative Prohibition should be obtained, against the making of such deceptive Articles. But, if unfortunately, the Legislature should think it improper to prohibit the manufacturing of any Article, however deceptive, yet this Meeting are fully of Opinion, that no kind of Net, wrought with a Machine, should be suffered to be sold without a Stamp being affixed on it, denominative of its real Quality, under a penalty proportional to the magnitude of the Offence.

RESOLVED-That the practice lately pursued by some Manufacturers of paying their Workmen in Goods, is void of every honorable principle, moral, local, political and divine; because, by it, misery the most unbounded is inflicted upon those unfortunate Workmen and their pining Families, who are subject to its baneful operations: many of them having been filched of their hard Earnings, full 50 per Cent, by this vile and unlawful practice.

RESOLVED-That Parliament be applied to, as soon as possible, to obtain a Bill for a Redress of the above Grievances; and to establish the Propositions contained in the foregoing Resolutions.

RESOLVED-That a Committee of Seven Persons be appointed to draw up a Statement of Grievances of every respective Branch of our Trade; and to carry the foregoing Resolutions into effect.

RESOLVED-That the whole Trade in the United Empire be solicited to communicate every Information in their power, and to send Subscriptions to the Sir Isaac Newton, Glasshouse Lane, Nottingham, to enable the said Committee to carry the above Resolutions into execution.

RESOLVED-That the Nobility, the Gentry, the Manufacturers and Tradesmen of the Counties of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, be solicited to contribute their Aid to the above.

RESOLVED-That these foregoing Resolutions be inserted to the Nottingham and London Papers.

(Signed, by Order of the Committee,)
JOSEPH HERBERT, Chairman.
GRAVENER HENSON, Secretary.
WILLIAM PAGE, Treasurer.

The Committee beg leave to recommend the practice of colting to a legal decision on the Law of the 5th Eliz. Cap. 4., Sec. 31, which enacts, That every Master, who shall employ any Workman, in any Craft or Occupation, who has not served an Apprenticeship of Seven Years, shall forfeit Forty Shillings for every Month he employs such Workman.

N. B. The Committee beg leave to state, that the PROPRIETOR of the Nottingham Journal, HAS REFUSED TO INSERT THESE RESOLUTIONS, consequently they am only appear in the NOTTINGHAM REVIEW.

17th February 1812: Leeds Merchants & Manufacturers meet & offer rewards for information

ROTATION OFFICE, LEEDS.

AT TWO GENERAL MEETINGS of the MERCHANTS and MANUFACTURERS of LEEDS and its Vicinity, (convened by general Notice,) at the Rotation-Office, in Leeds, on the Tenth and Seventeenth of February, 1812, the following Resolutions were agreed to: —

That a dictatorial and arbitrary Spirit appears to this Meeting to have gained much Ground among the Articifers and Workmen employed in various Trades Manufactures, arising from Combinations, organized and supported in a Manner and to an Extent alarming to Trade in general, and to the Security of Property, and to the peaceable Inhabitants of this Town and Neighbourhood.

That it is therefore incumbent on all Men concerned, for the public Tranquillity, the Preservation of Trade, Improvement of Manufactures, possessing Property, or in any Way connected with Workmen, to prevent, to the utmost of their Power, all unlawful Associations among them, and to counteract by all lawful Means, the mischievous Designs of such Spirit and illegal Combinations.

That we cannot sufficiently reprobate the Attempts now making, in Defiance of the Laws, by the labouring Classes, in various Parts of the Country, by their unlawful Clubs, Committees, weekly Subscriptions, by Threats of personal Injury, by Violence and Destruction of Property, to fix the Prices of Labour, to direct in this free State how Capital shall be employed, Business carried on, and especially to prevent the Use of Machinery, cherished and encouraged by the Laws and the Government, as absolutely necessary to maintain the British Manufacturers in the Pre-eminence which they have acquired, chiefly by the Invention and Application of various Mechanical Contrivances.

That as the first Step towards averting the Evils of such Combinations, a general Subscription for the Purposes of procuring Information of the Plots devised or devising by bad designing Men, of ascertaining who are such Men and their Abettors and Supporters, and for their Detection and Prosecution, be made forthwith.

That the Management of this Subscription be under the Direction of the Committee, any five of whom shall be competent to act as Occasion may require.

In Pursuance of the above Resolutions, a large Subscription has been entered into, and the Committee now met hereby offer, in Addition to other Rewards already offered, the Sum of

FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS,

To any Person or Persons who will give Information of the Person or Persons, recently concerned in wilfully and maliciously setting Fire to the Dressing Shops of Messrs. Oates, Wood, and Smithson, at Oatlands, near Leeds, to be paid on Conviction of anyone or more of the Offenders, by Means of such Discovery, whether the Person giving such Information shall have been an Accomplice or not, and only excepting the Person or Persons rashly set Fire thereto.

Any Communication on the Subject of these Resolutions, made to the Town Clerk, of this Borough, will be duly attended to, and Informants liberally rewarded.

16th February 1812: Letter from “Joe Firebrand" at “Robin Hoods Cave" to "Mr. Trevit Biddles Bowler” at Nottingham

Robin Hoods Cave,
Feby. 16.

To Mr. Trevit Biddles Bowler and all others concerned in similar practices.

We are much concerned to find that you and your neighbours Biddles and Bowler continue to oppose the public good by working those bad articles Single Press & 2 Course Warp-------

Now do you think that we who have encountered such difficulties & hazarded our lives for the good of the Trade are to be opposed & our past efforts made of no effect by your mean obstinacy no it shall not be so you may think that because your frames are secured by the presence of so large a civil & military force you have nothing to fear but can defy us with impunity but you must understand there are more methods of revenge than frame-breaking to be resorted to when that is not practicable! for our past labours shall not be in vain. In order that it may not be the case it is thought proper to inform you what will be done to such of you that persist in making the aforementioned Articles.

This information is designed for your good that no Children may perish which if they do blame your own obstinacy not us: as we have at all times manifested a disposition to spare life we wished still to show the same especially where Innocent Blood is concerned. You may think we shall not be able to fire your houses but the means which will be used will be so effectual that the flame will rise to the highest room in the house in a moment, the composition to be used is Spirits of Turpentine Tar & Powdered Gunpowder mixed together a Proper Quantity of this mixture powered in at the bottom of the door & lighted by the application of a bit of Touchpaper will do the business instantly. But there are many other modes of revenge or rather punishment to be inflicted on the obstinate equally injurious to Life which will be used where this is not practicable--to prevent any of which evils take the timely warning as 14 days will be allowed to finish Warps &c., before execution--Mr. Trevit you may get in a mender, go to the Warehouse when others do not & give a charge of secrecy to your men but it will not do for do how you will we shall be sure to get to know how you act in this matter. This warning is intended for all making the same kind of work.

Joe Firebrand
Secretary.