7th March 1812: Derbyshire Luddites target Mr Topham of Pentrich again

On the evening of Saturday 7th March, and for the second time, Luddites attacked the stocking and lace frames of Mr. B Topham of Pentrich.

The Leeds Mercury commented that he was a target for the local Luddites because of "his activity in attempting to bring some of them to justice, in consequence of several frames being broken in his shop some time ago."

On this occasion, Luddites destroyed 7 lace frames and 3 plain hose frames.

7th March 1812: Joseph Radcliffe writes to the Home Office about the lack of troops in the West Riding

Milnsbridge house
March 7th 1812

Sir

In compliance with your letter of Feby 26th saying you will be obliged to me for any further information respecting these unfortunate occurrences in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, I inclose the four informations given to me yesterday after noon, too late for the post, these with the three before sent, happened from half a mile to one mile & an half of my house. These I now send are from Sarah the wife of John Sykes of Hoylhouse in Linthwait, Saml Swallow [ditto], Jno Swallow [ditto] & Jno Sykes[ ditto];—

On the receipt of yours of 3d Instant, I immediately wrote to Mjr Gn Dixon for 100 Infantry, & I wish my request to you for them, had immediately been complied with by an application to the War office, as it would have saved time & possibly might have prevent’d mischief.

Yours of the 5th is this day received, & shall be communicated to the comittee at Huddersfield without loss of time, & their determination made known to you as soon as I receive it. & am Sir

Your much Obliged
Hbe Servt

J. Radcliffe

Milnsbridge House
Mar 7th 1812.

[to J Beckett Esq]

7th March 1812: Town Clerk of Nottingham writes to the Hosier, William Nunn about the Assizes

Sir

We received your letter of the 6th instant which very much surprized us as we had not until the Receipt of a letter from our Agent Mr. Alexander of the day before the least Notice of any objection on your part to our conducting the Prosecution against Ingham with all the rigour the law would admit of. We cannot conceive that your Property in Frames is exposed by this prosecution, but are rather disposed to think it will be protected, by the Impression it conveys that you are not one of those who will suffer your Property to be threatened or Attacked with Impunity. We should rejoice in every way in our power to obey your directions and consult your wishes but feel ourselves very awkwardly situated hearin as we are apprehensive that the Prosecution being of Necessity in the Name of the King, that the Officers of the Crown may if they please take the conduct of it more or less upon themselves if they should think that you are disposed to abandon it.—We know that they have taken up this Impression from the Conversation which passed on this subject between you and Mr. Ryder.—The consequence of which has been that we have received Subpoenas to serve upon all the Witnesses here from the Solicitor to the Treasury & it has been intimated to us that one of the Solicitors of the Treasury will be down at the Assizes if not previous to them to see that we do our duty herein or to do it for us. Under these circumstances we confess ourselves at a loss to discover how you can avoid prosecuting John Ingham for the Felony unless the Counsel with whom we advise on the subject or the Officers of the Crown should acquiesce in such a wish on your part which we are very much disposed to fear they will not unless it should come recommended to them in the regular course of business by Counsel.—We however are perfectly ready to consult with Counsel and to intimate this as your wish and desire, and would strongly advise that you abide by their determination. Without such a Sanction we do not see how you can avoid forfeiting your Recognizances which are to prosecute for the Felony Mr. Selby in £500 and all the Witnesses here in £100 each.—We are clearly aware that you cannot be proceeded against for stopping the Prosecution unless you compound the Felony which we are confident nothing on earth could induce you to do; but we apprehend that you are vulnerable thro' the sides of those who have entered into Recognizances much beyond the extent of the Penalties in which they are bound, as we fear they can be indicted for not appearing to prosecute and give evidence. It is unfortunate for you that John Ingham is supposed to be a leader in this conspiracy and that it is the only case in the Town in which we can expect a Conviction the Government therefore feel themselves interested in following it up as far as it will go, and on the part of the Magistrates, the Hosiers and the Public there will be a perfect outcry against you if it be abandoned.

It strikes us that it is probable that your wishes and those of Government might be both reconciled by your offering to take the Prosecution upon yourself they would allow you to indict for the Misdemeanour, and by your desiring them to take the avowed conduct & management of it upon themselves if they insisted upon its being an Indictment for Felony. In this way you would have the credit of an attempt to lessen the Prisoner’s Punishment and extend mercy to him, & that you did not do so would appear to be the Act of the Officers of the Crown who would be known to take the Prosecution into their own hands on that account. We cannot say that this point is accomplishable, we only throw it out for your consideration. We intend if you have no objection to consult with Mr. Clarke and Mr. Reader as our Counsel to prepare for the Indictment and Trial of either for the Felony or the Misdemeanour as they may advise unless you give us contrary directions, or we should be forced to abandon the conduct of the Prosecution to the Solicitors to the Treasury as the Representatives of the Crown who of necessity is the Prosecution in all these cases, but upon this subject we beg your full directions and opinion by return of Post.—We are convinced that in the present state of the Country there is no possibility of doubting but that the Judge in default of your prosecuting the Prisoners would immediately forfeit the Recogns and would refuse on account of the absence of any Witness (they being all in your employment) to put off the Trial till the Summer Assizes. If this were done it would be done by directing the Magistrates to compell you as we think they undoubtedly might, after the forfeiture of the present Recognizances to enter into fresh ones yourself in a still severe Penalty to prosecute the Prisoner at the Summer Assizes, when after all this loss & after the abominable system of Framebreaking has may have subsided we are persuaded the prosecution would appear in a much less gracious shape that now.

Nottm 7th March 1812

We are, Sir
Your very obedt & faithful Servants
Coldham & Enfield

William Nunn Esq.

7th March 1812: The Leeds Mercury reports on frames broken in Nottinghamshire

On Saturday 7th March 1812, the Leeds Mercury gave an estimate for the number of frames broken in Nottinghamshire and hinted at the relative cost:

It appears that since the commencement of the Luddite system in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, 42 lace frames, and 544 plain silk and cotton stocking-frames have been destroyed; the value of the former, when new, is upon the average about 60l. each; and that of the latter from 18 to 20l. each.

By this reckoning, Luddite actions in Nottinghamshire accounted for an average of £13,400 worth of damage, which is equivalent to almost £9 million (using average earnings) [N.B. 'l' is Latin 'librae' which represents £ sterling].

7th March 1812: Judge Bayley to Mr. Sherbrooke about preparations for the Nottingham Lent Assizes

Lincoln

7 March, 1812

Sir,

Your letter has just reached me, I can give no advise as to the propriety of keeping in the Town a military force to guard the Prisoners, or as to the distance to which they should be removed, but I think it highly important, the depot of Arms for the Local Militia should be effectually secured and the Gaol duly guarded. It is for Government however to take the proper measures, and give the proper directions for this purpose, and the utmost I can do is not to object to the Soldiers remaining in the Town during the Assizes, as the Assizes do not begin till Friday, I am rather surprized the Troops should have been ordered to March on Monday morning.

I am [etc.]

J. Bayley

7th March 1812: Troop movements

On the morning of Saturday 7th March, the Scotch Greys stationed at Leeds left the area for Manchester. The previous Thursday the 5th, the Second Dragoon Guards had marched into Leeds in anticipation of this movement of troops.

The Leeds Mercury noted that in Manchester "there is collected a large military force, not less than 6,000 men."

6th March 1812: Thomas Latham of the Framework-knitters Committee writes to Leicester

1812. March 6

Committee Room . . .
Sir

We have Rd. yours of the 4th Inst, and are not a Little suprised (considering our object the same, that our indeavours in the attainment of that object should be different) we supposed from the first of our existence as a body that to Petition the Legis[la]ture to take off the orders [in] Counsel though good in itself, would not have the effect of removing our grievances as to the nature of our trade; therefore attention at the beginning of this business has been solely Directed to this one object, of applying for a Legislative enactment to regulate the various branches and indeavour to root out the abuses of our Trade, we soppose if our object is not attained now, it never will be, and the orders in counsil have nothing to do with the regulations of our trade, for we are indeavouring to get Regulations what work shall be made, and how, it shall be made, and if we succeed we trust those regulations will exist when the orders in Counsil shall be no more, we do not mean to condemn your proceedings, but we would much rather your exertions were united with ours, in the attainment of the necessary Regulations, and we hope, and trust, the day is not far distant, when those orders (which we feel as much as you) must positively be taken off to satisfy the minds of millions of distressed Manufacturers—We are happy to hear that your meeting was so well attended, that good order, and unanimity prevalid, we certainly expected some information. Respecting the abuses that exist in Leicestershire in the two needle branch, we wish to put them in a regular train, and send them to Parliament, to prove the necessity of their interference—we have wrote 3 Letters to Mr. Nickols of London our Letters and his answers were Laid before the Hatton Garden Magistrates, they allowed him a Runner, to assist him in calling a meetting they have had a meeting, and promise every assistance in their power,—nay, the Magistrates have so far interfered as to Lay the correspondence, before the Secy, of State, we have not heard the result, be we hope every thing

we have calld a general meeting for monday next, March the 9th we should be glad to see some Leicester friends over

by order of the committee Yours Respectfully

Thos. Latham

6th March 1812: Letter from Thomas Latham at Nottingham to the Mayor of Tewkesbury

Nottingham 6th March '12

Sir,

The Committee of the United Branches of Framework-knitters at Nottm with great surprise recd a letter of the 2d from a person in the Town over which you hold jurisdiction stating that you had prohibited the framework-knitters in your Town from meeting to discuss the nature of their Grievances and to prepare a petition to Parliament thereon. You no doubt had you reasons for so doing; but whether they were sane, or otherwise, is not material because they were both unconstitutional and unjust, as well as extremely dangerous to the liberties of the subject.

Know you not, Sir, that the Act, commonly called the Gagging Act, is long since dead of its own natural Death; Therefore your opinion as a Magistrate is of no avail respecting the holding of a popular meeting. But even were that not the case, is it an act of policy on the part of a Magistrate to prohibit men from meeting in a peacable manner, to state their grievances; when, by preventing them from venting their plaints in a constitutional way, they may be driven to the commission of crimes for the purpose of exercising their vengeance, when they cannot exercise their rights  How different were your conduct on the occasion alluded to, to that shewn by the Magistrates of Hatton Garden, London, on a similar occasion—they, when informed of the desire of the London stocking makers to hold a meeting, immediately afforded the men every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the design—They sent an officer to attend the meeting, and presented the resolutions agreed upon at such meeting to the Secretary of State, along with a copy of the propositions sent from the Nottingham Committee. This was a measure consistent with the wishes of every honest man. Then compare this conduct with your own; and, if you are an Englishman, your punishment will be sentimentally complete.

Sir, you may perhaps conceal this letter from all eyes but your own; but that will avail you nothing; for other means, which you to your own confusion, will hereafter be made accquainted with, will be resorted to, to make its contents public. The men of Nottingham are accquainted with the laws of their Country; and, in common with every honest man, condemn the outrageous conduct of a few misguided individuals in their neighbourhood; and they know, that the proper means to prevent those outrages are for those in authority to act directly contrary to the manner in which you have acted.

Sir, the Nottingham Committee will again call upon their Tewkesbury friends to have a meeting; the postmaster may again open the letter directed to them; and you may again exert an unconstitutional authority; but if you do, legal means will be resorted to, to exhibit your conduct in proper colours to the public.

by order of the Committee,

Thos. Latham secty

Mayor of Tewkesbury
Committee Rooms
Newton’s head
Glass house Lane

6th March 1812: Poem "Industry Distressed" from the Nottingham Review

INDUSTRY DISTRESSED.

A TRUE TALE.

How chang’d are the times! I've oft seen the day
Of Christmas approach, free from frowns;
My creditor’s bills with ease I could pay,
With guineas, or shillings, or crowns!

Nor was the term, Bankers, in our village known,
To mean more than hedger or ditcher,
That work’d on the margin of fields that were sown,
Whilst his wife to the well took the pitcher.

But fine flourish’d paper has ‘minished our coin,
And rais’d our banks without fences;
And knaves with their rag-money often combine,
Enough to distract a man’s senses.

By frugal industry, I have made it my care
To provide for the winter of age;
But unwarily caught in the bankruptcy snare,
Nought now can my sorrow assuage.

My barrels that used to be stor’d with GOOD ALE,
And wine which the elder produc’d,
Are worm-eat, and rotten, and not fit for sale,
Having many years never been used.

And useless the stone, where the pig lay in pork,
While others remain’d in the sty;
Not here we as once the carol or joke,
When say round are large Christmas pye.

No more my old consort nor I meet the smile,
This season was want to produce;
Nor share in those visits which time so beguile,
Such visits being now out of use.

Not a vestige remains of my once happy lot,
The workhouse my refuge must be;
Must quit with reluctance my beautiful cot,
So dear to my partner and me.

That cot, where my ancestors liv’d in repute,
The spot where I drew my first breath;
Such heartrending thoughts, so sever and acute,
A period will soon have in death.

But what makes my misery fully complete,
My frame by NED LUDD has been broke;
Release from these troubles, kind death I intreat,
But vainly thine aid I invoke.

But, hush! all rash thoughts which troubles create,
I'll bow to adversity’s rod;
With humble submission I'll yield to my fate,
And happiness seek in my GOD.

5th March 1812: Mutiple attacks on shearing frame owners at Linthwaite

On the evening of Thursday 5th March, Luddites gathered at their pre-arranged meeting place at Dry Clough Lane, Lockwood. A small party of 16 were met by others from Dalton, but a rainy night had left the Dalton men completely drenched by the time they turned up, and the decision was made that they should therefore return home.

The first to be visited by the group that night was Samuel Swallow of Linthwaite, in the early hours of 6th March. The Luddites demanded entry, knocking violently at his door, threatening to break it open. Swallow rushed out of bed and opened the door. Several men rushed past him, and soon started to search the property for candles. A man who had his face blacked ordered Swallow upstairs and onto his bed, where he held him at gun point. Another man joined him and stood at the foot of the bed, pointing another gun at him.

In Swallow's workshop, the Luddites were at work smashing his machinery and other items: the toll exacted that night included 2 shearing frames, along with a brushing machine and 4 pairs of hand cropping shears.

When it was over, the Luddites wished him goodnight before they left reminding him to lock his door, which he promptly did.

At Hoyle House in Linthwaite, Sarah Sykes was alone, her clothdresser husband being away from home. Just before 2.00 a.m. she was awoken by a great hammering at both the front and back door - someone was breaking in. She got up, and saw about 20 men with blackened faces coming through the door. They lit some candles them had with them and some of them made their way to the workshop where the soon set about smashing what was there - her husband's solitary shearing frame and 4 pairs of hand shears.

One of the men asked her where her husband was, but then another shouted from outside "call all your men down", and they turned and left. They moved outdoors into the night, and darkness soon swallowed them.

At the house of William Cotton, his servant John Sykes was alone when he heard a loud knocking at his master's door, someone shouting out to them them in. He opened the door and 30 men came in, all of them in disguise. They stood around him, firing questions at him, "where was his master?", "where did they keep the guns, pistols, ammunition?" Frightened half to death, Sykes explained Cotton was away and the Luddites moved to search the house, placing the other occupants present under guard. They took a pound of candles, and then set about destroying Cotton's machines and cloth dressing equipment - 2 pairs of hand shears and a brushing machine. A man who seemed to be in charge came over and made a clear threat - that if Cotton attempted to install any more machinery, they would return and blow up the whole premises.

At 2.30 a.m., John Swallow of Linthwaite was woken by a loud noise: hammering on his door, voices shouting & demanding to be let in. His wife got up and went downstairs, letting the men in. They lit a candle and demanded the keys to her husband's workshop. Having secured the keys, they opened the shop door and destroyed what was there - 2 shearing frames and 11 pairs of hand shears. Bringing the keys back they bade the shocked family good night and headed into the dark.

5th March 1812: Third & final reading of Frame-breaking Bill in the House of Lords

On Thursday 5th March, the Frame-breaking Bill was read for the third and final time in the House of Lords.

On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,

The Earl of Carlisle: without again entering into his objections to the Bill, could not but observe, that there was another Bill before the House (the Nottingham Watch and Ward Bill), which ought to have preceded the Frame Bill. They ought first to have tried the operation of the other Bill; and, possibly, its effect might have been such, as to preclude the necessity of passing the Frame Bill at all. He should, therefore, still recommend, that the third reading of this Bill should be postponed for some time, till they found what would be the effect of the other. He did not mean to accuse the ministers of cruelty and inhumanity, in hurrying forward a measure of this kind: possibly they might be in possession of information which justified them in proposing it; but then, why not communicate that information to the House, in order to justify their lordships in passing this law? He would ask whether it was decent,—whether it was dignified, to pass so serious a penal law on such grounds as they had at present to stand upon? The usual attention and humanity of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack must have been forgotten on this occasion; and he was surprised that it should have been attempted to carry through so serious a law without furnishing their lordships With better information.

The Earl of Liverpool: after the countenance which their lordships had already given to the Bill, did not think it necessary to say any thing now on the subject, except in answer to what had been stated with respect to another Bill before the House. The principle of that Bill was old, and required no great time to settle its application in this instance; but a good deal of difficulty had been experienced in arranging the details, and much time consumed in the necessary communications with the magistrates. This was the reason that the Bill had not preceded the Frame Bill. The present Bill was more simple in its details, whether right or wrong; and with respect to that he would only remark, that it did nothing more than give the same protection to this manufacture which was already enjoyed by other manufactures of a similar kind, carried on by machinery: and it ought also to be remembered that the measure was only temporary.

The Earl of Moira: expressed his conviction, that one of the greatest mischiefs attending the present proceeding, was its tendency to mislead the House into an idea that they had corrected the evils in question, when in reality the case would be found widely different; that it would only augment and exasperate the disorder; it was like applying a piece of hot plaister to a cancer, and expecting from such a remedy, the extirpation of the corroding and fatal disorder. In order to eradicate the great and increasing evil, the whole system of the government of the country must be completely and radically altered. It undoubtedly became the justice of the House, to endeavour to extirpate such a dangerous species of offence, but it no less became their justice to endeavour to prevent those distresses which gave rise to them; and to try to ameliorate the situation of the starving manufacturers. They should think and seriously consider what the effect of such a measure must be on the desperation of an individual, divested of the means of supporting his family, because all application of his manual industry was denied to him. That miserable system of corruption which for some years past had usurped and abused the name of government, must be corrected, if they meant to bring home the minds of men and Britons to that loyalty and affection for their constitution and government, upon which alone rested the stability of its institutions and the safety of the country; if they meant to unite every British heart, as they ought to be united, in support and in defence of the empire; in order to effectuate this work they must torn their minds to many different objects. There could be no safety to the state, no permanent or general system of prosperity or amelioration expected, but from a total change in the system upon which the government of the country was administered.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

The Bill now became the Frame-breaking Act. When royal assent was obtained on 20th March 1812, breaking machinery would be a capital offence.

4th March 1812: Joseph Radcliffe suggests the employment of informers to the Home Office

Sir

I am ashamed to be so troublesome, but since my last it has occurred to the [Huddersfield Magistrates] that as there are one or two privates in the Dragoons now at Huddersfield, who have been cloth dressers it the west of England, could they be permitted to put on clothing as country men, & offer to obtain work amongst the fraternity of sheermen, they might stand a chance of coming, at the knowledge of the instigators of the present disturbers of the peace.

Since my last I have waited upon Majr Gordon to request his permissions for these men so to do, when on expressing a doubt as to the propriety of a Soldier’s becoming a disguised spy, I mentioned writing to the Secretary of State's office for the home department to have directions as to the propriety of the measure, & shall extend an early reply as a favor done to

Sir, your much obliged
Joseph Radcliffe

Milnsbridge house
February 4th, 1812 [Radcliffe has put the wrong date, see below for actual date]

P.S. Inclosed is a requisition I yesterday received from Heckmondwike, which has been complied with, & 12 Dragoons sent to be quartered there.

I inclose the Huddersfield resolutions.—

Milnsbridge
4 March
1812

J W Radcliffe

3rd March 1812: A Stockport weaver gives evidence about plans to destroy Steam Looms

Stockport
3d March 1812

Sir

I have the honor to inclose the Information of a Weaver given to Mr. Prescot, the Magistrate, in a private manner in consequence of his being sent to and assured that his name should not be made public – Mr. Prescot was led to the enquiry by respectable Gentleman calling upon him & reporting what the person has now sworn to. Mr. P. trusts that the whole subject which it involves will be taken into consideration and measures adopted accordingly — but he has pledged himself to the secrecy of the information which might otherwise affect the safety of the Informant.

I have the honor to be
Sir
Your most obedient
& humble servant

J Lloyd

[to Richard Ryder]

This Deponent maketh Oath that I know of several Weavers that has mentioned that they are determined to do away with those Steam Looms if in case they do not make them away themselves for there is 45,000 that is suffering by it besides other Trades. They are entirely worn out, they overflow the Market whether they will not. A Peace tomorrow would not make the difference unless those were put on one side And they are likely to be encreased — you are certain sure that a Workman's life is of very little value when they must work in that way. The 45,000 could all rise in one night and would do if they have not redress and I do not wonder at it for it is those very things that is the foundation of it. They have accounts from one to another and districts. The whole Country is entirely dissatisfied. A man's life is of no value – I have five Children and a Wife, the children all under 8 years of age — And I get 12 [shillings] per week which is only 9 [shillings] clear deducting winding sow &c and I work sixteen hours in the day to get that — But there are thousands that do not get 8 [shillings] per week — It will take 2 [shillings] per week Coals 1 [shilling] per week Candles. My family live upon Potatoes chiefly and we have one pint of milk per day.

Sworn before me
Charles Prescott

3rd March 1812: The Framework Knitters Committee state their grounds for petitioning Parliament

On  Tuesday 3rd March, Gravenor Henson's United Committee of Framework Knitters set out their stall by publishing the grounds upon which they were pursuing an Act to regulate the trade. A handful of Hosiers signed the grounds the day after, including a fully-contrite Thomas Brocksopp, one of the Hosiers who was at the root of grievances 12 months before.

STATEMENT, by the Framework Knitters, on the GROUNDS of their petitioning Parliament.

THE following are the Grounds, on which it is proposed, by the Framework Knitters Committee, to petition Parliament for an Act to regulate the various approaches of their Trade:

1st—THAT all kinds of Cut-up Framework-knitted Goods, be prohibited; except the Hose of ribbed and plaited Hose, Petticoats, Breeches, and Waistcoat pieces, and the Peaks of Cotton Caps.

2nd—THAT all kinds of plain and ribbed Stockings and Gloves, made of whatsoever material wrought upon the Stocking Frames, have their sizes regulated by the number of jacks; the quality of each article to be regulated by the gauge of the Frame, and to be distinguished by corresponding, denominative marks, and the number of threads of which each article is made (except those made of Silk) be distinguished by proper marks.

3rd—THAT the measure of every species of Net, wrought with a machine, be regulated by the Rack.

4th—THAT all sorts of Net, wrought with a machine, when offered for sale, whether on cards or in vails, pieces, &c. shall have a stamp affixed to them descriptive of their real quality.

March 3d, 1812.

WE, the Undersigned, have attended at Mr. Stubbs, at the desire of some of the Stocking-makers, to consider the propriety of sanctioning the annexed Propositions; but, in consequence of the smallness of the number of Hosiers who attended, we think it improper to enter at large into the merits of the Question, though we see nothing in them particularly to object to.

John Allen.

Thos. Hall.

Thos. Brooksopp.

Sam. Clark.

Alexander Strahan.

Geo. Bradley.

Thomas Jenum.

Nottingham,
March 4th, 1812.

2nd March 1812: Secret weavers meeting in Bolton

On Monday 2nd March 1812, another meeting of weavers took place in Bolton.

Although we do not know the location of the meeting, we know from Robert Waddington who was present, that the meeting attracted more new faces than the relatively small affair that had taken place 7 days earlier at the Gibraltar Rock:Waddington later estimated that 25 to 30 people were present. The meeting talked about the hardships the weavers were facing, chiefly a reduction in wages. The meeting echoed the experience and sentiments of the Gibraltar Rock meeting - that appeals to employers, local authorities and government had failed, and that the weavers must look to themselves for a solution.

Waddington told us that the weavers resolved to meet every evening thereafter: the aim was to make these meetings noticeable, despite the risks that this posed, in order to "frighten their masters to give them more wages".

2nd March 1812: More discussion of the Frame-breaking Bill in the House of Lords

On Monday 2nd March, the Frame-breaking Bill was again discussed in the House of Lords:

On the order of the day for the committal of this Bill,

Earl Grosvenor: rose to move, that the order be discharged. After what had already passed; after the eyes of the noble Secretary of State had been a little opened, he had expected him to have himself moved the discharge of the order. The Bill proposed to punish with death those who entered a house, whether with force or not, and damaged a piece of lace, or stocking frame. The measure, however, was said to be necessary; but their lordships might depend upon it that this law would only make the artful more artful, the cunning more cunning, the mysterious more mysterious. The proper way to conciliate the people, and to prevent these outrages, was to reform abuses; and on this account he regretted the introduction into the Prince Regent's cabinet of a noble lord, who, whatever might be his merits in other respects, was no friend to such a reformation. He would have been in despair, had it not been for the decision of the House of Commons in the case of an office granted by ministers after having been condemned by a committee of that House. No decision had ever given him so much pleasure. The noble earl particularly censured the severity of the measure, which went to inflict the sanguinary penalty of death, upon what might be only an entry into a house. He trusted their lordships would not suffer themselves to be persuaded by ministers into a concurrence in an act, which would be a disgrace to the statute-book, to the character of the country, and which, instead of removing the evil, would increase it, by more widely diffusing the mischief, and driving the unhappy depredators to acts of desperation. He concluded by moving, That the order be discharged.

The Marquis of Douglas: stated the question to be, whether the punishment of death was really necessary in this case? and when it was admitted that the milder punishment had never been tried, the argument appeared to be decisive against the severer penalty. The evil here to be remedied did not consist in the defect of the punishment, but in the security of the criminal. Had the former act been put into execution? If it had not, how could they state that the punishment was ineffectual? Nothing could be more unwise than enacting the extremity of punishment in cases of minor offences. When there was no variety in punishment, people would be led to think that there was no gradation in crime. The evil was not to be remedied by laws like this; it extended much farther than Nottingham: a whole population was driven to these pernicious courses by the distresses arising from the unwise policy of government. They asked for existence: give it them (said his lordship) by abandoning that policy, and do not visit them with extermination as a cure for their miseries. In Yorkshire and Lancashire there had been considerable meetings of people suffering under the same distresses as the manufacturers of Nottingham; In his own country, too, (Scotland) there had been meetings of the same description. In Glasgow an application for relief had been made to the magistrates by 30,000 people; but any serious disturbance had been prevented by the wisdom and activity of the magistrates, and especially the provost. The evil likewise extended through Ayrshire. They must go to the root of the evil, and alter their policy. This was the only efficient method. They must return to the old system under which this country had so long flourished, and not destroy the gifts of nature by their unwise measures. The present Bill was the last resort of a rash, feeble, and wretched government,—fearful of their own enactments, because doubtful of their own ability.

The Earl of Harrowby: had imagined, that after the discussion which had already taken place, there would have been no farther opposition to the Bill. Nothing new had been advanced. Even if he should concede all that had been advanced as to the unwise policy of government, still there was a necessity for this law. An altered policy must take some time to operate: and, in the mean time, an immediate remedy must be applied to the existing evil. The crime was of the most heinous nature and most dangerous tendency, and must be repressed. As to the assertion that this was the last resort of a weak and wretched government, it ought to be recollected that similar laws in similar cases had been passed under the most powerful and humane governments; and he referred as evidence of this to the several Laws passed since the 12th of Geo. I, relative to the woollen and silk manufactures. They need not be ashamed to be as weak and bloody as Sir Robert Walpole, lord Hardwicke, and the marquis of Rockingham. It ought not to be said that they were harsh or violent in following the system that had all along been pursued and found effectual. Without entering on general principles, he referred to the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone; and contended that nothing could be found in the book of that eminent judge, adverse to a capital punishment in a case of this nature. The punishment of death had often been enacted against offences where it would be really inflicted only in particular and highly aggravated cases. Our law was mildly administered. The complaint generally was, that the guilty escaped, not that too much severity had been used. In the execution of the present law, the same principle of mildness would, no doubt, be attended to: but there might be cases in which the offence would deserve death; and the capital punishment was necessary in order to strike terror into the offenders.

The Earl of Carlisle: said, that the proposition to enact a law subjecting a fellow creature to the punishment of death, was one from which humanity shrunk, and on which reason ought to pause. Nothing but necessity clearly proved could justify its adoption: but where was the proof here? What papers—what documents had been laid before them? None; they had merely the assertion of the ministers that there was a necessity for this measure, and that assertion only; unless the accounts in the newspapers of disturbances were to be considered as proper grounds for that House to proceed upon. Allowing these to be true,—how did they know that the magistrates of Nottingham the meant no disrespect to them) had done their duty? How did they know that the proper means of detection had been used? This Bill was, besides, perfectly inefficient for its own object, and, indeed, in some measure subversive of it. How could they expect that those who were averse to subject these men to the punishment of transportation, would be willing to subject them to the penalty of death? There was a great deal of feeling and humanity in the generality of the people of this country on these occasions." If the law," said they, "subjects a man only to such a punishment as his offence deserves, we will inform; but if his life is to be affected, you will get no information from us." On every ground the noble earl said he thought the measure highly objectionable.

The Earl of Westmoreland: supported the Bill, and vindicated the conduct of government in acting with every practicable vigilance and exertion to restore tranquillity and order, ere they recurred to parliament for the present measure. His lordship followed the line of argument adopted by his noble friend who spoke last but one, as to the general principle upon which the measure proceeded; and he was convinced the law under the Bill would be administered with a discriminating lenity, and fully acted upon only when the necessity of the case required it. The measure, therefore, had his cordial assent.

Lord Grenville: thought the evil of a deeper nature than noble lords were inclined to admit. The great cause was the bad policy which had plunged our manufacturers into distress. The distress and the cause were spreading together. It was now that the effect of the paper issue was making itself felt through the community; and it was impossible in any case to conceive, why the same evils which had extended on an excessive issue of paper, should not be attended with the same evils here as in all other countries. This was a more prominent cause than even the Orders in Council. His noble friend (the earl of Lauderdale) had imputed the distress to the sudden rise and fall of wages by the sudden demands for manufactures; but even where the wages did not fall, the excessive issue of paper lowered their real value. The same money could not purchase the same quantity of provisions; and unless there was a maximum on the price of the necessaries of life, the working people must be more and more impoverished, even in the nominal receipt of undiminished wages. The great manufacturers worked for foreign markets; the rise of the prices abroad did not keep pace with the rise of the nominal value of the currency at home; and in consequence, they were obliged to tell their workmen that they could not make the prime cost on their materials. The workmen said, and with not less truth, that they could not live by their work; and thus distress; came rapidly upon the most useful and industrious classes of the community. The present system had the direct tendency of exhausting the resources of the industrious part of the public; this was no new thing to their lordships; it had been pointed out from the beginning: every step of its progress had been regularly detailed, and it was now making its way with accelerated evil. Was this a thing within penal laws to correct? Were men to be cured of this by the gibbet and the gallows? The Bill might irritate and punish, and inflict miseries dreadful to feeling and humanity; but it would not stop an evil which resulted from the wretchedness into which a dangerous and headlong system had driven the working people. His noble friend, (the earl of Harrowby) in quoting a passage from judge Blackstone, seemed to doubt whether that great judge looked on the punishment of death as a means of prevention, or as the penalty for enormous crime. But, putting the first point out of question, was the guilt of this crime of that enormous nature which required death? The noble earl obviously combined the individual act with the crime of conspiracy: but the Bill omitted all the intention of conspiracy, and alluded only to the act of the individual. It would be answered, that the intention of the Bill was chiefly against the conspiracy: but where was the object of a Bill to be found but in its leading clauses, or preamble? He was sorry to hear an attempt to justify the introduction of penal statutes by great names. If there was any case in which we should not look to precedents, or give up any thing to great names, it was a case like the present. To justify the infliction of death, there must be no authority but strong necessity. The statute book was stained with sanguinary laws; it was a stigma on the character of the country; foreigners looked upon it as such, and appealed to its existence as the standard of our national character. His noble friend spoke of the mildness with which those laws were administered. A philosopher once said, that among the Athenians, to praise the Athenians was extremely easy: but where were we to find the great evidence of a mild and legislative spirit,—the prevention? If the question was of the purity of the administration of justice, he most agreed. The great cause was the bad policy which had plunged our manufacturers into distress. The distress and the cause were spreading together. It was now that the effect of the paper issue was making itself felt through the community; and it was impossible in any case to conceive, why the same evils which had extended on an excessive issue of paper, should not be attended with the same evils here as in all other countries. This was a more prominent cause than even the Orders in Council. His noble friend (the earl of Lauderdale) had imputed the distress to the sudden rise and fall of wages by the sudden demands for manufactures; but even where the wages did not fall, the excessive issue of paper lowered their real value. The same money could not purchase the same quantity of provisions; and unless there was a maximum on the price of the necessaries of life, the working people must be more and more impoverished, even in the nominal receipt of undiminished wages. The great manufacturers worked for foreign markets; the rise of the prices abroad did not keep pace with the rise of the nominal value of the currency at home; and in consequence, they were obliged to tell their workmen that they could not make the prime cost on their materials. The workmen said, and with not less truth, that they could not live by their work; and thus distress; came rapidly upon the most useful and industrious classes of the community. The present system had the direct tendency of exhausting the resources of the industrious part of the public; this was no new thing to their lordships; it had been pointed out from the beginning: every step of its progress had been regularly detailed, and it was now making its way with accelerated evil. Was this a thing within penal laws to correct? Were men to be cured of this by the gibbet and the gallows? The Bill might irritate and punish, and inflict miseries dreadful to feeling and humanity; but it would not stop an evil which resulted from the wretchedness into which a dangerous and headlong system had driven the working people. His noble friend, (the earl of Harrowby) in quoting a passage from judge Blackstone, seemed to doubt whether that great judge looked on the punishment of death as a means of prevention, or as the penalty for enormous crime. But, putting the first point out of question, was the guilt of this crime of that enormous nature which required death? The noble earl obviously combined the individual act with the crime of conspiracy: but the Bill omitted all the intention of conspiracy, and alluded only to the act of the individual. It would be answered, that the intention of the Bill was chiefly against the conspiracy: but where was the object of a Bill to be found but in its leading clauses, or preamble? He was sorry to hear an attempt to justify the introduction of penal statutes by great names. If there was any case in which we should not look to precedents, or give up any thing to great names, it was a case like the present. To justify the infliction of death, there must be no authority but strong necessity. The statute book was stained with sanguinary laws; it was a stigma on the character of the country; foreigners looked upon it as such, and appealed to its existence as the standard of our national character. His noble friend spoke of the mildness with which those laws were administered. A philosopher once said, that among the Athenians, to praise the Athenians was extremely easy: but where were we to find the great evidence of a mild and legislative spirit,—the prevention? If the question was of the purity of the administration of justice, he most agree that here we were unrivalled,—that there was no country in the world,—that there never was a country, where the innocent man was so secure of acquittal as here. But as to punishment, he knew of no country in Europe,—perhaps be ought to speak of it as before the late dreadful revolution—where so many suffered by sanguinary punishments. Were we about to write in blood the new code for the new situation to which we were gradually advancing? In this instance, we could not punish without frequently committing the most shocking offences against humanity. Crimes of the most different nature were mingled under one punishment; and death was to be equally inflicted for conspiracy and for acts for which a school-boy's whipping would be too severe. Men were to be hanged for 'damaging' frames. What a word! and how capable of perversion. What was 'damaging' a frame? The slightest injury to the slightest part of a complicated machinery was to bring a man in peril of his life. This was enough to throw the body of the manufacturing people into despair. Tell them, that if from folly or malice a man break any part of a machine, he forfeits his life, as much as if he had conspired to destroy the whole machinery of the establishment,—as much as if he had murdered the man at the machine, and the consequence must be horrid. The wisdom of legislators was employed in pointing out the gradations of crime, and making the return always more easy than the progress; but here," Returning were as tedious as go o'er," and the moment the workman had touched upon his crime, he had incurred the punishment of its consummation.

The Earl of Liverpool: said he had not heard any noble lord on his side of the House deny that there was distress among the manufacturers, but they had distinctly denied that the distress arose from the Orders in Council; and it was evident that those Orders were blameless, as it had actually happened that the trade had never been more flourishing than since their operation. It had happened that at a late period there had been a sudden excitement of trade; that it had been followed by a glut of the market; and that glut, by distress among the workmen. Nothing was more in the course of things: the same events had been continually occurring, sometimes in war, sometimes in peace. So long as the spirit of speculation existed among traders, and so long as, in this free country, no restraint was put upon any man's use of his money, so long those circumstances must occur from time to time. But the present interposition of parliament was called for, not by the distresses of the workmen, but from a conspiracy against the machinery, which had regularly exhibited itself at all times when machinery had been employed to the disuse of manual labour. They had found penal statutes necessary for the protection of every successive kind of machinery. His lordship read a passage from archdeacon Paley, implying that the intensity of punishment was to be adapted, not to the enormity of the crime, but to the difficulty of preventing it in society. It was on this principle that a man was hung for stealing a sheep or a horse; though, in the bare enunciation of the thing, it would seem horrible to hang a man for stealing a sheep. There were but two ways of determining punishments,—either by leaving them under a general description to the discretion of the judge, or by stating the shades of crime, and affixing the separate punishment. The latter would be scarcely found possible. But where was the evil of the former? It was the working principle of the English law; and there was at least the evidence, that however sanguinary its language might be, its discretionary practice was mild. The mode of detection was attended to in a clause of the Bill. But even if the detection had been hitherto difficult, was it to be said that this Bill would produce no effect? Did it not argue an ignorance of human nature to say that while detection was never absolutely impossible, men would not be more afraid of being detected when the punishment was to be more exemplary, and that thus the terror which the Bill held before them would not be a restraint. Even the smallness of the means of detection made it more important to use those restraints which we had in our power, and those were to be found in terror.

The Earl of Rosslyn: argued, that it was not because some discretion must necessarily be left to to a judge, that therefore they were to legislate, leaving all to his discretion. It ought still to be a question as to how much discretion was to be left to the judge.

The question was put for discharging the Order, and negatived. The House then resolved itself into a committee.

The Earl of Liverpool: stated his intention of proposing amendments, to leave out the word' damage, and to insert in different parts of the Bill respecting cutting and destroying frames, utensils, work, &c.' with intent to destroy or render useless,' in order more clearly to define the offence.

Lord Grenville: moved to insert words, for the purpose of confining the punishment to offences done in conspiracy and combination.

The Lord Chancellor: contended, that in order to reach combinations, they must aim at the acts of individuals, and argued that in legislating for the punishment of crimes, much must, of necessity, be left to the discretion of the judge, and that this was proved by constant experience.

Lord Grenville: replied, that the language he had employed flowed from the feeling by which his mind was impressed. If that feeling was strong, it was excited by the indiscreet measure now brought forward, and the noble lords on the other side were the only persons to be blamed for exciting it, or for its consequences.

Lord Holland: supported the amendment on the ground that a discretion would be left in the hands of the judge, painful to him, and perhaps injurious to the prisoner in the exercise.

The question having been put, it was negatived.

Earl Grosvenor: moved an amendment, making the attempt to destroy frames only a misdemeanor instead of a felony without benefit of clergy, which was agreed to.

Lord Grenville: suggested, that it should not be imperative upon the person injured to proceed immediately before a magistrate to prosecute, provided he could shew reasonable cause for his delay.

The amendment was acceded to. The other clauses of the Bill were then gone through without observation.

The following Protest was entered on their Lordships' Journals:

PROTEST against going into a Committee on the Bill, intitled, "An Act for the more exemplary punishment of persons destroying or injuring any stocking or lace frames, or other machines or engines used in the knitting manufactory."

Because, We feel ourselves in duty bound to record our disapprobation of all further proceedings on a Bill, characterized by those who supported it, as indiscriminately inflicting the punishment of death on all crimes described by words copied out of an act of parliament, which had, in no instance, the forfeiture of life in contemplation.

"It was with a mixed feeling of surprize and indignation we learnt from the discussion that has already taken place, that this Bill, in its nature the most interesting, grave, and important that can be submitted to the consideration of the legislature, had been framed without sufficient deliberation to enable the friends of the measure to give any distinct explanation of the precise crimes to which, under the legal import of the words, thus thoughtlessly and precipitately adopted, it is proposed to extend the punishment of death.

"We cannot therefore, under such circumstances, consent to go into a Committee; for even the amendments which might be there proposed and adopted, would, in our opinion, disgrace the two Houses of Parliament, by recording that they are capable of rashly agreeing to the principle of a Bill thus indiscriminately and by wholesale applying capital punishment to a variety of offences, differing in their motive, their character and their guilt; for the purpose of considering what exceptions might subsequently be suggested by prudence and humanity, which ought exclusively to guide the judgment of the legislature in every stage of their deliberations, on all acts of criminal legislation.

"We agree in the opinion so generally expressed in this House, that the conduct of the manufacturers, in destroying frames, and other machinery used in our manufactures, must proceed from mistaken views of their own interests; as they, more than any other class of his Majesty's subjects, are deeply interested in the preservation of machinery, to the improvement of which we owe our existence as a manufacturing country.

"But we think it our duty, strongly and in distinct terms to reprobate the unprecedented folly of attempting to enlighten the minds of men, in regard to what is beneficial for themselves, by encreased severity of punishment; whilst every sound principle of criminal legislation makes us regard such an addition to the long list of offences, already subjected to capital punishment by the laws of this country, with astonishment and disgust: and every feeling of humanity leads us to express the utmost horror at the wanton cruelty of punishing our fellow-creatures with death, for those culpable acts, more injurious to themselves than to any other part of the community, to which, through mistaken views of policy, the encreasing distress of the times has reduced them to resort.

LAUDERDALE.
ROSSLYN."

2nd March 1812: Town Clerk of Nottingham writes to the Home Office about the Assizes

Sir

We beg leave to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th February in reply to our enquiries in relation to two Prosecutions in Framebreaking, with the conduct of which at the Assizes we are intrusted, and feel greatly obliged by your polite and immediate attention.

We perceive that we stand very properly corrected not explicitly stating in our former Letter that these Prosecutions were instituted against the Prisoners for breaking Frames, but we had imagined that you would have recollected that the first of them was of that Character because the Informations had been previously sent up for the Inspection of the Officers of the Crown.

We are very sorry to give any additional trouble on this subject to Mr Ryder, but it being now explicitly stated by us that both these Prosecutions come within the description of those which the Crown mean to take under its protection we shall be glad to be directed whether the Secretary of State would wish us to retain or deliver our Briefs to any particular and what Counsel upon this occasion, or whether we should apply for directions on this head to Mr. Litchfield that we may conform ourselves to the wishes of the Officers of the Crown in this respect.

We have the honor to be,
Sir
Your obliged, and very obedt Servt

Coldham and Enfield

Nottingham
March 2d, 1812

[Home Office note] 4th Acqt them that in order to save time I have desired Mr. [illegible] for the Treasury to write to the on the Subject by tonight

2nd March 1812: Town Clerk of Nottingham writes to the Home Office about the Watch & Ward Bill

Dear Sir

I am very sorry on the part of the Magistrates of the Town to give Mr. Ryder any unnecessary trouble about the Watch and Ward Bill, the printed Copy of which I have received from Mr. Smith.

They perceive by that the Bill is framed quite anew as to extend generally to the whole Kingdom.—Our Clauses went to two points the protecting in some degree the Dignity and consequence of the Magistrates of the Town in the manner in which the acting upon it in the Town is to originate by providing that the Mayor or other chief Magistrate should be one of the acting parties therein and I still think that the Mayor or other chief Magistrate should be one of the Magistrates empowered to act herein, but I should not be so anxious as to wish any very extraordinary trouble to be given herein.—I confess however that I am still as anxious as ever that if the Alteration of the form of the Bill prevent my Clauses as to Special Constables from appearing in their original dress, that they should be embodied in the Bill as applying to all Cities and Towns, and that the word exclusive should be struck out of the description of the Towns and Cities having power to put the Act into force; because in the first place it would cause great doubts whether the Clause would embrace this Town of Nottingham in which altho' a County of itself is Magistrates have not an exclusive Jurisdiction, and because I am satisfied on the same ground that it would place Derby, Leicester, and a hundred other places wherever the County Magistrates have a concurrent Jurisdiction entirely under the control of the Magistrates of the County who would decline the burthen unintentionally imposed upon them and defeat the very object of these Clauses.

I shall feel much obliged by your representing my view of this subject to Mr Ryder, and by his aiding Mr. Smith's further exertions for the Alteration of the amended Bill.

The Framebreakers are certainly subsiding until after the Assizes they have been having recourse to turning Informers to procure money, as I suppose to support the defence of their Confederates at the Assizes I certainly augur good from this because I infer that there is, and I am confirmed there is from other quarters a considerable increase of a spirit of discontent and Indisposition to support them on the part of their own partizans.

I am,
Dear Sir
Your's very obediently

Geo Coldham

Nottingham
March 2d, 1812

2nd March 1812: Poem by Lord Byron. “An Ode to the Framers of the Frame Bill.” London and Nottingham

AN ODE

TO THE FRAMERS OF THE FRAME BILL

Oh! well done Lord El—n! and better done R—er!
Britannia must prosper with Counsels like yours;
Hawkesbury, Harrowby, helps you to guide her,
Whose remedy only must kill ere it cures!

Those villains, the Weavers, are all grown refractory,
Asking some succour for charity’s sake;
So hang them in clusters, round each Manufactory,
That will at once put an end to mistake.*

The rascals, perhaps, may betake them to robbing,
The dogs to be sure have got nothing to eat-
So if we can hang them for breaking a bobbin,
’Twill save all the Government’s money and meat.

Men are more easily made than Machinery,
Stockings will fetch higher than lives;
Gibbets on Sherwood will heighten the scenery,
Shewing how Commerce, how Liberty thrives.

Justice is now in pursuit of the wretches,
Grenadiers, Volunteers, Bow-Street Police,
Twenty-two regiments, a score of Jack Ketches,
Three of the Quorum, and two of the Peace.

Some Lords to be sure, would have summon’d the Judges,
To take their opinion, but that they ne’er shall;
For Liverpool such a concession begrudges,
So now they’re condemned by no judges at all.

Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When famine appeals, and when poverty groans;
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames, lead to breaking of bones.

If it should prove so, I trust by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope,)
That the —— of the fools, may be first to be broken,
Who when ask’d for a remedy, sent down a rope.

* Lord L——— on Thursday night said, the Riots at Nottingham arose from a Mistake

This poem was published anonymously in the Morning Chronicle of 2nd March 1812, and also the Nottingham Review of 6th March 1812.

March 1812: Letter “From head Quarters Genaral Lud” to George Rowbottom at Beaverlee

From head Quarters Genaral Lud

George Rowbottom this is to inform you that their is not a man in the town of arnold bulwell Hucknall nor basford that takes work out unless it is full price full fashion and proper price and size and this is to give you Notice that if you bring or give any more work out without it is full fashion full price and proper size you shall work this frame [sketch of a gallows appears here] with a rope around your neck so shall all men that bring work out under price and I desire will let your town and country round you know that they may not do the like so fail not at your peril for this frame works all full price and fashion