Newspaper Transcripts
Some Selected Reports from The Times
31st December, 1830
BERKSHIRE.
READING, THURSDAY, DEC. 30.
(Before Mr. Justice PARK, Mr. Baron BOLLAND, and Mr. Justice PATTESON.
The Court sat at 9 o'clock, and a large number of prisoners were arraigned for breaking thrashing-machines, and various acts of riot and robbery.
Edward Harris, George Arlet, John Nash, John Coventry, George Williams, Joseph Quarterman, William Hawkins, Thomas Brown, Luke Brown, Alexander Barret, Charles Vince, James Hutchens, Stephen Williams, John Cook, James Burgess, Charles Williams, and James Fuller, were placed at the bar, indicted for having, upon the 19th of November, at Aldermaston, made an assault upon Kenrick Hickman, put him in fear, and robbed him of 5s.
Mr. GURNEY stated that there were charges of robbery and breaking machines against every one of the prisoners, some of whom had been already convicted of the latter crime - Actuated by a desire to combine justice with mercy (as far as practicable) in these prosecutions, the Crown officers had selected some of the milder cases, and would not offer any evidence is support of this more serious charge.
Mr. Justice PARK directed the Jury to acquit the prisoners, observing that counsel for the prosecution had acted with great lenity and forbearance.
James Burgess, labourer, aged 21, was placed at the bar, charged with having, together with 100 persons and more, riotously assembled together, and unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously broken a thrashing-machine, the property of William Perrin Brokenbrow, on Thursday, the 18th of November, at Beenham.
Mr. W.P. Brokenbrow, stated that he was a farmer, and had three thrashing-machines on the 18th of November, which were broken by a mob of 150 persons, about 10 or 11 o'clock on the night of that day. Witness deposed particularly the destruction of one of the machines, and stated, that the prisoner Burgess was present on the occasion with a sledge hammer in his hand, but witness did not see him use it breaking the machine.
Luke Middleton, the accomplice, who was examined yesterday, being called,
Mr. SALMON objected to his evidence, on the ground of bad character.
Mr. Justice PARK - That will not do, Mr. Salmon : you may object to the witness on the ground of incompetency, if you can show him insensible to the obligation of an oath, but general bad character can only go to the jury (after the witness has been examined) with a view to impeach his testimony.
Middleton, who had accompanied the mob during the Thursday and Friday, was then examined, and deposed to an intention expressed by the party to break all the threshing machines, and have 5s from each of the owners. Three machines were broken at Mr. Brokenbrow's. Witness stated that Burgess was present, and assisted in breaking the machine laid in the indictment : he used a sledge-hammer for that purpose. Witness was himself apprehended on last Thursday (this day week), and examined before Mr. Mount and another magistrate the following day. The magistrate bound him over to attend as a witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. SALMON - I came forward because the prisoners have said thinks of me which are not true - I come to clear myself. I expect no other advantage from giving evidence.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Henry Hall, a farmer, examined by Mr. SALMON.
Would you believe Luke Middleton on his oath ? - In what case ?
The question was repeated in Court. - I cannot answer that question.
Mr. GURNEY said, if the Court should think is necessary, he was prepared to adduce evidence in support of the credibility of the accomplice.
Mr. Justice PARK thought there was no occasion to do so. The learned Judge summed up the case to the jury, and observed that it appeared in the evidence of Mr. Brokenbrow that the prisoner was present with a sledge-hammer in his hand on the occasion in question. This was sufficient to implicate the prisoner in the transaction, and authorize a conviction. The evidence of Middleton (who both to-day and yesterday had given his testimony in a very proper manner) carried the case further. It was the duty of the Court to say that Middleton's character was quite unimpeached by any thing which had come out in the course of these proceedings. But independently of his testimony, there was evidence to convict the prisoner - Guilty.
John Hutchins was charged with having broken a thrashing machine, the property of William Lailey, at Standford Dingley, on the 18th of November.
A son of the prosecutor described the destruction of the machine (which was effected by the same mob as that mentioned in the preceding case), and deposed to the prisoner having assisted in breaking it.
On his cross-examination by Mr. COOPER, witness stated that the arms of the machine had been removed, previously to its destruction by the mob.
Mr. COOPER submitted, that this not being a perfect machine, the indictment could not be sustained. There were no words in the act for the protection of "parts" of a thrashing-machine.
The COURT delivered their opinions on the point seriatim, and decided that if a machine which had been taken to pieces for the purpose of placing it in safety, and with a view to put it together again, were destroyed, the offence came under the statute.
The prosecutor gave the prisoner a good character. - Guilty.
Stephen Denton and John Hutchins were indicted for breaking a thrashing-machine, the property of Benjamin Mathews, on the 18th of November, at Standford Dingley. The prisoners did not appear above 18 or 19 years of age, and could neither read nor write.
Mr. GURNEY said, both prisoners had been previously convicted of breaking thrashing-machines, and it was right it should be known that a second offence authorized the Court to pronounce a heavier sentence against the parties, who, in addition to the 7 years transportation for the first crime, were liable to an additional term of punishment for the next. In this case, however, on account of the youth of the prisoners, who might have been led on to commit the outrages in question at the instigation and under the influence of others, it was not his intention to offer any evidence.
The Jury, under the direction of the Court, acquitted the prisoners.
Thomas Bunce, William Hamblin, and Thomas Britton, were charged with having destroyed a thrashing-machine belonging to Sarah Larkcom, at Standford Dingley, on the 18th of November.
Bunce and Hamblin are labourers, Britton is a publican.
A son of the prosecutrix deposed to the destruction of the machine by the mob so frequently referred to in these cases, and stated that Bunce and Hamblin were present, and took an active part in breaking it. Witness stated, that the mob having told him it was their intention to break all the thrashing machines in the country, he remarked, "That would not make more money:" to which they replied, "It would make more work; they had started with the determination of breaking the machines, and they would do it."
On his cross-examination by Mr. RIGBY, witness admitted, that seeing the mob approaching, he called out, "Come on, my lads, I've been waiting for you." The mob broke our machine at Standford Dingley. When they had rendered it useless, I said, "Come, now, as you have begun you may as well break it up in a workmanlike manner." I did not tell them to do it manfully. Did not tell them to desist at that time. Had requested them not to break the machines before. They told me they were going to Bucklebury (where we had another machine). I asked them not to damage the mill, but did not tell them to break the machine. They asked me for 5s. I told them I would not pay, - that is, give them anything, - till I got to Bucklebury. I had no money in my pocket at the time. When I got to Bucklebury (about a mile from Standford), whither I went voluntarily, the mob demanded 10s. and I gave them 5s.
There being no evidence against Britton, the Court directed his acquittal.
Prisoners said in their defence, that the prosecutrix's son had invited them to break the machine, - that he said, "Go to work, do your work like men, and when you get to Bucklebury, I will pay you." They also stated that Larkcom desired them to break the thrashing-machine at Bucklebury, but to take care and do no harm to the mill. When the machine was destroyed, Larkcom said, "Break it a little less, it's so large we can't get it into the cart."
Hamblin having received a good character, and evidence being given to show that Bunce was compelled to join the mob.-
Mr. GURNEY said under all the circumstances he should not press for a conviction.
The Jury, to whom Mr. Justice PATTESON had, in summing up, left it to say whether there was any thing in the conduct of the witness Larkcom to countenance the idea that he had authorized the mob to destroy his mother's property, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, in favour of the prisoners.
Charles Gilham, William Hamblin, and James Wait, were indicted for robbing Charles Witherington of half-a-crown, on the 18th of November. Hamblin and Gilham were also charged with robbing the Rev. J.F. Moore, of 5s., on the same day.
Mr. GURNEY said, that these men having been already convicted of breaking thrashing-machines, it was not his intention to offer any evidence upon the more serious charge of robbery.
A verdict of acquittal was accordingly recorded in both cases.
James Grant and Elijah Baker were indicted for breaking a thrashing-machine, the property of Joseph Cundell, on the 23d of November, at Shalborne.
It appeared in evidence, that the prisoners were part of a mob, who came to the prosecutor's house, and broke the machine in question, on the day laid in the indictment. Prisoners assisted in destroying the machine.
In their defence, prisoners said they were pressed to join the mob.
Grant received an excellent character from the prosecutor, who stated that he had a wife and children.
Mr. Justice PARK said that was not a circumstance of mitigation; on the contrary, the prisoner ought to have considered the probably consequences to his family before engaging in acts of lawless outrage. - Guilty.
The prisoners were also charged, under another indictment, with breaking a second machine, belonging to Mr.Cundell, but no evidence being offered in this case a verdict of acquittal was recorded.
Solomon Allin, Charles Horton, John Horton, James Simonds, William Simmonds, and John Wheeler, were charged with having, on the night of the 20th of November, riotously and tumultuously assembled at the house of Martha Davis, in the parish of Waltham St.Lawrence, and broken a thrashing machine, her property.
Mr. GURNEY said, this was an offence of a more aggravated nature than some of the preceding, and, if the Crown has so chosen, the prisoners might have had to answer for a still more serious crime. The learned counsel detailed the particulars of the outrage, as they afterwards appeared in the evidence.
Martha Davis, a very aged an infirm woman, whom the Court allowed to sit while giving her evidence, stated that she had a farm in the parish of Waltham St. Lawrence. On Saturday night, the 20th of November, I was at home. My son's wife, who had been put to-bed two days, a girl, a nurse, and one of my sons, were in the house. I was alarmed by blows with a sledge hammer at the kitchen window. I went up to my bedroom, and looking from the window, saw some men going towards the back door, which they struck with sledge hammers. I came down, and opened the window near the back door. I saw about six men, and asked them what was the matter. They said they were 40 sworn men come out of Kent to drive the country before them. They demanded victuals and drink. I said they should have both. They asked me whether I would rather have my ricks and buildings set on fire about my ears, or my thrashing-machine broken. I told them to break the machine in 500 pieces if they liked, but for God's sake not to burn the staff of life. One of the men had a sledge-hammer in his hand, another a sword or cutlass, which he flourished about. I said I would give them all I had, and gave them victuals and drink out of the window. I begged them not to come into the house, as my son's wife had been lately put to bed. They said they did not want her, but must come in. They broke and splintered the door, and came in. Seeing Solomon Allin there, I remonstrated with him. He was a near neighbour, and has worked for me many a time. I also saw Charles Horton. The men told me they were going to break the thrashing-machine, and asked for a candle and lantern. Shortly afterwards they came back, and said they had broken their sledge hammer; and Solomon Allin asked for a hammer to mend it. I lent them one for that purpose. They returned it, and, when they had as much beer as they wished, went away.
Allin asked witness if he had mentioned anything about fire ?
Witness - I can't say whether it was you or somebody else.
Allin - Did I tell you I defied fire above any thing ?
Witness - I did not hear the words.
Allin.- Did I tell you I had come out of Kent ?
Witness.- I am not sure who talked of coming out of Kent.
Thomas Davis, son of the last witness, identified Allin, C. Horton, and William Simmons, as having been among the party at his mother's house on the night in question. Allin had a fold-stake in his hand. One of the men who had a sledge-hammer put it close to witness's face at the door. Allen said, "We are coming to break your thrashing-machine. You have had notice enough of it." I said, "We had no notice, but hearing of the disturbed state of the country, we had pulled it up ourselves." They said, "they must go and see : they were sworn to it." They all went. One of them pulled a lantern from under his smockfrock, and Allin examined the machine. He said it was not pulled up. I said, "It is all in pieces, we can't work it." To that he replied, it was easily put up again, and called out to the man with the sledge-hammer to come forward. The men said "What is to be done, Solomon, - you're foreman of the gang ?" Allin said "Smash it." The man with the hammer then struck the horsewheel of the machine, and broke the teeth out, in doing which he also broke the handle of the hammer. They said they were going round the country to break all the machines and regulate the county for six months, and set it to rights. They were six in number, but they said they had more ready to join them at the bottom of the wood.
George Lukar works for Farmer Davis; identified the six prisoners as being the persons who were at the prosecutrix's house. Wheeler had a sledge hammer; he was holding it up against the door, but on last witness coming up, held it up against his face. James Simonds had a sword. Witness proceeded to state, at considerable length, the part which each of the prisoners took in the transaction, and proved that all were actively engaged in it.
The prisoners being asked if they wished to put any questions to the witness.
Solomon Allin - Did you see me at the house more than once ?
Witness - Yes
Solomon Allin - That's as false a word as ever was spoken.
Charles Horton - Did you see me with a lantern ?
Witness - Yes, it was under you smock.
Charles Horton - That's false.
This was the case for the prosecution; the prisoners called no witnesses.
Mr. Baron BOLLAND charged the Jury, who, without hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners.
Solomon Allin, Charles Horton, John Horton, and James Simonds, four of the above-named prisoners, were then put on their trial, being indicted for having, on Sunday, the 21st of November, destroyed a thrashing machine, the property of Robert Glasspool.
Mr. GURNEY observed, that these were four of a gang who went about the country adding insult to injury, by telling the persons whose property they destroyed, that they had been sworn in by the magistrates at Reading to break all the thrashing-machines in the county. They said, that by virtue of this oath, they were compelled to do their duty; and that they only charged 5s. for doing it.
The offence was fully proved, and the Jury found the prisoners Guilty.
BURGLARY.
The same four men were then arraigned for having, on the 2.d of November, burglariously broken and entered the house of Joseph Barker, with intent to steal the goods and chattels therein.
Mr. GURNEY, addressing the jury, said, "As these men have been twice convicted of breaking thrashing-machines, I shall abstain from offering any evidence on this charge - which is a capital charge."
The learned Counsel followed the same course with regard to another capital charge against the same prisoners; and the Jury, therefore, acquitted the prisoners.
SENTENCE.
The six prisoners, Solomon Allin, Charles Horton, John Horton, James Simonds, William Simonds, and John Wheeler, were then put to the bar, in order to hear the sentence of the Court.
Mr. Justice PARK, addressing the prisoners by name, told them that they had been convicted on the clearest and most satisfactory evidence of the offence with which they had been charged; and that four of them had been convicted on equally unexceptionable evidence of the same species of offence twice. It appeared that they would all of them, but for the extreme lenity of the Government, have been put upon their trial for an offence, of which, if they had been convicted, their lives would have been forfeited, and he and his learned brothers should have felt it their duty to leave the prisoners for execution. He must say, therefore, that they owed much to the lenity of the Government; and the conduct which had been pursued with regard to them was a sufficient proof that the Government by no means wished to pursue offenders with severe punishments, but merely to take such steps as would preserve peace and good order, and deter lawless men from offending against the property of their neighbours, and the security of civil society. The learned Judge, after dwelling upon the aggravating circumstances of the attack upon the house of Martha Davis in the dead of night, said it was necessary that there should be degrees in the punishment awarded to the offences of the prisoners at the bar. The sentence of the Court upon William Simonds and John Wheeler, who had been convicted but once, was, that they should be transported for seven years. The sentence of the Court upon Solomon Allin, Charles Horton, John Horton, and James Simmonds, was, that for the first offence they should be transported seven years; and that, when that term of seven years was expired, they should, for the second offence, be transported for the farther period of seven years.
MACHINE BREAKING.
David Hawkins and John Janeway were put to the bar, being indicted for having, on the 23d of November, broken a thrashing-machine, the property of Charles Spanswick.
The following evidence was called for the prosecution :-
Charles Spanswick examined.- I am a farmer, living at Lambourn, in this country. Between 3 and 4 o'clock on the Morning of the 23d of November, a mob came to my house, and began laying on the door with weapons. The weapons were bludgeons and a sledge hammer. The mob was about 50 or 60 in number. They made me come out, and then they broke the machine, which was lying outside the barn. Hawkins and Janeway assisted in breaking the machine. Hawkins asked me for two sovereigns, I said, "What do you mean ? I have no sovereigns to spare to you." When I refused, one of the mob said to Hawkins, "D--n him, knock out his brains." Then Hawkins drew up nearer to me, and began to flourish his bludgeon over my head, and swore that he would have two sovereigns. I said, "I cannot afford it, but I will give you one, if you will get along about your business." They said they would have two; that they had had two from the others, and that they would have two from me. I said, "Well, if you will, I suppose you must; come to the house." They accompanied me to the door, and said they would have some beer too. I gave two sovereigns to Hawkins.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The prisoners both declared that Spanswick had invited them to break the machine, and said he was glad they had come to break it.
Mr. Justice PARK charged the jury, who returned a verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners.
Mr. GURNEY said there was an indictment against Janeway for robbery, and that he was willing to take an acquittal on that.
This was accordingly done.
There were several other indictments against Hawkins, but as he had been capitally convicted on the first day, Mr. Gurney said it would be unnecessary to try him upon any of the other charges.
Alfred Darling, Daniel Bates, William Bates, Richard Nutley, John Liddiard, and John Gaiter, were put to the bar, being indicted for having, on the 23d of November, destroyed a thrashing machine, the property of William Widmere Webb [?]
This was another case in which property of this description had been destroyed by a mob, of which mob the prisoners at the bar were charged with being active members. The offence was fully proved by the evidence of precisely the same character with that which had been adduced in the many other similar cases which we have before reported.
The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty, but recommended them to mercy on the ground that they had used no violence.
Mr.GURNEY said he particularly wished to recommend Nutley to mercy, in consequence of the excellent character which he understood the prisoner had borne up to the time of the commission of this offence.
Isaac Burton, Jason Greenaway, Giles Fiddler, James Turton, William Waring, George Alick, and James Deacon, were put to the bar, being indicted for having, on the 23d of November, at Welford, destroyed a threshing-machine, the property of John Hawkins; and for having, on the same day, feloniously assaulted the said John Hawkins, and robbed him of two sovereigns.
The following evidence was called for the prosecution :-
John Hawkins - I live at Welford. On the 23d of November, between 11 and 12 o'clock at night, a mob of 20, armed with sticks, came to my farm in a riotous manner. Benjamin Birch, a constable, was on my premises. They came to my gate, and asked where my thrashing machine was. I remonstrated and reasoned with them. I had had the machine taken down. It was not in my barn, but in an open place near the yard. They saw it, and immediately broke it to pieces. Isaac Burton demanded money of me; so did Greenaway, who used threatening language. I gave them a sovereign.
Benjamin Birch, constable of Welford, corroborated the evidence of the last witness, and identified all the prisoners. After the machine was broken, the mob came up to the gate to Mr. Hawkins, and made a clamour for money.
Cross-examined by Mr. SALMON - Burton prevented the mob going into Mr. Hawkins's house. Burton said they should not go into the house.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Several witnesses were called by Mr. SALMON to speak to the character of the prisoner Isaac Burton, who is a journeyman tailor, and received an excellent character.
Mr. Justice PATTESON charged the jury, and observed, that although the taking on money was included in the indictment, it was not intended to proceed upon that, but merely upon the charge of breaking the machine. It was for them to say whether the prisoners, or any, and which of them, were guilty of breaking the machine. Burton had received an excellent character, but they must recollect that Burton was a tailor, that he could not be interested in thrashing-machines being employed or not employed, and that consequently he appeared to have been a complete volunteer in this business.
The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty.
The prisoners were then arraigned on the charge of robbing Mr. Hawkins of two sovereigns.
Mr. GURNEY said he should offer no evidence.
The prisoners were therefore acquitted on this charge.
John Aldridge and George Whiting were indicted for destroying a thrashing machine belonging to Thomas Winkworth, on the 22d of November, in the parish of Hungerford.
The prisoners were part of a large mob which went to the prosecutor's house on the day laid in the indictment, and destroyed his thrashing machine. Both the prisoners were actively engaged in its destruction.
When called upon for his defence, Aldridge said as he was going to his work he overtook the gang, and was induced to accompany it. Whiting declared he was pressed.
A farmer who had employed Whiting gave him an excellent character - Guilty.