1820, Mar 12
Letter from Lloyd (Stockport) to Hobhouse dated March 12, 1820.
‘Sir I was yesterday at Chester & was shown a letter from a man of the name of Swann in this town to his son who was convicted of sedition and other offences from Macclesfield & which Mr. Hudson the Gaoler withheld from the prisoner and delivered up to me; and from which I extract the inclosed as I have every reason to believe from the character of the man & the information I have received at various times – and some very recently from a pensioner of the 31st Regiment that Swann had knowledge of the London Conspiracy, & of the time the horrid deeds were fixed to be perpetrated – and the letter has allusion to that – It is written only 4 days before the plot is discovered. I shall now have Mr. Swann’s place more closely watched. It will not escape you that the Green flag at Smithfield meetings which I reported – Davison or Davidson (the man of color) being on the hustings bore the following inscription “He has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” – and this belonged to the London Union for on the other side were the following “London Union &
prosperity to it” Having the original letter of Swann would it be prudent to examine him as to what he meant?
I am Sir Your very obedient humble servant J. Lloyd’1
‘Thistlewood Plot discovered 23 Feb
Extract of a letter from Joseph Swann to his son Joseph Swann at Chester Castle dated Stockport 19 Feb 1820.
Patience my Boys and alls well – Fear not – There are many happy days laid up in store which must come shortly – The angel of freedom appears upon the wing and rest she cannot – this you may depend on. Convulsions and fearful signs are all afloat & burst they must with a tremendous crash – Reason & truth will appear with all their virtuous train, bearing down corruption & tyranny before them like a mightly tempest. Enough of this at present – Ponder my words in your heart saith the Lord.”‘1
1. HO 40/11
1820, Apr 5
The grand jury who would be presiding over the trial of Wolseley and Harrison were sworn in before the judges, the Hon. Charles Warren and Mr. Justice Marshall.
‘At a quarter past one o’clock, Mr. Justice Marshall proceeded to read, in a low tone of voice, from a MS. a charge to the Jury, of which the following is the substance:…Some lawless and desperate adventurers, said the Learned Judge, had started forwards from their original obscurity, for the manifest purpose of subverting the admired Constitution of this mighty Empire… But it now appeared, that under the specious pretence of a Reform in Parliament, a sanguinary Revolution was the real object of the majority, who thought to enrich themselves by rapine and plunder. Some, he had observed, were not for such desperate measures, but in order to procure their aid, not by silencing their scruples, but by concealing the real intentions, their leaders appeared to lay stress only upon a Parliamentary Reform- a magical nostrum, which is to cure all our political ailments, real or imaginary!…. At the destruction of this it was now clear the Reformers aimed; but he assured the Jury, that this happy Constitution once gone, was gone for ever, and the freedom enjoyed under it, would be destroyed by military despotism….. The pretence of parliamentary reform had not been found sufficient to bring forward so many desperate characters as the leaders expected, and then they endeavoured to accomplish their object by blasphemous and seditious publications, and speeches delivered on every opportunity by their vagabond orators…… Another part of their plans was to assemble together great numbers of people, under pretence of seeking a redress of grievances. That people should meet for such a purpose he should be the last to deny, for it was according to the law of the land. But they were not to draw together great numbers of dissolute and disorderly persons, to alarm a district and overawe its magistracy…. Accompanying these meetings were military trainings, most audaciously open; and, in short, they had arrived at such a pitch, that no one could calculate upon the security of his person or property for a single hour…. The gallant and high-spirited Gentlemen of the Counties of Chester and Lancaster, as soon as they saw the tendency of the proceedings of the seditious – as soon as they saw the daring insults offered to the Magistrates, fired with indignation, and glowing with patriotism, they flew to arms, and by their manly conduct had conferred an incalculable benefit on the country… The Learned Judge said that the new acts had put an end to the proceedings of the Reformers, at least for a time. Juries had hitherto done their duty, and the country was now tranquil.’1
1. The Morning Chronicle, April 8, 1820.
1820, Apr 8
Trial of Bruce and McInnis for Shooting at Birch, Stockport Constable.
‘Counsel for the Prosecution, Mr. Benyon, Attorney-General of Chester, Mr. Sergeant Cross, and Mr. Manly – Agent, Mr. Lloyd of Stockport. Counsel for the Prisoners, Mr. Jones.’1
Bruce is rather a shabby, but intelligent looking young man, hunch-backed, and somewhat below the middle size. His silver-mounted spectacles were a complete contrast to his threadbare grey frock-coat, but his demeanor altogether evidently exhibited a consciousness of innocence. McInnis is a young and athletic man, with hair inclined to be red, of fair complexion, and altogether what is usually termed a smart made man. His dress was decent, and his behaviour modest… By an Act of the forty-third George III. chap 58, it is enacted, that if any person willfully and unlawfully shoot at or present any loaded weapon, or any species of fire arms, at any of his Majesty’s subjects, or if any one aid or abet such person, in such case the parties when convicted shall suffer death… [When] Birch was able to leave his bed he went to Chester gaol, and on first seeing McInnis, had not the slightest hesitation in identifying him… During the confinement of McInnis he attempted to break out of gaol…
[Mary McDonald, widow, Richard Morrison, weaver and his brother Robert Morrison, weaver committed perjury by stating under examination that they saw McInnis talking to a women when the shot was fired.]
Bruce was here asked if he had any witnesses? – He answered in the negative. He was a total stranger in Stockport. If Mr. Harrison was in court he would speak to his character, since he had known him. Mr. Harrison was called but did not appear…’1
[Later in the trial], ‘Bruce – My Lord, Mr. Harrison is just come into Court, and he will give me a character. Mr. Joseph Harrison said, I know the prisoner, Mr. Bruce; he was some time in my employ; I consider him to be a faithful, honest, industrious, humane man: I am confident he is respected by all who know him.’2
‘The Jury, without leaving the box, conferred for a few minutes together and brought in a verdict of guilty against both the prisoners. Immediately upon this being announced, McInnis, in a loud and rather stern tone, said ‘Bruce is an innocent man, he knows no more of the business than any one of you (their Lordships). It is too hard that an innocent man should suffer death for what he has not done. They have all sworn falsely against him. I am the man that shot at Birch, and Bruce knows nothing of it, nor any other person.’3
1. The Morning Chronicle, April 10, 1820. 2. The Times, April 11, 1820. 3. The Morning Chronicle, April 10, 1820.
1820, Apr 10
Judgement passed on Bruce and McInnis.
Bruce handed a petition to the Judges: ‘I beg, with all humility, to state, that from my infancy I have had so far a knowledge of the religion of my country as always to bear in mind that divine maxim of our blessed and most merciful Redeemer, of “doing unto all men as I would they should do unto me.”…As to my running away, I have no recollection of that circumstance; I may have done so, as did many others. I know not what I did at the moment, I was so struck with horror at the transaction, nor did I know at the time but that some person had fired at myself. It will appear, my Lords, that so conscious was I of my innocence, that I never attempted to leave my lodgings where I was first arrested… When some evil-minded persons were endeavouring to make it appear that it was Mr. Lloyd’s son who had fired the shot, I, from a sense of humanity, in order to forward the ends of justice, and come at the truth, described the person of a man whose name I did not know, and who came up tome where I was, and told me he knew who had fired the shot. For the exact words which passed on the occasion, I beg to refer your Lordships to Mr. Lloyd, who took them down in writing at the time… As to my connexion with Harrison, it was by means of his employing me as assistant in his school in which situation I remained only six weeks; I then got up a school of my own, at the Lancashire side of Stockport… [McInnis said], My Lords, this man (Bruce) is innocent. I never spoke to the man before I shot at Birch. And though I did shoot at him, and I had many reasons for doing so, every man who swore against me swore falsely. Birch swore falsely, Pearson swore falsely. No man living knew a word about it but myself. I shot at him; this man is innocent…
[Mr Justice Warren proceeded to pass sentence:] In this world all hopes of life are closed upon you, and it now only remains for me to discharge my duty by ordering you to be taken to the place from whence you came, from thence to the place of execution, and there to hang by the neck until you are dead, and the Lord have mercy on your souls. McInnis – ‘Thank you, my Lord, it’s a good cure for a spin of the head… On the motion of Mr. Benyon, Pearson, who gave evidence on Saturday against McInnis, was discharged by Proclamation.1
‘Bruce was afterwards respited, and finally received the royal pardon, for it appeared he was not guilty.’2
1. The Morning Chronicle, April 12, 1820. 2. The Newgate Calendar, Vol4, 1828.
1820, Apr 10
Trial of Sir Charles Wolseley and Joseph Harrison.
‘The Court was excessively crowded at an early hour, with the expectation of hearing this trial. Mr. Pearson, of the Oxford Circuit, attended to conduct Sir Charles Wolseley’s defence. Mr. Park, of the Northern Circuit was with him. Mr. Denison, of Liverpool, was his attorney…the case was called about eleven o’clock…Mr Pearson was specially retained for the defence of Sir C. Wolseley, with a fee of 500 guineas.’1
‘The case for the prosecution was ably executed by the Attorney General, Sergeant Cross, Mr. Ashworth, and Mr. Williams.’2
The Judges comprised, ‘the Hon. Charles Warren and Mr. Justice Marshall.’3
Harrison defended himself and said that, ‘not having money to fee a Counsel, I was obliged to defend myself.’4
‘Mr. Lloyd stated the indictment to be against Sir Charles Wolseley, Bart. and Joseph Harrison, schoolmaster, on two grounds. Th first count charged that they had excited to tumult and insurrection, by holding a numerous meeting on the 28th of July, and addressing seditious words to it, calculated to bring the Government into hatred and contempt. The second count charged that they had agreed together to stir up the people to tumult and insurrection, and to excite hatred and contempt against the Government.’5
Two of the key witnesses for the prosecution were arrested for felony a few weeks before. John Johnson, land surveyor and George Bullock. When cross examined Johnson said he was in the New Bailey Prison on a charge of felony. ‘I was discharged by Mr. Phillips, the Magistrate.’ Johnson said, ‘I had no hand in it.’6
“Bullock and Johnson, two of the principal witnesses against Sir Charles Wolseley at Chester, were on Wednesday last taken up, and are actually in the New Bailey, for robbing a poor man of 10s. in copper!’7
The first witness to be sworn was John Kenyon Winterbotton, who was a Stockport attorney who lived at Churchgate. When examined the witness was able to recall in great detail what the defendants had said at the meeting but when cross examined said he ‘had not a good memory.’8
‘Mr. Pearson here read an extract from a newspaper, in order to have the distinctiveness of the witness’s recollection put to the test, by desiring him to repeat it after him, as he had just done that of Harrison… Witness – I cannot repeat it.’9
Redmond Shawcross examined by Mr. J. Lloyd. [son of a clerk at the Police-office]. A soon as I arrived on the field, a man named Collier, from the Police Office, was knocked down by a number of people. They said he was a spy…Sir Charles was not there at the time. I did not notice Mr. Harrison. When Sir Charles arrived I got within 50 yards of the hustings. I then saw Harrison.’10 [This seems to indicate that Wolseley and Harrison were not present when Collier was assaulted.]
‘Harrison then commenced his defence, which altogether consisted of a commentary on the Charge of the Learned Judge (Marshall). Harrison was frequently requested to desist from an imprudent course of defence, by the Counsel near him not withstanding their urgent representations that he was injuring the cause of Sir Charles Wolseley and himself. He preached to nearly 8 o’ clock when he gave in, more we are inclined to believe from the effect of animal exhaustion, than from any desire to serve the cause of the Baronet or himself.’11
When Harrison addressed the jury he spoke nearly for four hours and his speech was broken up into two parts. Firstly he refuted the charge read by Judge Marshall to the jury a few days earlier and secondly he read Jeremy Bentham’s remarks on the indictment.
‘Had I any intention of producing a sanguinary Revolution, I would take the Bar and plead guilty… I wish not for rapine, I wish not for plunder; and however Reform may be called a “Nostrum,” I say that whatever makes knaves honest, and bad men good, must prove a service to the community. Reform would, I know, in a great measure effect these desirable objects… The cheering doctrines of redemption have been my constant theme, and are still the delight of my soul. If it be blasphemy to glory in the truths of the gospel; to be grateful that our divine Saviour came down from Heaven, and took on him the nature of man, for the purpose of securing us a victory over Sin, Hell, and the Grave – then indeed have I been a “Vagabond Orator”- then have I been a blasphemer. Pamphlets containing improper things, have been circulated; but I consider it an Englishman’s right to read every work and think of it as he feels proper… Then we have something of the Cato-street conspiracy, as it is called, I suppose to connect me with those foolish, absurd, rash men, who engaged in such an enterprise. Some gentlemen behind me won’t let me speak. Perhaps there are some men who would accuse me of participating with the men on whom sentence was so solemnly pronounced this morning, but of that I am quite guiltless. Why was sentence pronounced on them this morning, if not in some measure or other to be connected with me by some association of ideas?… The attempt at Birch was an injury to me, an injury to the cause of Reform, and if I saw the man lift the pistol against him, I would have interposed and saved him. Birch behaved to me like a gentleman, like a friend, and I hate the man who could attempt to assassinate him… The Chester Yeomanry “flew to arms,” – civil war gentlemen “flew to arms,” not against the Spanish, not to cut down the French or Germans… So much for the Learned Judge’s speech, as far as refers to one individual. I can’t suppose my dilating on his speech will offend the Learned Judge, for he looked upon me while I was doing so with a very pleasant countenance (loud and continued laughter throughout the court)… Gentlemen of the Jury, I hold in my hand another help, unbought, unasked, unsought, and unexpected, as if that Providence who knew my condition had given me a help when I most needed it. That help is – “A few brief Remarks by Jeremy Bentham” (a laugh), a great lawyer, one of the ablest men in England, perhaps I might say in the World, and I dare say, if their Lordships spoke of him they would say the same.’12
‘After he had gone through several pages , he was persuaded by some gentlemen who stood near him not to proceed further in their perusal; but he observed : I like these remarks; they are free, and I like freedom; I look upon them as a help sent me from Providence… I know there will be a verdict, and I hardly know that it will concern me much whether it be one of Guilty or Not Guilty. I do not despair, my heart knows not despair; and whether the verdict be for me or against me I say, the will of the Lord be done.’13
Toward the end of the trial The Chief Justice Mr. Warren, recapitulated the evidence to the Jury but made some blunders which were pointed out in the Black Dwarf:
‘His first blunder was this:- “From the evidence of Thomas Welsh it appeared that Sir Charles Wolseley put on the cap of liberty!” Mr. Parke appealed against this statement, as Thomas Welsh had not said any such thing. Mr Justice Marshall then read his notes, which did not bear that Sir Charles had put on the cap! This was only a MISTAKE, we suppose!… Secondly, some words of Harrison’s it was said by the Judge, was received with “acclamations.” Harrison objected to this, as the witness had said it was received with “derision!” The argument from the “acclamations” was lost in the “derision,” and the judge was pettish. “it is not right’” said he, “to interrupt me in any summing up, upon such trifling objections!”… Thirdly, on the expression attributed to Harrison, of “a pig or a man being upon the throne,” his justiceship remarked that “no witnesses had been called to contradict these words.” Mr. Parke replied, “I beg pardon, my lord, but witnesses were called, who contradicted these words!” The Chief Justice answered- “that was at a latter part of the trial, and I shall come to that presently!”… Fourthly, the chief Justice said that Sir Charles Wolseley was present when Harrison said “rebellion became almost a duty! and heard it without contradiction!” Sir Charles replied “I did not hear them; and it is in evidence that I was not present!” And his Chief Justiceship “begged pardon for the mistake; and allowed Sir Charles was correct, as he had not arrived at the meeting when the words were uttered.”’14
‘The Jury, on retiring, wished for a copy of the indictment, which was handed to them; and after remaining in consultation for nearly three quarters of an hour, returned with a verdict of GUILTY AGAINST BOTH THE DEFENDANTS. – They were immediately called to give bail for their appearance on the next Term, which was immediately complied with on the part of Sir Charles Wolseley, and Mr. Harrison was allowed to leave the Court in order to procure his, ‘the Attorney General, intimating to him, that he had no doubt of his speedy return.’15
The King’s Bench later sentenced Harrison and Wolseley to 18 months imprisonment.
1. The Leeds Mercury, April 15, 1820. 2. Manchester Mercury, April 18, 1820. 3. The Morning Chronicle, April 8, 1820. 4. Cobbett’s Political Register, April 29, 1820. 5. The Manchester Observer, April 15, 1820. 6. The Morning Chronicle, April 12, 1820. 7. The Times, April 10, 1820. 8. The Manchester Observer, April 15, 1820. 9. Cobbett’s Political Register, April 29, 1820. 10. The Morning Chronicle, April 12, 1820. 11. Manchester Mercury, April 18, 1820. 12. The Morning Chronicle, April 12, 1820. 13. Cobbett’s Political Register, April 29, 1820. 14. The Black Dwarf, April 19, 1820. 15. Cobbett’s Political Register, April 29, 1820.
1820, Apr 10
Letter from Lloyd (Chester) to Hobhouse dated April 10, 1820.
‘Sir Rex v Sir Charles Wolseley & Harrison.
We have gone through our case very well without examining all the witnesses – Mr. Pearson the counsel for Sir Charles, under special retainer, made a luminous reply – Harrison followed, commenting upon Judge Marshall’s charge – & reading a pamphlet of Jeremy Bentham upon the subject of the identical indictments. He kept the court at this 2 hours – Mr. Pearson then called a reporter, now for the West York paper & afterwards Wardle’s reporter – I was prepared with a paper & we made him prove up to all that our witnesses had asserted – The Judge has adjourned the Court till 9 in the morning – The Attorney General Benyon, will be better enabled to reply & recapitulate & the Judge to
sum-up – I will not presume to say further at present. McInnis & Bruce were this morning both condemned in a very crowded Court – The former thanked the Judge for the sentence & said it was a very good cure for the head ache – I think I observed to you before that he is an athiest – I have most happy now to say that the light of Heaven has shone upon his mind, & he now is absorbed in penitence & prayer confessing his sins & bewailing the
mischief he has done in society.
Your very faithful servant J. Lloyd.’1
1. HO 40/12.
1820, Apr 11
Letter from Lloyd (Chester) to Hobhouse dated April 11, 1820.
‘Sir About one o’clock today a general verdict of guilty was delivered in by the jury against Sir Charles Wolseley and Harrison and bail has since been given for their appearance at the King’s Bench to receive judgement – Sir Thomas Clifford of Tixall Hall Staffordshire & Vincent Eyre Esq. of Chesterfield Derbyshire for Sir Charles – Stanley Hamilton of Edgeley within Cheadle Bulkeley near Stockport weaver (where McInnis lodges) and James Pollitt of Stockport reed-maker (Reformers of course!) for Harrison – The verdict has given very great satisfaction. You will see that the Jury retired for an hour – but it was not any doubt that kept them together so long – The Attorney General replied admirably. The Judge summed up most decidedly for a conviction – & I do not know how he could have done otherwise.
I have the honor to be your very obedient humble servant
J. Lloyd’1
1. HO 40/12.
[Note: See James Pollitt’s letter in the Manchester Observer of May 15, 1819.]
1820, Apr 13
‘On the opening of the Court this morning Mr Jones, council for McInnis, stated that he held in his hand a certificate from a Magistrate in the County of Down, Ireland; and also a communication from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stating that Ross, the constable, who gave evidence on the trial, was the man who apprehended McInnis; he now applied to the Court for their order, to enable Ross to receive the reward offered for the person who should apprehend McInnis. The Court were of opinion that they had nothing to do with the reward. The certificate should be laid before Lord Sidmouth, who would award the money as he thought proper. Mr Lloyd, the agent for the prosecution, suggested that Lord Sidmouth would perhaps feel it necessary to give a part of the reward to some other of the individuals who had been instrumental in arresting the party. Mr. Jones said, the words of the proclamation were, that the reward should be given to the person who apprehended McInnis. Mr. Lloyd begged to observe, that the reward was offered to those who apprehended McInnis, or caused him to be apprehended. Their Lordships finally decided, that they had no right to interfere with the distribution of the money. The certificates should be laid before the Secretary of State for the Home Department.’1
1. The Manchester Observer, April 22, 1820.
Biographies of McInnis and Bruce.
‘Jacob McInnis – Tomorrow will close the life of this offender. He is to be executed between [illegible] in front of the House of Correction, in the city. From the hardihood which characterised his conduct on his trial, and when the judgement of the court was pronounced, we had little expectation of hearing, that pentinence would have softened the obduracy of his heart: but it is so, and we record it with infinite pleasure. The same bold
demeanor supported him throughout the greater part of Monday, which he evinced on his trial; but in the evening of that day, a change sudden and satisfactory took place; he was found by Mr. Hudson lying on the floor of his cell, in a paroxysm of extreme mental
agony, calling out for mercy, and imploring the forgiveness of the Almightly. With some difficulty he was soothed, and a gentleman was sent for, who administered to him much ghostly comfort. He has made a full disclosure of the circumstances connected with the
crime which he is about to expiate with his life; and is, we are told, employed in writing out a memoir of his life. Little is known at present of McInnis’s connexions. Some years ago, we understand, he was a class leader of the Methodist connexion, which he soon
quitted. His father lived at Warren’s town, near Lurgen in the county of Down, near Armagh, and was formerly in the Downshire Militia. About three years ago, Jacob and
his brother James, arrived in Stockport, from Ireland. Since his confinment in the Castle, he has behaved himself tolerably well. In January last, he made an attempt to escape from the Castle, during the night. There were fearful odds against the success of the
enterprize. It appears he had secreted himself in the ash hole, in the yard, and had previously provided himself with several yards of twisted whip-cord. He contrived to get on the roof, and was attempting to gain the outer wall with the assistance of the cord, when it gave way, and he was precipitated from the height of above twenty feet to the yard beneath. He was taken up, much injured, but soon recovered. It is said he has expressed a wish to see Birch.
Bruce says he is a native of London, and was brought up by an uncle there, who sent him at an early period of his life to Ireland. Some years ago, he was in Dublin, and obtained his own education by instructing others in a school. He shortly
after embarked for Liverpool, went direct to Manchester, and from thence to Stockport, where, as is noticed in another place, he was recommended to Mr. Harrison, and
got employment in his school.’
‘Birch has had an interview with McInnis – it was of the most gratifying and concilitory description: We understand that the latter declared, it was his determination to have destroyed Mr. Lloyd rather than Birch – but fate ordered it otherways. – Mr. Lloyd, our
readers generally well know, is a solicitor in Stockport, and clerk to the Magistrates – the gentleman to whom the county and the Kingdom are under so many obligations for his promptitude in suppressing disturbances, and bringing to punishment public delinquents.’1
1. Chester, Cheshire and North Wales Advertiser April
14, 1820.
1820, Apr 15
Execution of Jacob McInnis.
‘About three years since he arrived at Stockport, from Ireland, and followed his original calling as a weaver. His restless disposition, however, soon led him to join one of the Radical societies formed in the vicinity of Stockport. He attended the sermons of Harrison, and speedily became an active reformer… This morning he resumed his memoir, and completed it about 11 in the forenoon. He was very anxious that the thing should be published. About half past 11 he was conducted to the cell of Bruce. The interview was short and affecting; they shook hands at parting, and McInnis repeated his declaration that Bruce was innocent… He then remained for some minutes in the yard of the prison, in which several of the Radicals of Stockport are confined; they shook hands with him, but with great indifference. Baguley, one of the reform orators, was then introduced. “Farewell,” and “good bye,” were the only words that passed. McInnis then signed a declaration, that neither Pearson, Bruce, nor his brother, James McInnis, were accessories to his attempt upon the life of Birch, and declared that he was ready. A few minutes before 12 o’clock the Bailiffs of the City Sheriffs demanded the body of the offender; and under an escort of the 71st Regiment, he was conducted to Glover’s-stone, where he sprang into the cart, and with the same escort was conveyed to the city gaol. During the whole of the distance, his eyes were steadily fixed upon a New Testament, which was put into his hands by Mr. Keeling… He then remained about three quarters of an hour in the chapel of the prison, where he prayed with Mr. Keeling and the Ordinary, and at about 10 minutes past one he was brought on the drop. The executioner then affixed the rope to the beam, and again joined in prayer…His eyes wandered with a look of indifference over the multitude below. On being tied up, he expressed his intention of making a spring when the drop fell, but was advised not to do so…He said “Good-bye, gentlemen! Farewell, farewell, my friends! Farewell!” The cap was then drawn over his face, and he immediately gave the signal by throwing down a handkerchief. The platform sunk, and in less than two minutes he was no more.’1
‘In Mr. Keeling’s intercourse with McInnis, he greatly deplored the influence of infidel principles upon his conduct. He said, that he never connected himself with the Radicals; that he thought too meanly of their spirit; but he had deeply drank of the essence of disaffection, and was prepared to go any lengths in resistance to Government. In adverting to the attempt he had made to escape out of the Castle, in January last, he said, that if he had effected his purpose, it was probable many lives would be lost; that his first intention was to assassinate Mr. Lloyd, of Stockport, and then Birch; and he declared the pistol actually fired at the latter, was loaded with an intent to kill the former; that he had been looking about for Mr. Lloyd that evening, but could not find him, and afterwards meeting with Birch, he directed his vengeance against him, whom he knew to be an active agent in the suppression of rebellion… McInnis was said to be on the point of marriage with a young woman of Stockport, when he committed the crime.’2
1. The Times, April 17, 1820. 2. Manchester Mercury, April 25, 1820.
1820, Apr 15
Letter from Lloyd (Chester) to Hobhouse dated April 15,
1820.
‘Sir McInnis was executed to-day and behaved himself in the most penitent & proper manner – He signed a paper in the prescence of Mr. Armistead which will be published –
by which it would seem that no one was privy to his intention of shooting – I trust the Judges will see that Bruce was guilty of a misprision and not let him out into society – The morning paper, will contain some account of the execution – The body is in the Castle at
present and I hope the Radicals who are now asking to take it to Stockport may not succeed for it would not be right to have any parade at Stockport which may excite
sympathy or vengeance – McInnis fully confesses & has left his own memoir to be published – I belive there is nothing particularly political – But the publication may do
some good –
Your very respectable faithful & obedient
Servant J. Lloyd.’1
1. HO 40/12
1820, Apr 15
Joseph Harrison returned to Stockport, where he preached with his cousin to raise money needed for his trial.
‘…Last Sunday [April 15] Cousin went to preach for Brother [Joseph], as he was not expected home that day. He however arrived, having obtained leave to be absent, till Monday noon , so that Cousin had the privilege of an interview with him. The people flock in crowds to see him and express their joy at his arrival. Cousin preached in the afternoon to a crowded audience, and Brother at night, when the room and the adjacent yard, were filled beyond measure. The windows were opened and forms placed in the yard, so that the people were enabled to hear. Cousin declared he never witnessed such an affecting scene in all his life. Bro. read the 7th. chap. of Micah, out of which he took his text “rejoice not against me Oh mine enemy, for tho’ I fall I shall arise.” I believe he preached a very excellent sermon, I then proceeded to give them some acc[oun]t of the Chester proceedings and to explain to them the reason of his coming over, which was want of money. It is obvious enough that his enemies wish to do him all the injury they could. His own trials were put off to the very last, no doubt that he might be straitened in supporting his witnesses if delayed so long at Chester. His people however were willing to exert themselves to the utmost of their ability in that line, and in a very short time raised to the am[oun]t of 20 (pounds)…’1
[The cousin mentioned is most likely Joseph’s cousin – John Harrison, a preacher, and son of James Harrison of Skipton.]
Below is a brief sketch of cousin John’s life:’John Harrison was born in 1774 at the New House, Skipton…which was a large house divided into small tenements and let off to several poor families…[John Harrison] was, while very young, visited with the fearful malady…the small pox…He was blind for some days, if not weeks, and when at length he began to recover, there was separated from his face one large mask of scabs. He was, through life, slightly marked with the disease. He had a natural leaning to books and writing from a little child…John attended a dame’s school for a very brief time and then, as one of the eldest of a growing family, he began work at the spinning wheel…the little boy of about eight years of age [was] promoted to the cotton mill…When he was fifteen years old he left the cotton mill and became a handloom weaver. He had saved a considerable sum of money, and with a part of it he bought himself a loom and commenced calico weaving…His transfer from the mill to the loom gave him some leisure to devote to his education at an evening school. Here he learned to write a fair hand, acquired a good knowledge of arithmetic and of double-entry book-keeping…about 1803 he entered the service of John and William Birkbeck and Co., worsted spinners…He remained with the firm…until his retirement forty years later…Before his marriage, John Harrison had begun to preach…For many years in the early part of his Christian career, he preached frequently…’2
1. Letter from John Harrison, Manchester (Joseph Harrison’s younger brother) to his father Joseph Harrison, Allerton near Bradford, Yorkshire, April 21, 1820. 2. Transaction of the Congregational Historical Society, Vol 20, G. Robinson, 1970.
1820, Apr 16
Joseph Harrison missed the coach heading back to Chester for the Assizes. They suspect foul play as the court had ordered him to be back by Monday noon.
‘…Early on Monday morn he [Joseph] retired by way of Ellaw [Elland?] on acc[oun]t. of having previously paid his fare in the coach to Chester however when they arrived it had gone ¼ hour on some unknown and rather mysterious acc[oun]t. It had gone off 20 minutes before the usual time that morning. As brother had not time to lose, they immediately hired a chaise and drove off with all possible speed, till they overtook the coach, which had reached Buckley Hills [Bucklow Hill?] in Cheshire. Cousin went with him so far, being desirous of seeing him in a fair way for reaching Chester by the time appointed [Monday noon]…’1
1. Letter from John Harrison, Manchester (Joseph Harrison’s younger brother) to his father Joseph Harrison, Allerton near Bradford, Yorkshire, April 21, 1820.
1820, Apr 18
Trial of Joseph Harrison for uttering seditious words in a sermon on 15th August, 1819. Found guilty.
The first witness for the prosecution was Matthew Cowper, public accountant at Manchester who had been sent by the Magistrates of Manchester; he had also been a witness at Hunt’s trial in York. He arrived around 6 o’clock in the afternoon. Harrison’s sermon had already commenced and continued for about three quarters of an hour. Harrison was in the pulpit nearly facing the door. Cowper was unable to take notes as the room was crowded, about 1000 persons had attended, and from the heat he saw one female faint. He took notes of what he heard about 15 minutes later at the Warren Bulkeley Arms.
Heard Harrison call upon his hearers to ‘abstain from the use of tea, spirits, tobacco, and other excisable articles; that was the only sure way of causing the Reform which they sought for; The Government have starved the people, and therefore it is fit the people should starve the Government…’ he said, ‘the word righteous applied as well to the rich as to the poor – to see governors as well as to the governed; he then proceeded to state the Constitution of the Country consisted of King, Lords, and Commons; he added it was necessary for all estates to make laws, which could not be altered but by the same consent; that the Commons House was the House of Assembly of the People, where their rights aught to be protected. When the People asked for their rights, they threatened to make war upon them (the people). Can, he added, laws proceeding from such a source be considered the laws of the land, or is it fit he should obey them?’
The other witnesses were William Shaw and George Henning, both labourers and dischargd soldiers, they had been employed by the magistrates to attend the Windmill room and went together.
Harrison’s speech included: ‘…If it be no longer safe, Gentlemen, to preach the Gospel with such comments upon it as its text requires, why then I say the good old days of England are gone; aye, Gentlemen, are fled for ever; and as long as people can be found who go about picking up what a preacher says for a fortnight’s good living at the Assizes, or bringing a little money to their families, no man can give his sentiments with security in his own house, or in his pulpit. My late verdict, Gentlemen, may prejudice me a somewhat in your minds; but still I cannot blame the Attorney General, who only performed the duty imposed upon him by his employers. He did his work well, Gentlemen, nor can I blame the Learned Judge who went hard against us, but he has been obliged to serve his employers.’
Chief Justice Warren: ‘I may be liable to err, but what I have said I felt. I have no employers; I shall give you every latitude in your defence, but I beg of you to keep that within the bounds of decency and moderation. The motives of a Judge must not thus be falsely stated. Whatever I may have said, I said because I felt it.’
Harrison: ‘I’ll take the hint, my Lord, and what I said, I did say, as well as your Lordship, because I thought it..’
Harrison then took up the Bible and read a number of extracts, on which he observed, that it would be impossible to comment without giving offence to those who abused the power of the state.
He continued: ‘I acknowledge that Ministers of the Gospel ought not to engage in angry politics; but I ask, Gentlemen, if you please, what is meant by the words “angry politics?” I have been always against them; I never recommended any rash or illegal acts in politics; my public career, as a Reformer, was, indeed, by wishing, first, to prevent the spread of infidelity. It grieved me to the very heart, though I had long been at the side of liberty, to find these principles widely spread amongst the Reformers. I must tell you, Gentlemen, my father is a Whig, a minister of the Gospel, and from the Whigs I learnt my politics. I have, Gentlemen, a volume written by the Rev. Robert Hall in favour of general liberty; but as there is another indictment against me, I shall reserve this for the other occasion. When I came to Stockport I determined to lift up my feeble voice in defence of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; and let who would dispute angrily with me, I made many enemies in proving the truth of that Gospel, which its gainsayers could not deny. Another object in my view was, by any influence I could exert (though poor myself), to do all I could for the relief of the people; but, as Moore’s Almanac for this year says, “A man’s charity is now made his crime.” In my disposition to do good I am generally styled the notorious Harrison. I further, Gentlemen, became a Reformer to induce our Rulers to redress our grievances, and put things on a better foundation than they were; I thought if we had a Reform that this would follow. On this ground, and for these motives, I have acted as I have done; and I am willing to stand or fall by these motives… These witnesses, Gentlemen, are peace-officers, employed in the Police at Manchester, who had different employers to serve and ends to gain; and Gentlemen, when you look to what they said, I have no doubt you will consider the defendant as a grossly injured individual. The meeting was stated to be advertised, but where is it? Why, Gentlemen, all I preached was a usual lecture on Sabbath-day evenings. The people repaired to church quietly, and returned so – their hearts full of rejoicings to the Almighty. Gentlemen, in the eighth count I am most grievously charged, and if guilty of that , I deserved to be punished, that I must disprove – it charges me with exciting several persons to take arms to overawe the two Houses of Parliament, and make insurrection in the realm. Why, if this were true, I deserve indicting, and to be found guilty. But I am confident that you will not be able to find me guilty on any one count in the indictment. Great stress is laid upon the day, the 16th of August, for which Mr. Hunt and others were indicted, as if there had been some design in my preaching to train, drill and fit the people who heard me for some extraordinary transaction at Manchester. With that I am wholly unconnected; I never designed to go there. But on the day they met, I intended to go there, but arrived after it was dispersed by the sabres of the cavalry; I would have taken no part in that meeting, because I had determined never to go to any public meeting without an invitation… All who know me, know I am the reverse of what is alleged against me. But Gentlemen, I would not have you take this merely on my saying, and I trust the Court will have no objection in letting me bring forward an evidence or two in my favour as to these points.’
Harrison’s first witness was Stanley Hamilton, weaver. Possibly not the best choice of witness as he was the employer of Jacob McInnis who had lodged with him for the past 8 years, and the prosecution was quick to make this point. The other witesses were John Burgess, Robert Jump and Robert Wilkinson. They all said that they had heard nothing disrespectful spoken of the Government in Harrison’s discourse. They said that the service commenced with singing and prayer and was not so fully attended as usual, about 500 persons present. Harrison was trying to emphasize the fact that it was a typical Sunday service.
The Chief Justice summed up the case to the Jury. He stated that, ‘all that can be taken from the witnesses is, that they did not hear him say the words. As to whether the words were seditious or not, it would be a waste of time to speak on the subject.’
The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a Verdict of Guilty.1
1. The Morning Chronicle, April 20, 1820; The Times, April 20, 1820; The Manchester Observer, April 22, 1820; Freeman’s Journal, April 25, 1820.
1820, Apr 18
Trial of Joseph Harrison for uttering seditious words at a sermon on 5th December, 1819.
‘The Attorney General, said, this was an indictment for misdemeanor against the defendant, on which he had the opportunity of challenging any of the Jury if he pleased.
Mr. Harrison – I shall certainly challenge the whole Jury, my Lord. The Chief Justice – If you do you must assign a reason for it. Mr. Harrison – My Lord, they have found me guilty on one indictment, which I thought they could not do, and I think that is a sufficient reason why they should not try me again. The Chief Justice – That is not a legal reason, Sir. Mr. Justice Marshall – No, no, that is not a legal reason. The Attorney General – My Lord, we will get a fresh Jury if the defendant wishes; I have no objection. The Chief Justice – Well do so. You act very fairly; only I wish it to be understood that the defendant cannot have it as a matter of right, unless he assigns a legal objection to the present Jury.
Another Jury was then called.
Mr. Harrison – My Lord, I understand that some of the last Jury are called again. Mr. Justice Marshall – That is not a matter. Mr. Harrison – My Lord, I shall not say a word in my defence, unless I have a new Jury; the Attorney-General may take what course he pleases. The Chief Justice – You will take what course you please, Mr. Harrison, in your defence. Mr. Harrison – I have not a list of the Jury, my Lord. The Prothonotary – You shall have one, if you wish it. Mr. Harrison – Burn says, that a Juryman having served on one trial is a sufficient reason against his sitting on a second against the same person. The Chief Justice – No, no; you will not find it any where for a misdemeanor. The Attorney General – My Lord, wishing to have every thing fairly done, I hastily told Mr. Harrison that I would get a new Jury. Not wishing to retract this promise, I shall, if your Lordships do not feel it necessary to press the trial, put it off to the next Assizes. The Court – We cannot express an opinion on the subject. It is for the parties to agree upon it. The Attorney General – Then, My Lord, I shall give Mr. Harrison his choice, if he wishes it. Mr. Justice Marshall – I think, Mr Attorney-General, you had better bring the case on now, and put an end to it .
Some delay occurred in endeavouring to procure a new Jury. Mr. Justice Marshall said, that in future it would be necessary to impose fines upon those who did not answer when called upon…
A Jury having been impannelled, Mr. Harrison said he objected to George Edwards.
The Court – What is your objection? Mr. Harrison – I challenge peremptorily, my Lord. The Court – That will not do. You might do so on a trial for treason or felony, but not for
misdemeanor.
Edwards was sent off, and another Juryman sworn in his place. Mr. Manly opened the proceedings. He stated this to be an indictment against the defendant for using the following words seditiously, and with a view to bring the Government into contempt:- “Kings, Princes, Dukes, Lords, Commons, Parliaments, Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, Rectors, High Constables, Sheriffs, Deputy Constables, and Bailiffs, are all corrupt, and the time is near at hand when they will be upset. The people should rise en-masse to suppress such a tyrannical Government as the one of this country; and it will not be long, but very soon, that it shall be overturned, and many a bloody battle be fought, and many a one incarcerated in prison before it shall be accomplished.”…
[The first witness for the prosecution was Mr. John Robinson, who said he went to the Windmill Rooms on the 5th September, in consequence of having seen an advertisement of the meeting.]
Mr. Manley – What are you, Mr. Robinson? Witness – I am a man, I suppose.
The Court directed witness to answer with more propriety…
[Harrison objected to Robinson reading his notes.]
Mr. Harrison – I object to his reading his notes; he may look at them. Judge Marshall – Why do you object? Mr. Harrison – Because it is contrary to law. Mr. Marshall – Pray where do you find the law against it? Mr. Harrison – My Lord, you know it.
[Witness continued to read from his notes.]
Mr. Harrison – My Lord, it appears that the witness is intoxicated. It is calculated to bring this Court into contempt; you ought to look at it. Mr. Marshall – (to witness) – Go on, Sir…
The Court – Mr. Harrison, do you wish to ask any questions of the witness? Mr. Harrison – As your Lordships have thought it proper to examine him, I shall do so. Mr. Harrison:- Do you ever read your Bible? Witness – Yes, and so do you, I suppose. Judge Marshall – (to witness) – Do you know that you are on your oath? If you do, you must not joke. Witness – I have read the Ten Commandments. The 9th is, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” I have had the command of the barracks some time. I was in the employ of Mr. Harding. Mr. Harrison – How long were you in that employ? Witness – What is that to you? Judge Marshall – You must answer the questions put to you. You are conducting yourself in a manner not creditable to you. Witness – I lived in Mr. Harding’s employ 12 months. Mr. Harrison – What were you? Book-keeper? Witness – I don’t know how to answer you; that is a very blackguard question. Judge Marshall – Answer, Sir, or I shall commit you. Witness – There never was a deficiency of 400l. in my accounts; my brother did not compound for me. Mr. Harrison – Were you not in danger of being transported under the Embezzlement Act?
The Court stopped the answer to this question.
The second witness for the prosecution was James Whalley. He went to the Windmill Rooms with Robinson, they did not enter but stayed at the door. Said that Robinson did not appear to be intoxicated that evening. Said he was generally a sober man but liked a drop sometimes. Was formerly employed in carrying out political publications.
Heard H. Smith say to Harrison, ‘Mr. Robinson is at the door’ and Harrison replied, ‘If Robinson is at the door let him come in.’ H. Smith said, ‘Mr. Robinson, will you walk in?’ He declined going in as silver would be expected at the door. Smith went back.
Mr Harrison rose and said:’Here I stand before you on another indictment for preaching. I have reason to believe that there are some things uttered in my preaching that will not please some people. I think differently from many. But I never published my sentiments, and I think that as a free-born Englishman I have a right to think as I please. This sermon was preached to procure a subscription for a Sunday School, as I always wish to do all I can in charity to my fellow creatures. I was asked to preach this sermon. It was publicly placarded that the sermon was to be preached in aid of this school, in which 600 children are educated. I do not know the merits of the school, as my Sundays are occupied in preaching. I am not here to deny my preaching; if I do wrong it is for you to find me guilty. If I think I am right it is for me to justify myself if I can. I took my text on that occasion from Matthew vii. 12- “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” The connexion of our text with the foregoing verse intimates, that the more goodness we expect from God, the more kind and disinterested we should be to our neighbour. A firm persuasion that our heavenly Father will give us all the good we need in answer to prayer, will certainly excite our endeavours to promote the happiness of others. The text goes upon the principle of self-denial- appeals to the principle of self-love- applies it to our neighbour- and insists upon it as the motive to influence all our actions- and is similar to, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;” and is the demonstration of that text in action. If the principle of our text were acted upon, what a destruction it would be to the trade of some kinds… I observed that this doctrine had been preached 600 years ago; by Enoch before, and by the Prophets after the Flood; by the Apostles of Jesus in the Roman Empire; and ever since by all the true Ministers of Christ. Alas! What corruption- what wickedness has taken place, notwithstanding this divine maxim. I had no doubt but large salaries would be paid to Ministers for teaching their flocks; that Judges, Counsellors, and Attorneys would be employed for a long time before this principle would be acted upon. That military would be kept up; that many bloody battles would be fought; many persons incarcerated; many blockheads crowned, and many crowned heads cut off before this principle was acted upon. I preached this, Gentlemen, and you will, I suppose, convict me; but I call not only earth but heaven to witness, that I am incapable of uttering the language so foully and so calumniously imputed to me by that witness you have seen, and who, you must know is unfit to give evidence in my case. I am a preacher of the Gospel, but am I to compose all my sermons of texts of scripture? Did any one ever hear such a sermon? Look to the preachers of the Established Church – do not they introduce politics? You perhaps, have heard many loyal sermons – you have heard political doctrines freely urged, and loyalty to the Crown recommended; then, if introducing politics into religious discources be criminal in me, it is so in them also. As a preacher, it is natural that I should wish to see the days of millennium arrive. I would say, I will say, with the Apostle John, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly.” It is for you to say, Gentlemen, whether we have or have not a right as public speakers, a right to speak our sentiments. If we have a right, are you as Jurymen to deprive your fellow creatures of their rights? You are not to be guided by the speech of an Attorney-General, or the charge of an Honourable Judge. You are to judge for yourselves, and in that judgement you are to be guided, not by interest, but by principle. You are judging a case between your king and the defendant – between religion and the defendant, and you are to say whether that defendant was entitled to speak as he tells you he has done. I find it in a book in my hand, that Solon, the Legislator of Athens, enacted a law, making it a capital offence for any man to stand neuter, when party ran high in the State. The writer says, he admires the principles on which this law was enacted. He says that when party ran high, it was the duty of every man to act with firmness and consistency. For my part, whether in prison or out of prison, I shall always advocate the cause of Reform. No matter whether it please or displease men in robes or in high authority.’
Harrison then called his witnesses.
Grace Hamilton. Did not see Robinson or Whalley in the Room.
Mary Booth. Widow, employed as a spinner, taught in Sunday School, teaches letters and the marking. Lives at Sandy Brow in father’s house. Went to Room on occasion of sermon being in aid of children whom she taught.
Prosecution remarked that she had repeated with great fluency a considerable part of Harrison’s sermon. Asked if she could recollect other sermons. She answered ‘Yes, of a dozen’. She entered with great ease and perspicuity into a sermon she had heard Defendant preach on Atheism and Infidelity, till at length the wits of the Learned Counsel to attain her evidence having been fruitlessly drained to the dregs, she was permitted to retire. Her whole deportment formed a striking contrast to that of the witness Robinson on the other side, and seemed to excite a considerable degree of interest throughout the Court.
Samuel Ashton, shoemaker. Was at the Windmill Room, service began with singing and prayer. Nothing said that would excite tumult or insurrection.
When his Lordship came to the evidence for the defendant , it being nearly dark, he said that there would be no occasion to bring candles to read it over to the Jury, as he believed he could recollect all that was material, without the assistance of his notes. His Lordship was proceeding to touch slightly upon it, when a man came with candles, which his Lordship hastily ordered to be taken away, as they were not wanted.
The Jury returned in a few minutes, a verdict of Guilty. For the second indictment 12 months in the Common Gaol, for the third indictment 12 months commencing from the expiration of the first term. At the termination of his term he should find two sureties for his good behaviour for two years, in 100l. each, and himself in 200, and be further imprisoned till such security be found. For the indictment, on which he and Sir Charles Wolseley were convicted, he will receive judgment in the Court of King’s Bench, next term.
Harrison bowed on the sentence being passed and immediately got over the pannel into the Bar, when he was received into the custody of Mr. Hudson, the Constable of the Castle.
1. The Morning Chronicle, April 20, 1820; The Manchester Observer, April 22, 1820; The Times, April 21, 1820.
1820, Apr
The Court of King’s Bench, on Monday, passed sentence on Sir Charles Wolseley and Parson Harrison. Harrison 18 months in Chester Castle, and to find security, for five years, himself in £200, and two sureties in £100 each.1
1. Glasgow Herald, May 19, 1820; The Newcastle Courant, May 20, 1820.
1820, Apr 18
Letter from John Lloyd to Henry Hobhouse, Under Secretary of State, saying they have tried and sentenced Joseph Harrison.
‘Sir, we have tried Harrison today upon both indictments and convicted him and the court has sentenced him to one years imprisonment upon each and to find sureties, two persons in £100 each, himself to enter into a recognizance in £200 for his good behaviour for two years further.
He is now in the Castle which is a great mortification to Mr. Dennison the attorney of Sir
Chas. and the radicals here who had intended to move the ? of Kings Bench for a new trial and Harrison had engaged to be at London for that purpose on Friday next. There will be no time to get a Habeas Corpus and the bail he got for his appearance may be forfeited. I shall decline any promise of favour.
I have the honour to be your very humble and obedient servant J Lloyd.’1
1. P.R.O ?
1820, Apr 20
William Cobbett comments on Harrison’s sentence.
‘There is not room this week to say more on the subject of the late sentences than that Mr. HARRISON is imprisoned for three years and a half…What a pity it is that the National Debt cannot be paid off as easily as these sentences can be passed!’1
1. Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, May 20, 1820.
1820, Apr 21
John Harrison (Joseph Harrison’s younger brother) informed his father that Joseph had been found guilty.
‘This morning we rec[eived]d. intelligence that his trials were decided, and that he was found guilty of both indictments. He is to be imprisoned in Chester Castle 2 years, for each indictment 1 yr. I know dear Father your tender heart will bleed when you hear of your son being confined in a cell of a prison stripped of his own clothes, deprived of every earthly comfort, and clad in Felon’s attire. Yet, grieve not too much for the afflictions of Joseph. Will not the judge of all the earth do right? I have no doubt but Joseph’s conscious innocence, and the consolations of the divine presence will enable him to bear these heavy trials with fortitude…’1
1. Letter from John Harrison, Manchester (Joseph Harrison’s younger half brother) to his father Joseph Harrison, Allerton near Bradford, Yorkshire, April 21, 1820.
(Letter supplied by John Rogan of Devizes, Wiltshire who possesses a copy of the remaining letters of John Harrison. These were originally transcribed by Derek Jowett, a descendant of John Harrison.)
1820, May 1
Thistlewood and the other Cato Street consirators were executed and decapitated.
‘Thistlewood, Tidd, Ings, Brunt, and Davidson, ascended the scaffold, and suffered the dreadful sentence of the law. After hanging half an hour, they were cut down and decapitated; but the remaining part of the sentence being remitted [drawn and quartered], their bodies were buried near a subterraneous passage leading to the cells in Newgate, the coffins having been previously filled with lime.’1
1. Imperial Magazine, June 1820.
Execution of Cato Street Conspirators
Parson Harrison - Peterloo Reformer 