Part 2: Policing from the Middle Ages to 1856
Part 3: Growing Rural Unrest
Part 4: Unrest in the Wymondham and surrounding parishes
Part 1: Introduction
Norfolk’s policing developed as a direct result of a breakdown in social relations which accompanied the enclosure of land and the introduction of farm, weaving, and other machinery in rural and urban areas. Across Norfolk and elsewhere in England landowners and larger farmers formed Associations For Prosecuting Horse Stealers, and other Felons offering rewards for the capture of thieves. These associations proved to be fairly ineffective and were gradually replace by paid night watchmen and constables and later by a standing police force. People who had lost their rights to use common land were increasing forced to sell their labour for money and/or move to the developing industrial towns and cities, especially those in the north of England (see Tables 1 and 2 below for the rates of decline in agricultural workforce).
But this forced migration was resisted by local people, They protested and wrecked the machines which took away their living, reduced wage levels and drove increasing numbers of peasants and farm labourers into abject poverty.
Their protests and machine wreaking are usually referred to as rioting, however, common people showed massive restraint in their initial protests, as clearly seen in the descriptions and newspaper reports below. the protesters were organised, with committees and representatives in their parishes and had clear goals. Committee members wrote to landowners and employers asking that they stop the introduction of new machinery and, when they finally broke into factories, and farms they did not attack those inside but showed remarkable restraint and moderation. They also had widespread support amongst the population in general. An indication of levels of public support can be seen in the report in the New Times 14 August 1827, below. This article shows that in order to calm down the significant levels of discontent in Norwich and surrounding villages it was necessary to drop capital charges against defendants in return for pleas of guilty to lesser charges. In fact, it was the judiciary and landowners (frequently the same person) who practiced social violence in the protection of their private property.
Part 2: Policing from the Middle Ages to 1856
During the Middle Ages it was expected that all subjects helped to maintain law and order within their communities based on the ancient laws of Great Britain. This originated from the ‘Posse Comitatus’ formed during the ninth century along with the establishment of the Sheriff’s Office which committed all freemen of e country to bear arms to protect and maintain the law and deliver offenders to the Sheriff’s office.
ANGLO-SAXON LAW ENFORCEMENT
In this period, it was believed it was a victim’s responsibility to seek justice if a crime was committed, but the whole community should deliver the justice. English shires were divided into hundreds, and the hundreds were divided into ten tithings. All men over twelve in a tithing were responsible for the behaviour for others. One ‘hundredsman’ and one ‘tithingman’ had to meet regularly with the King’s shire reeve (Sheriff). This made the community important in law enforcement.
The system relied heavily on religion when deciding whether someone was guilty or not. Oaths were given in public and played an important part in hearings. In most cases the accused walked free, however in small tight-knit communities it was difficult to get away with repeat offenses because repeat offenders were often not given the chance to swear an oath of innocence.
Trial by ordeal was a way of testing the accused before God when there was not enough evidence to prove that a person was guilty. The effect of the trial by ordeal on the person was seen as God’s judgment. The trials included the use of hot iron, hot water and cold water. The accused would be burned with a hot iron or hot water and if the burn healed well then, they were judged as innocent. The cold water ordeal involved the accused being tied up and thrown into water, if they sank, they were “accepted” by the water and therefore innocent (and would be pulled up again) but if they floated, they were thought to be guilty. A person might also be maimed for crimes such as petty theft. Accused priests went through trial by consecrated bread, in which a guilty man (sinner) was thought to choke on the bread.
ANGLO-SAXON PUNISHMENTS
Murder was sometimes punished by fines paid to the victim’s family (wergild). This was to reduce blood
feuds (the ongoing revenge for the murder of a family member). The amount paid was decided by your social status, e.g. the wergild of a prince was 1500 shillings, but the wergild of a serf was 40 shillings. Capital and corporal punishment were forms of punishment and were used as a deterrent. Treason and arson were punished by execution. For lesser crimes there was corporal punishment such as mutilation, e.g. eye-gouging/removal of a hand/foot. This was thought of as a more lenient alternative to the death penalty.
The stocks and the pillory involved a combination of physical pain and punishment. The stocks or pillory were usually placed in the centre of a town or village and the criminal would be exposed to harsh weather for a few days.
In the 1200s,
1215. The Catholic Pope ordered that priests should stop helping to organise trial by ordeal and the system ended. The alternative in England was trial by jury, by which a group of twelve men decided the fate of the accused.
With England and Wales now under Norman rule, law enforcement officials were given the title of Watchmen, and, later, Constables. These positions were governed by individual town authorities. Watchmen and Constables were unpaid roles, and each man took the post for a period of one year; they performed their duties part-time alongside their normal employment. From the late seventeenth century, however, many householders avoided these obligations by hiring deputies to serve in their place. As this practice increased, some men were able to make a living by acting as deputy constables or as paid night watchmen.
At the same time all subjects of the crown were still responsible for reporting crime. If someone witnessed a crime, they had to inform the watchmen or constable of the offence and it was the duty of all men to assist to catch the offender and bring them to justice, this practice was called ‘Hue and Cry’ which was only abolished in the early 1800s.
Up to the mid-1700s
The role of parish constables barely changed. There was still no expectation that they should investigate or prosecute crimes. Their work was mostly reactive, responding to the demands of victims or justices. As members of the communities in which they lived, they were often reluctant to enforce unpopular orders from above. Night watchmen patrolled the streets between 9 or 10 pm until sunrise and were overseen by the constables who controlled the cells for holding arrested suspects overnight.
By the early to mid-1700s in England there was an increase in poverty and displacement and therefore in crime during the night hours. To combat this, local acts were passed authorising night watchmen and constables were paid to patrol the streets at night.
In 1737, a further parliamentary act was passed which developed and reorganised the night watch and specified the number of constables on duty each night.
1749 saw the first attempt to create a recognisable police service when the satirist and London magistrate Henry Fielding established ‘The Bow Street Runners’. Six men worked out of the Bow Street Magistrates Office (No 4 Bow Street). Their role was to help prevent the growing corruption in political and business circles and challenge wrongful or malicious arrest by policing establishments. They acted as advocates to the magistrates and travelled throughout the country to find and either serve writs or arrest corrupt offenders.
1751. By this time Chief Constable was the title given to Parish Constables who were chosen by the landed class through local manorial courts and then appointed by a local magistrate who was usually a landowner, squire, or a clergyman.
Part 3: Growing Rural Unrest
1795. The National Archives holds a letter from Robert Fellowesin which he refers to a meeting held at Saxlingham where a man wearing a hat with a ribband or cockade [probably a reference to the French Revolution, 1789-99 and in full swing at this time] made a speech and gave away leaflets. He refers to several similar meetings being held, as the high price of corn and other basic necessities was providing an excuse for “ill-disposed persons to harangue the common people.” Robert Fellowes had issued a warrant for the arrest of the speaker James Besey and states that he had been told of a dangerous riot at Diss. With his letter he enclosed a copy of a printed paper dated 16 October 1795, signed by ‘A friend to reform’, which described the current state of poverty and distress, and called for “the abolition of sinecures”. Fellows suggested that the people should be incited to riot against the farmers, millers and bakers so that the state would have an excuse to send in troops to cut down “two or three dozen citizens and hang as many more.”
During 1815-20 Unrest amongst farm labourers was aggravated by the continual introduction of horse powered threshing machines which caused a drastic loss of winter employment, common lands were still being enclosed by large landowners and landless peasants were being increasingly forced to become wage earners. Coupled with this was the competition for farm work from soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars. A further factor that caused unrest was the Tithe system. By the early 19th century there was fierce opposition to Tithes. The protesting labourers, dispossessed cottagers, and peasants wanted Tithes abolished so allowing farmers to pay them higher wages. Indeed, for the new class of capitalist farmers who were benefiting from enclosure, mechanisation, and drainage schemes Tithes were seen as a barrier to agricultural modernisation as any profit to be gained by improvement was likely to be small because of the resulting higher Tithe payments. Potential outside investors in new land improvement schemes were also deterred from venturing their capital because of resulting increased Tithe payments.
Total crime figures rose steeply: committals for Suffolk rose by 73.3 per cent, and the increase for Norfolk was even higher at lO6.5 per cent over the same period. Norfolk magistrates were considering the organisation of ‘an establishment that will give vigour and effect to the exertions of the magistrates in preventing robberies, burglaries, larcenies, poaching, and felonies of various description’. The visiting justices at Wymondham, Swaffham Bridewell and Aylsham Bridewell recommended the early installation of treadmills to deter crime. Swaffham magistrates lamented the delays that had already occurred, as they are every day more convinced of “the evils arising from the want of employment.”
1820. To combat demonstrations calling for electoral reform and an end to poverty, an Act was passed allowing magistrates to recruit men as special constables.
While c.1818, William Cubitt, an engineer based in Ipswich, Suffolk, came up with an idea to solve the problem of otherwise unoccupied prisoners serving short sentences. His invention, the penal treadmill (or treadwheel), was a large, elongated wheel with wooden steps around the outside. Up to twenty-eight men at a time would climb the steps and turn the wheel for six hours a day, while the power generated from the motion could be put to use grinding grain or pumping water. One prisoner is known to have died when he became trapped in the Swaffham treadmill.
In 1829 the Home Secretary Robert Peel introduced an Act establishing the Metropolitan Police Force, the first organised police service in England. The common nickname for police constables became, ‘Bobbies’ from Robert Peel’s first name. Police constables were also known as ‘Peelers’ after Peel’s surname. The Bow Street Runners became part of this new organisation.
1833 until 1840 Wymondham landowners instituted their own parish police force of three constables It was formed under the Watching and Lighting Act of 1833 to combat constant disturbances and depredation within the parish.
1835. The Municipal Corporations Act was passed in parliament which required 178 Royal Boroughs to set up professional police services.
1836. Norwich City, Great Yarmouth Borough and King’s Lynn Borough Police Forces were formed in following the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, which required local councils to appoint paid constables to keep the peace.
1839. Areas were allowed to set up their local police service at county level. Norfolk County Constabulary was created under the County Police Act 1839 which allowed Justices of the Peace to establish police forces in their counties.
1856. The County and Borough Police Act 1856 made it mandatory law that each borough and county should have its own police constabulary. Initially, Norfolk County had 1 Chief Constable, twelve superintendents and 120 constables, spread over approximately 12 districts.
With this Act, Wymondham Police was merged with Norfolk County Constabulary.
Part 4: Unrest in the Wymondham and surrounding parishes
This village Wymondham and its surrounding district is famous as the rallying point for the 1549 rebellion of peasants and small farmers against enclosure of common land led by Robert Kett. Kett’s rebels held the city of Norwich for six weeks until defeated by the army of King Edward VI. Kett was hanged at Norwich Castle and his brother William was hanged from the church’s west tower. Kett’s Oak, which is considered to be the rallying point of the rebellion, can still be seen on the road between Wymondham and Hethersett.
Almost three hundred years later it was the scene of a second wave of rebellions; machine wrecking!
In 1822 twenty machines were wrecked in Norfolk including two were at Wymondham. Others were at: Attleborough (2) Shropham (3 threshers, I drill), Snetterton (2), Blo Norton (a thresher and drill), and others at New Buckenham, Hapton, Winfarthing and Morley St Botolph.
The first machine wrecking incidents occurred in Norfolk and Suffolk in February 1822 at Diss and around Eye. At first the labourers were content simply to stop the threshing machines from being used, but once it became apparent the farmers were not going to desist voluntarily, the action became more militant. At a second Winfarthing uprising the protesters broke through a cordon of constables and farmers and seized a machine belonging to Richard Dogget’s machine. They then demolished the engine and defended themselves with bludgeons and other weapons. One farmed was knocked off his horse, and the others were forced to retreat on horseback under a barrage of stones and other missiles. Magistrates quickly registered special constables and enlisted the aid of the local gentry to help arrest the suspects. When a body of protesting labourers was brought into Diss there was a major disturbance in the town itself. Fearing further unrest the justices applied to the Home Office for a directive to be sent to the Secretary at War requiring him to order some regular troops into the area. Thirty men of the I6th Dragoons arrived on 8 March, three days after the worst of the riots.-‘ These began on 2 March, and it was reckoned that twenty threshing machines were broken, dismantled, or stopped from operating in Guilt Cross and Diss hundreds. The Suffolk and Norfolk yeomanry were called out, and though there had been concern over ‘procuring proper persons to act’ against the rioters, John Surtees of Banham managed to recruit 250 mounted special constables. In Suffolk a second outbreak at Laxfield was rapidly brought under control by ‘the firm and conciliatory measures adopted by the inhabitants . . . Several landlords have written to their tenants requesting them to decline the use of threshing machines on their respective lands. A willingness to adopt this stratagem might have terminated the riots throughout the border region, but the authorities were alarmed and tended to think more in terms of repression than concession.
Colonel Ray, commander of the Eye yeomanry, described the disturbed area as “fast approaching the state of our Irish neighbours, and indeed, if an immediate check is not put to the proceedings of the evil disposed in this district, I fear the contagion will spread and become a most formidable evil. Threatening letters are circulated among us most liberally, and the firebrand, the most formidable of weapons, is the portion of those who persist in the use of threshing machines...”
By the time Colonel Ray reached Diss the area was quieter, but on the afternoon of 5 March “We were gratified by the arrival of an express announcing positive information that a mob of 600 strong were at that time on their march to Buckenham Green.” The 600 turned out to be nearer 60, a ‘motley crew’ who could have been dispersed by a ‘sergeant’s guard’. Faced with drawn swords and loaded firearms, the rioters tried to escape into the fields, but twenty were arrested and six committed to Norwich Castle.
When the prisoners came into Norwich a crowd pelted their escort with stones and were not impressed by the threat of shooting. The Norwich textile workers had reason to sympathize with any protest against mechanisation and there were wage riots in the city in the summer. The Norwich Mercury dismissed the rioters as ‘loose disorderly boys’, but the anxiety expressed by Mayor Racham and the other magistrates suggests the situation was more serious. A riotous disposition has within a few days manifested itself amongst the peasantry in various towns in Norfolk in this neighbourhood, and still exists in the alleged purpose of destroying threshing machines, and this disposition has produced a feverish temper in the lower classes of the inhabitants of this city.
There were further riots after the trials when the men convicted of machine breaking were moved to the bridewells at Swaffham, Wymondham, Walsingham and Aylsham. it had been feared an attempt would be made to rescue the rioters before the trials, and the magistrates formed a special committee for the duration of the emergency. The West Norfolk Militia were mobilised, and the Norwich Light Horse Yeomanry stationed in the local barracks.
No rescue bid materialised, and although there were rumours of further gatherings by the labourers it was felt safe to stand down the yeomanry during the second week of March. (Source The East Anglian Agrarian Riots of 1822, by PAUL MUSKETT, https://ww9w.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/32n1a1.pdf)
1827, February. Here is an indication of how draconian punishment was frequently metered out to the poor: “A young man was sentenced to death for the theft of three surplices from Wymondham Church.” (Downham Market Gazette, February 21, 1903)
1827, February. Four thousand weavers met at Ranelagh Gardens in the centre of Norwich, and passed resolutions protesting against the action of certain manufacturers in reducing the rate of wages without consulting other employers, and requesting the Mayor to summon a meeting of the masters to show cause why the reduction had been made. On the 12th a procession of 600 operatives, headed by a man carrying a loaf of bread draped in black crape, passed through the streets of the city. A petition to Parliament was prepared, calling for an Act to regulate the price of labour. The petition was presented in the House of Commons on May 30th, by William Smith, MP.
1827, June (1). “ … a serious riot, in which several persons at Norwich, Wymondham, and Ashwalthorpe, were engaged. It arose from the circumstances of the weavers of the latter place having taken work under price. This occasioned the work to be destroyed by some persons from Wymondham. A few witnesses came to Norwich to give evidence of the illegal proceedings, and, although guarded, the mob attempted to attack them, and a most serious riot ensued. It is described as most alarming and desperate. It was at length found necessary to call out the aid of the military, who were pelted by the mob. The Riot Act was read; the Lancers and the Cavalry charged the mob, and a conflict ensued in which upwards of thirty persons, including the military, were wounded. Several of the offenders were taken into custody and are committed for trial at the ensuing Assizes, but the ringleaders have for present escaped.” (Oxford Journal, June 23, 1827)
1827, June (2). “A serious riot occurred at Norwich. A party of Wymondham weavers, who had damaged looms and destroyed silk to the value of £1,000, at Ashwellthorpe, had been conveyed to Norwich Castle for examination. The witnesses were brought to the city in hackney coaches, escorted by a detachment of the 12th Lancers. The Norwich weavers, who had barricaded the Golden Ball Lane entrance to Castle Meadow with a waggon, and placed a similar obstruction near the Castle Bridge, received the military with a volley of stones. The witnesses were then conveyed by way of Timberhill to Orford Hill, and while a large body of special constables displaced the waggon at the bridge, a second detachment of Lancers came from the Barracks, charged the mob at full gallop, and dispersed them in all directions. An attempted rally was frustrated by a second charge. The Militia staff were under arms on the Castle Hill, and the streets were patrolled by the Norwich Light Horse Volunteers….“ (Norfolk Chronicle, June 12, 1827)
1827, June (3). “ALARMING RIOT AT NORWICH. FRAME BREAKING. BATTLE BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND THE POPULACE OF NORWICH, WYMONDHAM AND ASHWELTHORPE. We are sorry to have received the particulars of a dreadful riot at Norwich, among the stuff-weavers of that city and neighbourhood. In the early part of last week, it got to the ears of the inhabitants of Wymondham … that the weavers of Ashwelthorpe, a village about ten miles from Wymondham, had taken work at an under price. In consequence of this report, a party, disposed to commit mischief, proceeded to that place, where, after some riotous proceedings, they succeeded in cutting off the work which was in hand, and destroyed the frames. A few witnesses of this transaction came to Norwich on Friday, for the purpose of giving information of these illegal acts, and on their return they were met outside St. Stephen’s-gate, and identified as informers by the friends’ of the Wymondham rioters. Every possible outrage was resorted to by these infatuated men, who dragged the witnesses through the roads, beating them most unmercifully, and afterwards pumping upon them until life was nearly gone; one poor wretch was so miserably mauled as to be obliged to go to the hospital, and others were severely wounded. The military were ordered to patrol all the roads and lanes outside the city, in the vicinity of New Lakenharn, during that and the following day; Tuesday was the day appointed by the magistrates of the county for a further hearing of the witnesses at the Shire-hall, situate below the Castle. At an early hour of the morning groups of people had assembled in various parts of the city, on the Castle-hill, and on St. Stephen’s-road, fully bent on mischief; intermixed with whom were observed many athletic countrymen, armed with stout sticks. — About 4 o’clock in the afternoon, it was announced that the witnesses were in the city, and coming on the Castle-hill, in three coaches ; and although guarded by a strong military detachment, the rioters were resolved to murder them if possible; or at any rate to prevent them front getting to the Shire-hall. The carriages were proceeding from All-Saints-green over St. John’s Timber-hill into Golden Ball-lane, when they were driven by the mob in a contrary direction. In the meantime other bands of rioters seized a waggon, and overthrew it, so as to block up the entrance to the only pass which led to the hill; whilst others seized two haycarts and a tumbril, and after upsetting them, they were fastened by ropes, so as to barricade the entrance through the iron gates which led to the Castle over the arched bridge. Thus, all communication was cut off by this masterly and bold manoeuvre, between Scole’s-green and the Castle. The coaches, with all of’ the witnesses, were obliged to remain in status quo, until a fresh civil and military power could be got together. The Riot Act was then read by Mr. Alderman Francis, accompanied by several brother magistrates and special constables, amidst showers of stones and brickbats. Mr. Francis was twice struck on the head, and severely injured, and obliged to be escorted off the hill by a detachment of soldiers. The rioters pelted the soldiers in every direction. The 12th Lancers, the Norfolk Yeomanry Cavalry, and the Staff of the Militia, were drawn out for the absolute protection of the Castle.—The Lancers and Cavalry about six o’clock charged the mob, when several were desperately wounded. One man, of the name of McKenzie, formerly a soldier, had his ear cut off by a sabre; another man, who threw a brick from out of an alley on Orford-hill, narrowly escaped death from a pistol shot, which struck the corner shutter of Mr. Turner’s shop window; a servant, belonging to Mr. Young, of King-street, was also cut on the head by a Lancer; a woman with a child in her arms was ridden over, and the child wounded by a sabre. A soldier, in carelessly balling his pistol, had it explode, and received the ball in the wrist, fracturing the fore-arm, and making its exit at the elbow. For about three quarters of an hour, the immense Castlehill, covered with the multitude, and the military force in combat, presented a most awful and distressing scene. The witnesses, after a detention of nearly six hours, were conveyed safely into the castle, where they now remain in custody of the militia staff. Fresh detachments of lancers have entered the city yesterday morning, and are ready to act at a moment’s notice. Several rioters are in custody, but the ringleaders, as usual, have escaped.—It appears that five or six persons have been carried into the Infirmary, where they received immediate attention. Only two out of the number were wounded by the military. FURTHER PARTICULARS. Extract of a private letter from Norwich, June 14, 1827, quarter to five o’clock … some other witnesses, that had been brought for examination, were escorted from Norwich to Wymondham by about thirty of the Yeomanry … The examination before the Magistrates continued the whole of yesterday, and ended with the committal of several of the rioters for trial at our ensuing Assizes. From the best information I can obtain, about thirty persons, including the military, were wounded, more or less severely. One fellow, who had thrown several stones at the Lancers, and was about to hurl another, was shot through the right arm by a non-commissioned officer, when one of his superiors riding up said, I hope you have not killed the man,’ No, Sir,’ was the reply of the Waterloo veteran, ‘I have only winged him—he’ll throw no more to-night.’ Another individual, who was highly active in the affray, had a lance thrust through his thigh. There are several iron sheep pens on the Castle hill, which contained bands of rioters, who, when the cavalry charged, opened right and left, and the horses fell over with their riders on this spot, which occasioned repeated cheering and volleys of missiles from the mob. The conflict did not end until past nine at night. Much further mischief is anticipated in the assize week when the witnesses will be brought up to confront the accused.” (Fleming’s British Farmers’ Chronicle, June 18, 1827)
1827, August (4). SUMMER ASSIZES. Norwich. Benjamin Gay, Robert Goodings, John Bask, John Jackson, Richard Blyth, George Tipple, Daniel Barnard, Jas. Blazey, William Foulsham, John Howes, Robert Nelson, Ishmael Poll, George Kett, Owen Binn, and Charlotte Squires, were charged with an aggravated misdemeanour, in having engaged in a riot, and committed an assault in June last, on Thomas: Goodwin, and James Whitehorn, manufacturers, of Ashswelthorpe, near Wymondham.
“The prisoners, with the exception of the woman, were all Weavers, and the riot with which they were charged, was occasioned by their combining and using force to prevent journeymen working at a lower rate of wages than they approved.
Four of them – Benjamin Gay, Robert Goodings, John Baily, and John Jackson – had been committed on a charge of capital felony, for entering by force into shops and buildings, and breaking machinery.
It was resolved, however, on the morning of the trial, that the Counsel for the prosecution would offer no evidence on the capital charge.
All the prisoners upon being indicted for the misdemeanour, under the advice of their Counsel (Messrs. Cooper and Andrews), pleaded guilty.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS, said, that, although the prisoners had pleaded Guilty, it would be necessary, in order to guide the Judgment of the Court, to disclose the facts of the case. He felt himself bound to observe, that the riot in which the defendants had been engaged was one of no ordinary character. It seriously threatened the public peace. It was not a sudden excitement, but the result of an organised plan carried into the most deliberate execution. A Committee had been formed to overawe the great manufacturing body. The parties who had become the victims of outrage had been previously visited by some Members of the Committee; they said, they would submit to the terms which the Committee proposed but would not sign any papers. Some of those who visited them were afterwards among the rioters, who marched from their houses to Wymondham, on the 13th of June, about four hundred strong, and proceeded to spread terror and destruction around them, until the military were called in to the aid of the civil power. If such proceedings were not put down, and punished by the strong arm of justice, the dominion of violence would become stronger than the protecting power of the law. Having stated so much, he would now proceed to call his evidence.
Against four individuals, the Grand Jury have found a bill for a capital offence, and against the same four, along with the other eleven defendants, they have returned a bill for an aggravated misdemeanour. As you have all pleaded guilty, I will state my view of what the justice of the case, as well as the public interests, demands. ‘You have been rightly advised by your Counsel not to put yourselves on your trial, but to acknowledge your imputed guilt. – It is not for me to say, with certainty, what, after a long investigation, would have been the finding of a Jury; but if the facts deposed to before the Magistrates had induced a Jury to return a verdict of guilty, it would have been my painful duty to have left the four persons convicted of the capital charge for execution; and on the others to pass a judgment of considerable severity. The course adopted has relieved me from this distressing situation, as the Learned Sergeant who conducts the prosecution has consented to abandon the evidence. … It was in order to avoid such a terrible indication of the majesty of the law that I was instrumental in suggesting the course which has been adopted. … To-day fifteen persons have stood at this bar—some of you in great peril of your lives, and others of your liberty. I hope those of your associates who witness this scene will derive instruction from the example. I hope that when you leave that dock, you will return to your homes and to society, to preserve the peace, and to take care that as far as your influence reaches, it may be preserved by your example and authority. Each of you will now enter into his own recognizance in 50/. to come up to receive judgment when called upon, and to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour to all his Majesty’s subjects. All the four prisoners who had been committed for the capital offence, were discharged. Immediately afterwards these four—namely, Jackson, Bailey, Goodings. and Gay, were arraigned pro forma on the capital charge of having, on the 24th of last May, maliciously and feloniously broken into the shops and buildings of Thomas Goodwin and James Whitehorn, of Ashwelthorpe, and destroyed a silk-winding machine, a warping mill, seventeen looms, and fifteen hovels; and with having cut and damaged a considerable quantity of yarn and silk, the property of the aforesaid persons. The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty,” and no evidence being offered on the part of the prosecution, in consequence of the arrangement previously entered into, a verdict of acquittal was recorded, and the prisoners discharged. It is remarkable that the rioters were mostly inhabitants of Wymondham, the place where the great riot called Kett’s rebellion” originated; and one of the “fifteen” bore the name of that celebrated ringleader of the Norfolk mob.” (New Times (London) , August 14, 1827)
1829, December. “A large number of persons alleged to be weavers from Norwich and Wymondham, assembled for the purpose of cutting the work off the looms in Saxlingham, four looms’ work having been destroyed the proceeding week. The inhabitants of the village were, however, prepared, as it is stated to us, for their visitors, and a very furious conflict took place, in which it is said pitchforks, flails, and even guns were used by the defenders of the property. An express reached the mayor at about one o’clock in the morning, requesting him to send a detachment of dragoons, as strong a force from the police as possible. The mayor, however, having no jurisdiction, declined to interfere.” (London Evening Standard – December 21, 1829)
1830, November. The period of rural unrest in 1830-31) is known as the Swing Riots.
After years of growing unrest in the district, on the 27th of November a group of about 200 people gathered at the paper-mill at Lyng, near Norwich. They then attacked the threshing machines belonging to Squire Micklethwait of Taverham and of farmer Joby at Weston Longeville. They then destroyed machinery at the paper-mills at Lying and Taverham.
Left: Tavernham Mill c1890
Created in 1809, the Taverham mill was one of the first paper making machines in the country. Its installation resulted in unemployment and depressed wages. The owner, William Johnson had taken on extra men to guard the machinery, but they were of little use against the large group of locally organised men and women who were armed with axes and pick-axes. None of the workers at the mill was hurt or threatened, but the paper machine was destroyed.
One of the leaders was Robert West, aged 48, married with three children and an ex-soldier from the Napoleonic wars. At the time of this event, he was a gardener in West Norfolk and probably came from the Kings Lynn area. He denied being the group’s leader, but he did admit that inside the mill he had “worked like a good ‘un”.
After attacking the paper mill the group went back to Taverham and demanded the keys to the paper mill and, when their demand was denied, they smashed down the doors and damaged the paper-making machine. Eyewitnesses again identified Robert West as the ringleader. The group was well disciplined, and no one was injured, nor any property taken.
Nevertheless, a message was sent to Norwich and a detachment of the 1st Dragoon Guards was dispatched. When the Dragoons arrived the machine-wreckers had gone back to the Lying district. However, one Richard Dawson, was captured by the military on the Fakenham Road. At the same time, the movements of the rest of the 200 protesters were being secretly observed by Richard Tolladay and other men who had been employed at the Lyng mill to provide extra security. It was Tolladay who recognised Rober West from the morning’s riot. Tolladay and his men tried to arrest West who escaped to shouts from his supporters of “There goes old Bob”. There was a lot of sympathy for the machine-wreakers among the everyday people of Norfolk. Just a few days before the riot at Taverham the Justices of North Walsham had put out a proclamation begging employers to meet the machine breakers’ demands and come to a peaceable arrangement with them.
Much to the annoyance of the government, particularly the Home Secretary Lord Melbourne, this sympathetic attitude extended to the jurors when the rioters were tried. The only person to be charged with offences connected with the events in Taverham was Richard Dawson, the young man who had been caught on the Fakenham Road. He could not be implicated in the attack on the mill, but he was charged with destroying squire Micklethwait’s threshing machine. The witness against him was an employee of the Squire, named D. Rose. The jury acquitted Dawson on the grounds that there was only one witness. The Chairman of the Magistrate’s Bench then told the jury that one witness was as good as a hundred and directed them to reconsider their verdict. Despite this official direction, the jury once again returned a not guilty verdict, to great applause from the public gallery!
Lord Melbourne’s Home Office decided that local juries could not be trusted to take a firm line with protesters, and the judges on the Norfolk Circuit responded accordingly. When Robert West was rearrested on 6 June 1831 he missed the earlier court of January, and its mild justice. The Summer Assize he attended was a quite different situation. The authorities made sure that the jurors selected would be less sympathetic to a defendant. Far from being acquitted as Richard Dawson had been, Bob West was condemned to death. Although he was spared the noose, he was transported to New South Wales for life. He never saw his wife and family again. Pardons were later handed out to lifers after a few years, but before that time arrived, he had died, in December 1837. (Further details at https://joemasonspage.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/in-court/)
1833. “Fires in Wymondham, – One of the most distressing sceens that we have ever yet had to record in this county occurd on Monday night last at Wymondham. The farming premises of Mr Robert Rix, those of Mr John Spruce, and those of Mr. Robert Miller, were all blazing at the same time, and the ranging element threatened destruction in everything with which it was possible for it to communicate. Mr Spruce’s and Mr Miller’s farms joined, being only separated by a hedge; and it is not positively known whether they were both set on fire, or whether the flames from one communicated with the other. The fire on Mr Rix’s premises was first seen by a woman, and she says by the light of the blaze, which had just begun, she saw two men in the stack-yard, and saw them run away; on the seeing this she immediately alarmed Mr Rix’s family, and while she was doing so the premises of Messers Spruce and Miller caught fire. The fires continued to rage on the barn, stable, and out-buildings, with the stacks of hay and corn standing in the stack-yards, were all consumed. Mr Spruce had a waggon with a load of corn in sacks, which was ready to start off to Norwich in the morning, entirely consumed. Mr Miller’s farm, which was full of corn, had caught fire at one end, but by great exertions this was put out, and the barn and corn were preserved; one engine started at Mr Rix’s, and the other (there being two in Wymondham) to Messrs Miller and Spence’s. By great exertions the dwelling-house on each farm was saved, and the flames on Mr Rix’s place were confined to five stacks, which were reduced to ashes; There were 12 stacks in all consumed, and we regret to add that Mr Miller is not insured for more than half the amount of property destroyed; the fires were not completely under control until daylight on Tuesday morning. Three men have been apprehended on suspicion, and are remanded for further examination.- Wymondham Has been for some weeks in a state of excitement, occasioned, as it is said, by some recent alteration in the regulations for the poor, and although there have never been fires here before, three policemen have been sent for, and have been in the town for a fortnight or three weeks; this, it seems, has given great offence to the people, and meetings have been held (some clandestinely and others openly) amongst the working people respecting these matters.” (Norfolk Chronicle, November 23, 1833)
1833 until 1840. Wymondham landowners instituted their own parish police force of three constables It was formed under the Watching and Lighting Act of 1833 to combat constant disturbances and depredation within the parish.
1834. “Norfolk:Report of the Auditors of the County Accounts made to the Magistrates in Session on 1st of January 1834 … the great cause of the criminal expenditure will be found under the head of agricultural riots, the expense of which is…£3581. 10s. 6d…[including an] increase in ordinary bills for prosecutions at the January Sessions in 1830, as well as that upon the conveyance of offenders to prison in that year, and of many of them afterwards for transportation to Portsmouth for transportation …” (Norwich Mercury, April 12, 1834)
1836-45. The collapse of the woollen industry in the mid-19th century led to poverty in Wymondham. In 1836 there were six hundred hand looms, but by 1845 there were just sixty in the village. The market town’s prison was built in the 1789s and was the first in England to have separate cells for prisoners There were 22 cells and most of them were 12×7 feet. They had brick floors and contained two or three iron beds. The old prison is now home to the Wymondham Heritage Museum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source of newspaper articles and notices: www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk
Leave a Reply