In the 1830's 4 ship-loads of convicts were transported following conviction for 'machine-breaking'. In Cambridgeshire there were 49 cases; 23 were acquitted, 23 imprisoned and 2 transported to New South Wales. Altogether 2000 were brought to trial and 480 - 500 were eventually transported - the largest number from a single event.

The riots began in the autumn of 1830 - mainly in the South East (i.e. Kent). The aim of the rioters was to improve living standards via higher wages. Many families ended up worse off, though, due to the imprisonment of the bread-winner.

The causes of the riots included the introduction of threshing machines; farmers were in difficulty due to the level of rents and tithes and they ganged up against the land-owners and others to whom tithes were due.

The riots generally suffered from a lack of organisation. The nearest the evidence comes to identifying some organisation is a reference to a couple who met in London but, although trouble occurred wherever this pair went, much also took place elsewhere. Letters written by a Captain Swing are a source of information about the riots, hence their naming as the Swing Riots.

Where action went beyond menacing demands regarding wages it was largely arson and destruction of the threshing machines.

By December 1830 most counties in the south and northwards as far as a line from Lincolnshire to Worcestershire were involved, mostly under local leaders. The trouble spread quickly from village to village and county to county but was often short-lived.

In Cambridgeshire the first occurrence was on November 17th, 1830, in Coveney. Damage was caused, probably to the tune of about £4000. The only incident of machine-breaking in Cambridgeshire took place in Croyden in 1832; 16 men were sentenced to 7 years transportation and other culprits were sentenced to 2 - 3 tears imprisonment.

In Norfolk, magistrates recommended that the machines be destroyed and wages set 'to allow the industrious man to earn 2 s per day'. Farmers often agreed to raise wages if their tithes were reduced by the rectors/vicars.

In Withersfield there was a wages strike but there was only one case of machine-breaking in Suffolk.

In Huntingdonshire a Thomas STAPLETON was behind the action. Machinery was broken at Haddon. A grand plan was formulated for action and threats were clearly outlined but much of it was not actually put into effect.

The authorities were generally slow to act but they were concerned about the contagious nature of the riots. Kent was accused by the government of being too lenient with offenders and a special commission was set up to try people in the worst affected counties.

Following conviction there were many appeals and bundles of petitions still exist in the Home Office section at Kew. A breed of professional 'petition-writers' emerged, as evidenced by the standard format of many of these petitions. Jill Chambers, the speaker, has begun to index these.

Following conviction, prisoners originating in Cambridgeshire were taken to prison ships at Portsmouth to await transportation; most were only there a short time before departure. Jill Chambers is also indexing the transportation lists.

There are some photo-fit pictures made of prisoners made, on arrival in Australia, by the police. Many had tattoos (e.g. the initials of their wives and/or children, the dates of their trials, etc.)

The majority of transportees were farm labourers and were in great demand on arrival due to the skills they possessed; other convicts, from towns, had no idea how to milk a cow or carry out other tasks.

In the majority of cases crime was generally carried out by young, single males but in the case of the Swing Riots about half were married. Some had families that were sent out at government expense. Some married again in Australia, including cases of bigamy.

Most of the Swing rioters were well-behaved and many of them stayed in Australia and made lives for themselves out there - some very successful. There were 7 convicts from Withersfield, all of whom returned to England on completion of their sentences. One of these applied, under the poor law scheme, to emigrate back to Australia but his application was denied on the grounds that he had already had one chance!