EBENEZER ELLIOTT
(1781 - 1849)
The Corn
Law Rhymer Gets Taken To Court
This surprising account of a previously unknown incident in Ebenezer Elliott's life was discovered by the eminent Sheffield historian, Hugh Waterhouse, in the Sheffield Independent newspaper for 26th April 1834.The court case about Elliott's behaviour has not appeared in any of the hundreds of articles which have discussed the life and work of the bard over the years. It is staggering that this revealing and important event in the life of the Poet of the Poor has never before been recorded - especially since at the time Elliott had become a national celebrity following the publication of his "Corn Law Rhymes."
The case against Elliott was heard in Sheffield Town Hall where a George Dickenson claimed he had been assaulted by the said Ebenezer Elliott. Dickenson was from Oughtibridge where he lived at the Holmes Tilt.
The account below is based on the newspaper's court reporting which has been re-written in order to make it more user friendly.
Court Report from the Town Hall
On Tuesday April 15th, George Dickenson went to see Elliott at his Gibraltar St warehouse about a small sum of money which was in dispute. George was accompanied by Mr Hawksworth, who was his father's executor. The outstanding money (surely, just a misunderstanding) was a debt owed by the deceased. Although Mr Dickenson had given neither insult nor provocation to Mr Elliott, the latter had used strong and unreasonable language. Eventually, the enraged poet had seized a stick and had hit Dickenson several times with violent blows. When cross-examined, Dickenson had said that he did not threaten Mr Elliott. Nor had he grabbed the poet by the throat, nor tried to strangle him. Elliott's assault on him had not been provoked at all. Dickenson then denied that on a previous occasion he had threatened to knock Elliott's head off. He also denied that Elliott had ordered him out of his office. Nor had he remarked with a degree of menace that he had brought a witness with him to the warehouse. Mr Hawksworth, the witness, then gave evidence. He had accompanied Dickenson to the warehouse and stated that Mr Elliott's first words were that Dickenson had earlier threatened to knock his head off. There was a dispute between the two men about an outstanding sum of money. Elliott had produced his account book, and the argument grew more heated. Next Elliott told them to go about their business. They did not. Elliott then attacked Dickenson with a stick. Under cross-examination, Mr Hawksworth, the witness, claimed he did not see Mr Dickenson grab Elliott by the neck and almost choke him. Elliott's solicitor said that the assault was not denied. It was unfortunate that Mr Elliott was alone in the warehouse: thus he had no witness to corroborate his statement. Some idea of the facts of the case could be gathered from the variations in the testimony of Mr Dickenson and Mr Hawksworth. Dickenson had denied ever having threatened Elliott, while Hawksworth had stated that Elliott's first words referred to a threat made by Dickenson on a previous occasion. Further, Dickenson denied they had been told to leave, yet Hawksworth had mentioned that before the assault Elliott had told them to go about their business. The solicitor then pointed out that Dickenson and Hawksworth had deliberately chosen a time to visit Elliott when he was alone and therefore unable to call a witness in his defence. Elliott then gave his side of the story. He had had an earlier dispute with Mr Dickenson about the money that was owed. The latter had, at that time, threatened to knock his head off. Elliott had then sued Dickenson for the debt. The day after the summons was served, Dickenson and Hawksworth came to Gibraltar St & lingered outside the warehouse for some time. When they saw Elliott's son leave, they entered. Elliott had said to Dickenson: "You are the man who threatened to knock my head off." Dickenson had retorted: "If I knock your head off now, what are you going to do about it? I've got a witness with me." From Dickenson's aggressive manner and from his bad language, Elliott feared being attacked and thinking the pair were seeking something to use against him in court, he bade them to go about their business. Shortly afterwards, Elliott agreed, he had used his stick on Dickenson, but it had only been in self defence. Dickenson had gone out, pulling the door to. Elliott believed he had left. Suddenly, Mr Dickenson re-appeared & grabbed Elliott by the neck and almost suffocated him. Mr Hawksworth stood by & saw this. When at last they went, Dickenson had shouted that he was twice as rich as Elliott & that he had two witnesses. Mr Elliott insisted he had only committed the assault in alarm for his personal safety.
The court found the Corn Law Rhymer guilty and fined him 5s; with costs this amounted to 18s. [18s would today be 90p].
In the narrative above, we see a different view of Elliott. Most articles about the Poet of the Poor deal with his poetry or concentrate on his outspoken attacks on the Corn Laws. Only rarely has the poet been observed involved in his business activities. After all, poetic thoughts are normally divorced from the graft of trade.
In his domestic life, Elliott was sociable, quiet & responsible; in his politics, he was single-minded, excitable & even reckless. In business circles, though, he had a reputation for being hard working and shrewd. Clearly then in carrying out the assault on Dickenson, Elliott's excitable nature took over against his better judgement, or as might be said today - he lost his cool. The Corn Law Rhymer was, however, only a little man with a slight build - so in carrying out the attack, the Rhymer must have had a real fear of being assaulted. He refused to be intimidated: anger overcoming his trepidation. Normally the poet was against violence & aggression; in his own words: "I would not hurt a fly, not even if it stung me."
A similar incident where Elliott lost his temper was when a clergyman insulted a friend of the Corn Law Rhymer. This incident was in the warehouse, too. An enraged Elliott chased the clergy out of his office and in to the street swiping at the man of God with a sweeping brush!
Elliott, in admitting the assault, was at least truthful & was hard done to by the court's decision. When he was threatened on the first occasion, he issued a summons. All very proper. At the second incident, he asked Dickenson to leave his premises - which was the sensible thing to do. So far, so good, but things then escalated.
Nothing is known of Dickenson: neither status, nor occupation, nor background. Perhaps he was of good character or maybe he was a villain. He may have been upset following the death of his father, and perhaps he was unable to meet his father's debts. He certainly appears to have a short fuse. The fact that Dickenson took a witness with him to see Elliott suggests he had been in trouble before & knew the ropes. Shouting out that he was wealthier than Elliott makes Dickenson seem immature. Whatever Dickenson's character, he is clearly more the trouble maker than the Poet of the Poor.
The account of the dispute reveals an interesting fact about the poet's business: the complete lack of any other staff or workers. The assult took place on a Tuesday, a working day, yet only Elliott was there on the premises. This suggests that the warehouse was a very minor concern - indeed, a small family business, since the bard's son had been working with him earlier in the day.
As the Corn Law Rhymer was a very well known figure in Sheffield in 1834, how did his fellow traders & manufacturers react to Elliott appearing in court and being fined for assault? Surely this would have been a great scandal in a small town like Sheffield? The incident could not have been good for the poet's business and would have undermined his political credibility. No wonder that Elliott later complained about a lack of interest in his political activities from middle class circles in Sheffield.
To return to Ebenezer Research Foundry,
please strike the anvil 
