The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-29 00:00:00

LIBRARY.

Sir ROBERT H. INGLIS mo.ved—" That a Stand-
ing Committee of sixteen Members be appointed
to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the Li-
brary, to whom shall be referred all matters relating
thereto:—Sir Robert Henry Inglis, Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr.
Williams Wynn, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Rutherfurd,
Mr. Shaw, Lord Viscount Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone,
1)r. Stock, Mr. Acland, Col. Fox, Mr. Gaily Knight,
Lord Viscount Mahon, and Mr. Pendarves.—Agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The Report of fhe Committee on Ways and Means
was then brought up and agreed to. .
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.

On the Order of the day for the third reading of the
Administration of Justice (No. 2) Bill being moved,
Mr. WARD said that before the House passed the
Bill he was anxious to draw its attention to a case pre-
cisely similar to that bearing on the appointment of
the Hon. Member for Horsham, which he had lately
brought before the consideration of th at House. He regret-
, d he was absent last night, as that would have been the
proper time to bring it under thenotice of the House. In
1812 an appointment similar to that made by Lord Abinger
was made in favour of Mr. Brougham, brother to the
then Lord Chancellor. The appointment which had been
conferred upon him was that of Registrar of Affidavits,
and though Lord Brougham said he would abolish it, no
Bill had been brought in, as in the present case ;
no overtact had been crone to give the public a
right to claim the benefit of its abolition. The
moment the vacancy was filled up by Mr. Brougham,
the late member for Ripon, now Lord Chancel-
lor of Ireland called the attention of the House
to the case, but then that Honourable and Learned
Member had been sitting on the Opposition side of the
House. The Hon. and Learned Member protested
against that appointment, and paid it was an useless
waste of the public money, but not a single objection
had been made to the case to which he called the
attention of„ the House. It was singular what
a change had come over Honourable Members
within eight or nine years, and that they
did not see the force of the arguments which they now
used in the case of Mr. Brougham. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth said it was impossi-
ble that appointment should be provisional. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, from whom indeed it wa:,
difficult to extract his opinion, yet expressed him-
self the other night in favour of compensation.
Lord Eldon asserted in the Houie of Lords

that the office filled by that Honourable Member
could not be called a sinecure, which was precisely the
argument of the Attorney and Solicitor-General the
other night, who said it would be impossible to find a
competent person to fill the office with the salary of
2,0001. a-year, unless he had a reward for his services
during the term of natural life. Every argument
in the one case applied exactly in the other case,
and if he could move for expunging that clause,
without affecting another person besides the Hon.
Member for Horsham, he would do so before the Bill
passed, but at all events he could not help calling the
attention of the house to the singular change which had
taken place in the sentiments of Hon. Members since
the year 1832. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Dorchester—but then that Hon. Gentleman entertained
different sentiments, and sat upon a different side of the
House—expressed his opinion that the appointment i❑
the case of Mr. Brougham was provisional, and
that the public could not be affected by the legal
right which the Lord Chancellor had to till
up the vacancy, which he thought he was
boun3, by a moral obligation, do do. (Hear.)
Lord Brougham did abolish the office in obedience to a
moral obligation ; but that was not the case in the pre-
sent instance, and he was sorry Lord Abinger did not
follow in the footsteps of the other Noble Lord
(Brougham).

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the Hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for the dili-
gence with which lie ransacked for the present case,
but he could not give him equal credit for the analogy
• which he seemed to think subsisted between the two
cases. The Hon. Gentleman, he was sure, would recol-
lect that Lord Brougham, who was at tho time Lord
Chancellor, had given notice, in the House of Lords, of
his intention to abolish the office to which the
Honourable Gentleman referred that he (Lord
Brougham) mooted a measure of abolition himself.
There was therefore no parity in the two cases, for in
the one case a person was appointed by another, at a
time when he gave notice that he would himself abolish
the office which he considered to be a sinecure.
Lord Abinger was no party to the arrangement which
was in contemplation, and, therefore, in making the ap-
pointment he was not violating his sense of duty to the
public. It was admitted on all hands that the office of
Master of the Court of Exchequer was one which could
not be left vacant ; it was absolutely necessary that it
should be filled up if the business of the Court was
to proceed. The Honourable Gentleman was good enough
to say that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
was not very distinct in stating his opinions. lie thought
the Hon. Gentleman must have known that when a Gen-
tleman gave his vote in that House, there was a clear
index of his opinioins. if the Hon. Gentleman at any
time misunderstood his expressions, he begged to refer
him to his recorded vote.—(Hear.) When this Bill was
before the House on a former occasion, he took the
liberty of suggesting the necessity of making some regu-
lation with respect to the office of Accountant-Ge-
neral of, the Court of Chancery, stating that, whilst com-
pensation was awarded to the officers of the Court of
Exchequer, no provision was made for preventing a cor-
responding increase in the emoluments of the office of
the. Court of Chancery. He had been informed that an
opportunity would be afforded to him in the course of
the present Session of effecting that object, and for the
present, therefore, he would not propose any alteration
in the Bill.
Mr. EWART said the Right Ron.. Gentleman the

Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to draw
a distinction between the case of Lord Brougham and that
of Lord Abinger. With respect to the former Noble
Lord, Lord Eldon, a very high authority on such a sub-
ject, said that the office, so far from being a sinecure, was
one of great trust., and requiring much attention. Had
the Right Hon. Gentleman heard the case of the Welsh
judicature ? In that case the Judges interested, although
they did not introduce the Bills, were bound not to fill
up the vacancies. He thought the Right Hon. Gentle.•
man's argument entirely fell to the ground.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
to offer a few words in explanation. With the case
of the Welsh Judge he was perfectly well acquainted,
for his brother had filled the office at that time. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) being in office at the
time knew perfectly well that the situation would be
abolished. Under those circumstances his brother had
no title to compensation. In the same manner Lord
Brougham had appointed his relative to a particular
office, knowing that it was intended to introduce a Bill to
abolish it. If an individual Member of the Govern-
ment had brought forward a Bill the case would be
widely different.

Mr. PEMBERTON said it was impossible that the
office under consideration could be accepted without
the person who accepted it abandoning his prospects at
the bar. Neither the Welsh Judge, nor Mr. Brougham,
left the bar in order to accept office. He contended,
therefore, that there was no analogy between the cases.
Be would take that opportunity of calling the attention
of the Government to the necessity of making still fur-
ther alterations in the Court of Chancery. Whatever
were the merits of this measure it wai by no means a
remedy for all the evils which existed. He trusted that
the Government would be prepared next Session to in-
troduce a measure which would afford complete satisfac-
tion to suitors.

Mr. F. T. BARING said that the Right Hon. Gen
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the
second part of his speech, put the case on the right
footing. The brother of that Right Hon. Gentleman
had adopted the course which every one who knew
him would have expected. When he was appointed
no bargain was made that he was to receive
any compensation. If his recollection served him
with respect to Mr. Scarlett, the second read-
ing of the Bill had passed the House of Lords before the
appointment took place ; indeed he thought the Bill had
been read a third time, and passed that House.—(Hear.)
He expressed a strong opinion at the time upon the
subject, and nothing had passed since which bad in-
duced him to change that opinion., He thought the
present one of the strongest cases of compensation im-
properly granted that he had ever heard of.—(Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the analogy which had
been referred to between the two cases, entirely failed.
In the case of Lord Brougham, he was Chancellor at the
head of the law, and an officer removable at the pleasure
of the Crown, and at tho time of tho appointment the in-
tention of abolishing that particular office had been an-
nounced. Ire nominated his brother to that office, and the
whole authority of the Government was pledged to the
passing of that measure. The question was, whether
his brother under the circumstances was entitled
to compensation ? Now, it was urged that
the case of Mr. Scarlett was parallel to that,
but he utterly denied it. Lord Abinger was not a party
to the introduction of the measure. Oa the contrary, he
and Sir Edward Sugden objected to the abolition of the
appellate jurisdiction, and then it resolved itself
into the question of the probability of the measure
pa,ssing. Now, in the case of Mr. °Brougham, Lord
Btougham was not only a consenting party, but the very
author of the measure ; while, in the case of the Hon.
Mr. Scarlett, Lord Abinger not only did not originate the
measure, but had objected to it. There was assent
in the one case, dissent in the other. It appeared
to him that there would he the greatest injustice in re-
fusing compensation in the case of Mr. Scarlett.

Mr. C. BULLER had seen some observations
made with regard to the vote he had given
in supporting the motion for compensation to
Mr. Scarlett ; but he had seen no reason to re-
gret that vote. He thought Mr. Scarlett was justly
entitled to compensation. The principle on which they
should act in all cases like the present was, that it was a
matter oflegal policy as well as justice that the House should
take the most liberal view with regard to those whose
vested interests were affected by the proposed changes.
While he was on his legs he would beg to make one ob-
servation with regard to the Copying Clerks of the Court
of Exchequer. Justice demanded that when compensa-
tion was being awarded to more important persons,
the interests of poorer persons ought not to be over-
looked. The case to which he referred was that of the
Copying Clerks of the Exchequer. Those individuals
had been employed as copyists in that Court some
of them for so long a period as thirty years, and that em-
ployment furnished their sole means of livelihood. Their
income in those situations amounted to but 1001. or 1201. a
year, and that for the performance of duties of a very
laborious nature. The Court of Exchequer was now
about to be abolished, and the claims of those
individuals were not for compensation, but simply
that Government would consider them as having a prior
claim for employment under the new system. Nothing
would be more equitable or fair than such a claim.
They ought to show the public that, whilst they attended
to their interests, they were not unmindful of the vested
interests of individuals, and that those persons who had
hitherto obtained a livelihood in that Court should not
on its abolition be exposed to absolute destitution.
_ _ _ .

Mr. HAWES had received some communications on
the subject before the House, or he would not trouble
Hon. Members with any remarks upon it. Those clerks
represented to him (Mr. Hawes) that they had been
serving in the Court of Exchequer for twenty or thirty
years, and that their occupation would be swept away
by the change. Why not, he would ask, give
compensation to those poor individuals as well as to Mr.
Scarlett. He saw no one in that House come forward in
behalf of those persons, but in behalf of an individual
who was the son of a Peer there were many to come for-
ward and advocate the justice of compensation.
Sir J. GRAHAM agreed with the Hon. Member for
Liskeard that the House onght in all cases of the aboli-
tion of offices to extend a liberal consideration to those
who had claims for compensation.
Mr. HAWES—To poor as well as to rich.
Sir J. GRAHAM—To rich and poor alike. Such
was the doctrine of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, but
such was not the doctrine of the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth, for while that Hon. Gentleman would refuse the
claim to compensation of Mr. Scarlett, who had a regular
appointment, he would uphold the right of those gen-
tlemen who had no regular appointment. He had no
wish to underrate their claims, such as they were, but it
was rather singular that they should never have heard
of their claims until the third reading of the Bill in the
present Session. It was certainly remarkable that during
the last Session neither of those Hon. Gentlemen had
mentioned the case to the late Government ; that Go-
vernment would certainly have leant a ready ear to any
recommendation of those Hon. Gentlemen, and if they
had drawn the attention of the Government to the subject
those claims would most probably have been investigated
and found untenable. It appeared that these gentlemen
had been employed as copiers in the Six Clerks' Office of
the Exchequer. Now, although the Equity Exchequer
was a Court to be abolished, yet two new Courts were
to be substituted for it, to give a greater facility for the
transaction of Equity business. He could not, therefore,
doubt that if those gentlemen had established their cha-
racter as efficient copyists, there would be a demand
for their services in the new courts. He would not, how-
ever, give any pledge on the subject, because he thought
it cruel to raise hopes which might end in disappoint-
ment. At the same time, he entertained a reasonable
expectation that the services of these gentlemen would
not be rejected.
Mr. HAWES explained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the rule in law
was that compensation was limited to those persons who
had a legal and vested right in their offices. Those gen-
tlemen had not, while Master Scarlett was duly ap-
pointed by the Lord Chief Baron, and had as good a
freehold right in his office as any gentleman in that
House had in his property.
Sir C. NAPIER had noticed that the House was al-
ways most liberal in dealing with any case where any
gentleman of ,the law was concerned.—(Hear, hear.) It
was not long since they voted 3,5001. as the
retiring pension for a Vice-Chancellor. Now,
the 5001. would be about the retiring pension
which would be given to a Vice-Admiral, after
thirty years' service.—(Hear, hear.) He would men-
tion a few of the pensions given to officers on the aboli •
tion of the Navy Board some ten years ago, and the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite deserved much praise for its aboli-
tion. There was Sir F. Seymour, a very old officer,
who had lost an arm ; he had a patent place, which,
being abolished, he was compensated by being sent
out to India, where he died.—(Laughter.) An-
other officer, who held a patent place, which was
abolished, was compensated by a transportation of
of
three years to South America ; and
Lehial(arii.t)aeaHr.
Gordon, under the same circumstances, was compensated
by five years employjpuas justly
n after,at;.t—e
rehilduteathrt'ah that.—(Hear.)
Govern-
ment wl
ia estohavweisheliya haanldf
might also mention the case of Captain Hornly ; he en-
joyed a patent place of 1,0001. a year, it was abolished,
and he was compensated by five years' employment at
Woolwich. He only mentioned these things to show
the difference in the way of dealing with gentlemen of
the long robe, and those of the short jacket.—(Cheers.)
Mr. C. WOOD could not understand the law laid
down by the Attorney-General, with respect to the
case of Mr. Scarlett. When Lord Brougham appointed
his brother to the office that had been referred to, the
greatest opposition was given to it by gentlemen on the
other side of the House. The Attorney-General's doc-
trine was that persons who had a legal title to a place,
and being in possession of that place, were entitled to
compensation. Now he wanted to know how Mr. Scar-
lett was entitled to compensation, and Mr. Brougham
was not ?
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
POPULATION PAYMENTS BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the further consideration of
the Report on the Population Payments Bill.
Mr. OTWAY CAVE wished to know whether the
attention of the Right Hon. Baronet had been called to
ase of the
c
the statement of a Magistrate, in one of the Metropolitan
Districts, with respect to the Irish, when the
Irishman had been brought before him ?
Sir J. GRAHAM had seen the statements adverted
had called upon the by the Hon. Member, and statements
tedt
Magis-
trate to explain them, as he thought such
with the due ad-
ministration of justice.— were calculated to interfere__
hear, hear.) The
worthy Magistrate did o(1.11
ff eaan explanation, stating
answer on the whole was sattsa ctory and he had no
that the report was in many essentials incorrect. The
repeated.
doubt that if an unguarded expression did fall from the
worthy Magistrate it would not be again
The Bill was then further considered in Committee,
and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Expiring
Laws Bill.—Ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

POOR-LAWS.
Sir J. GAHAM moved the Order of the Day for
going into Committee on the Poor-law Commission Con-
tinuance Bill.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move the following reso-
lution of which he had given notice—" That it be an
instruction to the Committee on the Poor-law Com-
mission Bill, to insert clauses to the following effect :
" 1. That it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners,
from the date of the passing of this Bill, to declare the
formation of any new Unions in districts which are not
already placed under the operation of the Act 4 and 5
William IV., c. 76.

" 0. That it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners
to disallow, by any general or other order, any pay-
ments which shall be made by the authority of a Board.
of Guardians for the relief of any poor persons or their
families out of the workhouse, notwithstanding any
powers given to them (by the said recited Act of 4th
and sth Will. IV.) to the contrary."
If he !ailed in his advocacy of a question of such great
impertance, it was not his fault; but that of the constitu-
ency which had sent him to that House, and who were
worthy of a better advocate. He was aware of the impor-
tance of avoiding all party recrimination, and should only
call upon lion. Members to consider whether the opera-
tion of the Bill should not be in some degree suspended
during the continuance of the present great distress. The
Right Hon. Baronet and his Government had asked for
time to consider the provisions of a proper Poor-law BilL
By the Poor-law Bill the Commissioners were entrusted
with, he might say, absolute powers over the
Board of Guardians, except in ono instances► that of
not interfering with the relief to be, given
to individuals. The 13th section of the Act gave
them an absolute power in giving orders, and the .52d
gave them the power to order out-door relief. He
begged leave to refer to that section. The Hon.
Gentleman then read the sectionlwhich gave the Commis-
sioners power to administer relief out of the workhouse,
to whatever extent they might think fit, either by re-
payment of money or giving provisions, or both, and
to what persons, at what time, on what con-
ditions, and in what manner such out-door re-
lief ought to be given. Such were the words of
the Act, and he mai: tained that out-door relief
was to be given, and was conveyed by those words.
But the order of the Commissioners was not consistent
with that Act. Their order was, that every
able-bodied person, male or female, requiring relief
should be relieved in the workhouse, together with the
families of such persons, and also the wives
of such persons as were married men.
He maintained that heves the .duty of the House to
limit that power which, during the present distresses of
the country, might be exercised with such grievous
oppression to the poor. The principle upon which the
order was issued was, that poverty arose from
profligacy.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that in
the present circumstances of the country there were a
great many of the industrious and honest portion of
the community who were distressed from other
causes than profligacy; and he hoped, therefore,
that Parliament would interpose to prevent a
violent exercise of power. On the assumption that po-
verty arose from profligacy, the workhouse had been
surrounded with terrors. First, there was the separa-
tion of families ; 2dly, arbitrary punishment and disci-
pline; 3dly, harshness to old age; 4thly, bad living; sthly,
the difficulties of getting admission into the workhouse ;
and sixthly, and greatest of all, the mixture of the virtuous
and profligate. Such terrors must prevent tho honest and
industrious members of the community from applying for
relief. As he did not wish to rest his claim to
the consideration of the House simply on his own
authority, he would refer the House to some statements
which had been obtained from different union, in
which all these hardships were displayed. First, with
respect to the separation of families. He was willing to
admit that if great bodies of the people.. were to be
collected under one roof, it might be eery difficult
in all cases to avoid the separation of families. But the
kind of separation which was most oppressive was the
separation of the mother and the child. In some cases
that principle had been extended even to the mother and.
the sucking child. The first case which he would refer
to was one which had occurred at Bath ; and it was
stated in a letter from the Chaplain of that Union. The
Hon. Member then read an extract from a letter pub-
lished in the Times of September 14, stating that whilst
a woman had gone into the yard of the workhouse, the
parties went into the ward, snatched up her baby, and
carried it away. In the Uxbridge Union two old men,
one of them labouring under sciatica, were splashed with
buckets of water, and washed with mops, until their
lives were endangered. Thus, by carrying into effect
the orders of the Commissioners, disease the most dread-
ful prevailed in that Union. Notwithstanding the pre-
valence of disease, then, the orders of the Commission-
ers prohibiting out-door relief were carried into effect,
and new inmates were admitted into the diseased Union. •
Under such circumstances, was it not right that the at-
tention of the House should be called to the necessityof
restraining in some degree the power of the Commis-
sioner.? e would next refer to instances of the diffi-
culty of getting into workhouses. Hannah Robinson
was affected with paralysis ; her husband applie,d to
'have her admitted into the workhouse of St. George's,
Hanover-square. The answer given the husband was.
" No, you must also yourself come into the workhouse."
The man was able to work, and refused to enter. The
woman was, in consequence, left alone in the absence, of
her husband, and she was burnt to death. At tLe in-
quest held on the occasion, the jury said that they could
not separate without expressing, in the strotgest manner,
their sense of the oppression of the poor in that case.
There was another subject to which he wished to refer ;
the mixture of the vicious with the virtuous. An instance
of that was mentioned in a letter of the Rev. Mr.
Watts, dated 20th August, 1840, formerly Chap-
lain of the Bath Union. Two improper fi males
were admitted, according the Reverend Gentleman,
into the union workhouse among a consider-
able ilumber of virtuous and proper females. The
cases of repugnance of paupers to enter the workhouses
were numerous. There was one, a remarkable one,
that of William Leech, who had occasionally received
outdoor relief at the Kensington Union. On being
pressed to enter the workhouse he refused to do so.
Soon afterwards his death took place, and on the in-
quest the Jury returned a verdict of " Died of want."
Another instance was that of Elizabeth East, who died.
of a slow process of starvation. On being urged to en-
ter the workhouse, she refused while she could get food
by selling Congreve matches. The poor creature died,
and a verdict of " Died by starvation ' was returned by
the Jury. Such was the case which he had to lay be-
fore the House, as the result of this system of terror..
Respectable people had rather submit to the extreme
degree of starvation than enter a workhouse ;
those not so respectable committed crime for
the purpose .of being committed to prison ; and
suicide and fever from want of food were the necessary
consequences of the law. The most glorious trait in the
character of Englishmen had been broken down. How
could they expect Englishmen would retain their spirit
if they were forced to submit to such laws ? Outrages and
disturbances had taken place, and they had consequently
been obliged to make a law for a rural police, which was
a degradation to Englishmen. It was a diegrace that
the peace of England could not be kept as it had been in
the days of Alfred, and that they were obliged to have
recourse to the miserable measure of a hired police for
that purpose. It was not denied that great distress ex-
isted, and therefore, as the Qovernment asked time to
consider a new law, they oute:at to take care that no cases
of oppression took place under the old laws. They asked
time to consider the Corn-law, which he was disposed to
grant them, bet that was another reason why the dis-
tress of the poor should be looked to, and that while they
refused to reduce the price of food they should take
means to prevent the people from suffering from the
high. prices. The Commissioners in their last Report,
stated their satisfaction that the prohibitory order had
been extended, so that there was no chance of their
allowing the guardians to act with more liberality in the
ensuing winter, unless it was caused by the prompt in-
terference of that House. He had a few words to say
respecting Ireland. A few nights 'ago, he
had heard the First Lord of the Treasury
express his satisfaction at the working of
Government should form a faithful opinion
the Bill in that country. It was right her Majesty's
to that country. It was impossible yet to state whether
or not that Bill would be efficacious for the relief thebe
Poor. However, he was of opinion it never could
carried into effect according to its present provisions—
they were still worse—still more stringent thane:tit:.
English Bill—it gave no power either to
CT
-door
sioners, to Guardians, or other officers, to with respect
the:
relief under aty circumstances.. . A person ignii‘gl,t°lhu.ivet
miles from the union-house •he g
might die if he could not be tamkeliiht be
there'
for the
stood as it did now, it never could be beneficialthen
quoted
relief of the poor. The Hon. Gentleman_
e.etorth Dublin
several cases of maltreatment in
the North
union, he
Union, and also in the Cork Union, In
tea, but that
While it
'rave their morals.
attempts had been made to de
hen for bringing
Ile hoped the House would pardon
stated, that not only were children ill -trey
--(Hear, fear)—but it
by facts than by declama-
was better to make out a caseld IL call on Hon. Gentle-
these distressing cases before it
tione—(llear, hear.) He would
principle, but he would
men fur any abandonment
and not allow the power of
of the people of the countreex',
tension which it had, but
the Ceminissioners thehumanity to the suffering poor.
would restrain it, fromlade out a case which would ensure,
ask them to look at the facts he adduced' of the condition
He trusted lie
the support of lion.,
11"
Gentlemen who had heretofore -ee.
He did not think that it was Con_
the House that
sultine the resist of
.otembers
u.. they should
should confine themselves
the test of a vote. 'll
mode of
. acting in that House, That 'las his
respectability
to mere talk, b
at Fete the
bring silted
it; eq lu'eosotri
questions
.h.
Id it was his firm determination nevets to
in-
trude in bringingquestion
any before the House' unless,
he eeteided to take the sense of the House upon it. He
thanked the house for the indulgence extended to him,.
and would conclude by moving the first instruction of
opproiipitOrn; al
which he had given notice, presuming that it would be
more convenient to the House to take the instructions
it
it
come ss• a
separately.
s
uonneenc-ehsesnadryedfo tor them.m meet
Mr. FERHAND seconded the instruction. He could
thatticeitexcitebers
ment,fo r
tasosruarieseHaonny.
athem. The Hon. Member had said) that there
was no
excitement in the borough of
Halifax, but was he aware
that tik hen the New Poor-law workhouse was building,
it was obliged to be guarded day and night, and that a
troop of cavalry were stationed in the town ? Was he aware that the cavalry trampled people of Bradford
the
when they met to consider the operation of that law?'
Was lie aware that the Commissioers and Magistrates:
of the Keightly Poor-law Union were obliged to fly
away to save their lives? He recollected that when 'the
Whig Lord Milton was brought out to represent the
West Riding of Yorkshire, a requisition was addressed
to him, at the head of which was the name of the Hon.
Member for Halifax. H
ehad even heard that the Hon.
Member for 1141; fax H. Pi assisted him to draw up his-