114 ANNUAL REGISTER, 
On the 4th of April, there oc- 
curred 4 debate, in the house of 
commons, upon a petition against 
a bill, fot erecting a work- house, 
"in the parish of St. “Pancras. 
Sir Francis Burdett, presented a 
petition, against the same, from 
above 1400 parishioners ; who com- 
plained of it, as subverting the an- 
cient mode of supporting and regu- 
lating the poor; and placing the 
government of them, in the hands of 
a select number of the parishioners, 
under the name of “ guardians 
of the poor of the parish:” the 
petitioners begged to be heard, by 
their counsel, against the passing 
‘the said’ bill. Sir Francis therefore 
concluded, by moving, that ‘ the 
petitioners should be heard, by their 
counsel.” 
Mr. Byng, opposed the prayer of 
the petition, on the ground, that 
the great majority of the people of 
“property and respectability, in the 
parish, were for the bill. 
‘Mr. Hurst said, there never was 
an instance of a number of men, 
being deprived of their franchises, 
without some alleged misdemeanor 5 
or at least, without being heard in 
their defence. 
Mr. Courtenay, was for the pe- 
tition. “No evidence had been ad- 
duced for the bill, because there 
was none.. He considered the bill, 
as roing to invest the entire govern- 
ment of the poor of the parish, ina 
directory, most jacobinically elect- 
ed by themselves, and neither ac- 
countable to the vestry, or to any 
one else. 
Mr. Sheridan said, the question 
was not, whether the bill was a 
good bill, or a bad one; but whe- 
ther the petitioners should be heard 
by their counsel? This bill, in its pre- 
sent shape, was so different from the 
1803. 
original bill, that he thought they 
had a right to be heard. The pre- 
sent bill had some strange clauses 5) 
one was, to prevent disputes, be- 
tween the guardians; and the re= 
medy was somewhat Hibernian ; 
namely, to remove them all in such 
cases! One clause, was to prevent’ 
profaneness, swearing, and lewd 
conduct, by punishing such of- 
fenders, both in diet and dress; 
which he supposed meant, stripping’ 
and starving! Another clause was,” 
to make it a capital offence to carry” 
off from the workhouse, any artiele 
furnished there ; so, that if a poor 
girl got a pair of shoes, and wen) 
away with them, she was to be 
indicted! Another clause was, to’ 
empower those guardians, to hire® 
out children, in harvest or hays 
making time! This put him in mind’ 
of dean Swift’s suggestion, to the 
poor of Ireland, that ‘ they might’ 
fatten their children, and eat them.” 
He hoped the justice of the house,’ 
would not suffer the petitioners to- 
go away unheard. 
Mr. Fox, in reply to Mr. Byngi! 
said, that if the majority of the’ 
parisli, were for the bill, they might” 
be entrusted to chuse those guar- 
dians of the poor they called for; 
and there was no necessity for their 
being appointed by the legislature. 
The fact was, that, at first, there 
was an agreement between the two 
parties, that each should ‘chusé 
thirty; but, because the majority 
chose gentlemen of fortune, the 
party suggesting the bill, broke! 
through the agreement, and ‘brought 
in the’ present. bill, for the purpose’ 
of appointing, to ‘the same offices 
tradesmen in a very inferior situation 
in life. 
Sir W. Pulteney said, the framers” 
of the bill, had acted in opposition — 
"aa Fg 
