DEATHS
AND INJURIES, HALIFAX 16 AUGUST 1842
By Catherine Howe, February 2022
The plaque will be unveiled on Saturday 13 August 2022
It seems certain that there was no
official investigation into what took place at Halifax on 16 August 1842. Judging by documentation so far found, local
authority reporting on injuries barely exists beyond an incomplete note archived
at Kew in Home Office papers (HO 45/264-175) and magistrate George Pollard’s sketchy
report of 18 August to the Home Office (HO 45/264-171) which focuses on
military injuries. We know from
newspaper reports that people were killed in Halifax and yet you will see below
that when Thomas Slingsby Duncombe addressed parliament on 28 March 1843 he had
no idea that there had been deaths in Halifax.
This is confirmation that a proper recording of events and injuries and
deaths was not undertaken which leaves us unable ever to state how many died
from the action that day, or to say how many were injured and the extent of their
injuries. It is known that some 100
soldiers armed with sabres, bayonets and rifles chased on horseback and on foot
an estimated 1500 demonstrators across Haley Hill and into the nearby streets
of Halifax for some time.
Because of fear of arrest, many of
those injured, some grievously, chose to be taken home rather than taken to the
infirmary, others left the town completely.
5 Men reported killed:
1.
Jonathan Booth shot
through the abdomen close by Akroyd’s Mill by Range Bank. He died the next day in the infirmary. The inquest held the following week found it
justifiable homicide. (Bradford Observer 25 Aug 1842 p. 5)
2.
Three unnamed men found
dead in Akroyd’s private grounds, Woodside, the following day. These men were shot either by soldiers or
special constables.
3.
William Sutcliffe lost
his leg to a gun shot wound and died a few days later.
4.
Benjamin Wilson
recorded a man dying before he could get to the infirmary.
5. An eye-witness writing from the Northgate Hotel as the
attack was underway: “I got here last
night and have been completely a prisoner for it would have been dangerous to
go out. This inn is the HQ for the
military and never have I witnessed such dreadful scenes as I have done
today. I have seen many a poor fellow
shot this day! While I am writing this,
five have just been brought in wounded; two of whom have just breathed their
last. Several of the soldiers are dreadfully cut. Where I am I can see nearly all that is doing.” [Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser
20 Aug 1842 p. 2]
6. Another visitor to Halifax on 16th August 1842 said he
had seen four corpses ‘lying near the Northgate Bridge’ which was corroborated
by another. ‘The soldiers were reloading
their pieces in the street.’ Another
said that he had seen ‘two of the corpses.
A musket ball had passed through the body of one man, and the other had
been killed by a bayonet thrust, which has passed quite through the neck.’ [Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser
20 Aug 1842 p. 2]
Men reported badly injured:
1. Samuel Crowther of King Street, subject of T. S. Duncombe’s
parliamentary speech. Shot in the
abdomen by a soldier. Samuel survived.
2. The Bradford Observer (18 Aug 1842) reporting on 16
August: ‘We saw three men carried down
Haley Hill – one wounded between the shoulders, another in his back, another
was in a cart where he was wounded we could not learn. But to all appearances they were fatally
wounded.’
3. A young man called Sutton Briggs was shot through the groin. He was attended to at the scene then taken
home. (Groin gunshot wounds are rarely
survived without critical medical care)
4. Henry Walton of Skircoat Green was so badly wounded by a
cut to his scalp from a sabre during the Haley Hill attack that it was thought
unlikely he would survive it but no corroboration of his death has been found.
Henry chose to be taken back to his home at Skircoat Green. He doesn’t appear in the 1851 census for
Skircoat Green.
5. The Bradford Observer 18 Aug 1842 reports a man
called Crowther ‘had his head literally slashed open near the Northgate Hotel,
by a stroke of one of the constables’ bludgeons.’
6. Charles Taylor received a severe cut to his face from a
sabre during the Haley Hill attack.
7. John Holroyd bayoneted five times on Broad Street.
8. Matham Crook bayoneted and hit about the head close by the
Northgate Hotel
9. Two men shot in the leg the day before the Haley Hill
attack, one possibly a special constable by a soldier (mistakenly), the other
reported to be a man called Wadsworth [Bradford Observer 18 Aug 1842 for
Wadsworth].
10. A fatality rumoured during the Salterhebble stoning on the
morning of the Haley Hill attack. [Bradford
Observer 18 Aug 1842]
11. Unnumbered men who reportedly fled the town for fear of
arrest and who were said to be approaching doctors with injuries.
12. The dozens of men in the police station who showed injuries.
1843
Thomas Slingsby Duncombe spoke for Samuel Crowther, and
others in Preston and
Blackburn in the House of Commons on 28 March 1843. He was member for Finsbury.
HANSARD:
OUTBREAK IN THE NORTH.—CONDUCT OF THE MAGISTRATES.—
HC Deb 28 March 1843 vol 68
cc 70-73
§
Mr. T. Duncombe
Then
there was a case of gross outrage at Halifax, on the person of Samuel Crowther.
The case was thus stated to him in the letter of a correspondent:— In going (on
their return to the barracks) by the Smithy-stake, the soldiers passed through
a narrow causeway, which leads to the barracks. Samuel Crowther, a nail-maker by trade, who
resides in King-street, when the soldiers had passed, went out to look for one
of his children that was out of the House—he was within a few yards of his
House when he was shot! Feather, the constable, was with the soldiers or
standing by at the time he fired; there were not half-a-dozen persons in the
street at the time. Crowther was in the army ten years prior to 1816, belonged
to the Artillery, was at the battle of Waterloo and many other engagements
prior to that, was then discharged with 5d. per day
pension, in addition to which he could work at his trade before this misfortune
happened, but has never been able to work since; he had 2s
per week from the parish for six weeks, they would then relieve him no longer;
he is now obliged to live on his pension, or be a burthen upon some one else;
he is fifty-four years of age; he is a married man, and has a wife and small
family. The above is strictly correct; I have it from Crowther himself, he says
he thinks he shall never be able to work any more. Now it was to be observed,
that in the particular part of the town where this poor old man lived, there
had not been the slightest disturbance, and therefore the act in question
appeared to be an instance of mere wanton outrage. Mr. Bingley, the reporter
for the Leeds Times, and Mr. Hall, of the Leeds Mercury, were eyewitnesses of the circumstances,
being within two yards of the victim at, the time of the occurrence, and were
prepared to prove the facts as they appeared in the newspapers at the time.
That account in the Leeds Times ran thus:— The affair
took place in King-street, which is in the vicinity of the barracks and police
office. A small number of the Hussars, who had been clearing the streets,
turned up the bottom of King-street, and, after proceeding a few yards, were
filing into a street called Nelson-street, which runs out of it. At the time
that Messrs. Bingley and Hall were approaching the top of King-street, an old
man, named Samuel Crowther, a nailmaker, was coming towards them, apparently to
go to his own residence, which was only two or three yards distant. At this
period there was not the slightest disturbance in the streets, and, indeed,
there were not, it is believed, twenty persons in the space betwixt the top of
the street and the soldiery towards the bottom, a distance of probably nearly
one hundred yards. All the soldiery had disappeared along Nelson-street, except
one man who paused and looked in the direction of the persons above-mentioned,
and then levelled his musket, and appeared to take a deliberate aim at them.
Not the slightest alarm was felt by either Mr. Bingley or Mr. Hall, who, seeing
no cause for violence, apprehended none, and regarded the action of the soldier
as, simply, a piece of bravado, and looked at him, with perfect unconcern. The
soldier, however, fired, and immediately the old man staggered and reeled in
the direction of his own door, but made no outcry. Mr. Bingley exclaimed, 'The
man is shot!' or some such expression, but Mr. Hall, who had previously seen
him in a fit, replied that he was only in a fit. In a few moments, however, a
number of women rushed out of the House, exclaiming that the man had been shot,
and on entering the House, which was crowded with women uttering loud screams,
the old man was found lying on his back on a bed up stairs, with a wound in his
abdomen, his shirt was saturated with blood, and he was writhing with agony.
Messrs. Bingley and Hall immediately went to procure the attendance of a
surgeon. On calling afterwards, it was understood that there was but little
chance of recovery. At the time the shot was fired, Mr. Bingley and Mr. Hall
were only about a yard from the man who received it. A more deliberate piece of
butchery was never witnessed. The poor man was carried to the infirmary where
he remained for eighteen weeks. He was now incapable of work, yet from the time
of the outrage up to the present moment not the slightest inquiry had been made
into the matter. No committee of the town's people had investigated the matter.
No witnesses had been examined; nor was any thing done to elucidate the
transaction. Some London newspapers referred the matter to Leeds, which might
be one reason why no inquiry took place; but there could be no doubt or mistake
about it for what said the Bradford Observer? That
paper said:— Murder, or What?—On Tuesday afternoon, whilst Mr. Samuel Crowther,
a respectable nail-maker, and aged pensioner, was standing at his own door in
King-street, watching the Lancers pass by, one of the advanced guard having
passed him forty yards, at the corner of Nelson-street, turned round, and shot
the brave disciple of Wellington through the body. He took that from the
Bradford paper. There was no doubt, then, that was true, no doubt; the House
could not doubt that the man had been wantonly shot; that he had been seriously
wounded; that he was even now in a sinking state; that it was impossible that
he should ever resume work. [. . .] The local authorities of Halifax had
neglected their duty in not bringing the offenders in this case to justice; and
the House would equally neglect its duty if it did not institute the
investigation demanded. He hoped, however, that the House would concede the
inquiry, and so lessen the strong feeling which now prevailed amongst the
working classes, that no justice could ever be obtained for working men.
HC Deb 28 March 1843 vol 68
cc 70-73
§
Mr. T. Duncombe
He,
however, understood, that at Halifax a very strong feeling prevailed that the
whole conduct of the military on the
occasion there was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The petitioners
stated, that before the military were called upon to clear the streets at
Halifax they were made drunk; and at Blackburn the people seemed to think that
the military had some compunction in acting against their starving fellow
countrymen, and hence this system was resorted to, and at Halifax it appeared
the military were kept at the Norfolk arms [sic] —that they were visited
by the gentlemen of the town, who gave them money to expend in intoxicating
liquors, in order, as it was said, "to keep them up to the mark." At
Halifax all sorts of illegal arrests were made by the military, and though the
parties were liberated, they had never from that time to the present been
brought up for examination, nor had they been made acquainted with the grounds
upon which they had been arrested. Preston, he believed, was the only place at
which loss of life had occurred;
The Halifax Guardian called
Duncombe’s parliamentary speeches on the conduct of the magistracy and of the
military very incorrect and goes on to argue against every point. [Halifax Guardian 1 April 1843]
The following
Hansard report is pertinent also and goes some way to explain Halifax working
people’s especial fury against their employers:
HALIFAX
UNION
HC Deb 08 March 1843 vol 67
cc426-7 426
§
Mr. Ferrand
[member for Knaresborough]
seeing the Home Secretary [Sir
James Graham] in his place begged again to refer to the conduct of the board of
guardians of the Halifax Union. On a previous evening he had stated to the
House that the guardians of the union, with the consent of Mr. Clements, the
assistant Poor-law Commissioner, had entered into preliminary arrangements for
the erection of a tread-wheel in the workhouse. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Graham) upon that occasion declared that what he (Mr. Ferrand) stated was not
true, and that the machinery which the guardians proposed to erect was not a
tread-wheel but a hand-mill. Since then he had received from an unquestionable
source the following statement:— That the board of guardians of the Halifax
Union, on the 1st of March, with the consent and sanction of Mr. Clements, the
assistant Poor-law Commissioner, resolved that arrangements should be made for
the erection of a tread-wheel, exactly the same in principle as the one at the
Wakefield, or any other house of correction. The power is to be applied to a
rag machine, and the estimate for the wheel is to be to hold from four to forty
men. He (Mr. Ferrand) wished to know whether the board of guardians had the
sanction of the Home Secretary for the erection of this wheel?
§
Sir James Graham
[Home Secretary]
he had received from the
Poor-law Commissioners an assurance that they had reason to believe that the
statement that the board of guardians of the Halifax Union had entered upon
arrangements for the erection of a tread-wheel, was inaccurate. He had seen one
of the Poor-law Commissioners again that morning, and had again inquired of him
whether he had any reason to doubt that the statement which he (Sir James
Graham) had made in the House, upon the authority of the Commissioners, was
incorrect. The Commissioner again assured him that he believed the statement
was quite correct, that the machinery in question was not a tread-wheel but a
hand-mill for the grinding of corn. He was unable, from his own knowledge, to
give any assurance upon the subject. But he had no hesitation in repeating what
he stated the other evening, that he should most extremely deprecate the
erection of a tread-wheel in any union workhouse; and if by any misfortune such
an intention should exist in the minds of the guardians at Halifax, he was sure
that the Poor-law Commissioners would unite with him in the exertion of all his
influence to prevent its being carried into effect.
THE HALIFAX BOARD
OF GUARDIANS
HC Deb 13 March 1843 vol 67
cc754-65 754
§
Mr. Ferrand
[extract only]
a rag machine had been erected,
for the purpose of grinding rags obtained from the poor of the towns on the
continent, and impregnated with all manner of contagion and filth, and he was
told that the stench was so great, and the dust arising from the grinding so
oppressing, that they had the greatest difficulty in parts of Yorkshire, where
rags of this kind were ground for purposes of fraud by the cloth manufacturers,
to get persons to undertake the work. But, in order to make this more of an
infliction on the poor pauper, the wheel was to be worked by capstans, which
were to be turned by the poor like horses. These capstans were to be worked at
not only by the feet, but by the hands and breasts. According to the opinion of
a medical gentleman whom he had seen, it was highly injurious to the health to
labour in this way, and was likely to end in apoplexy. This was the sort of
mill which was about to be erected in the Halifax union workhouse for the
employment of the poor there, either with or without the knowledge of the Poor
Law Commissioners; if they knew of it, then they had deceived the House in the
statement which they had authorized the right hon. Baronet to make in his
place; if they, did not know of it, then they had neglected their duty.
