The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-29 00:00:00

•-r"

,
'ERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TIWASDAY, JAN. 28.
The Loin CHANCELLOR took his scat at fire o'clock.

PETITIONS.—by lord Barn Wlon from trot looe. Cornwall.
naiad the Poor Removal Aet hy the Margot. of Laxotiow a, from
Puy Rid Committee of Cork, la memoree to Murree the suppl)
Of food for the people. By Lord WALANOO.O‘, for the abolition ot
the Lay of SettlemmiL

FOTICE 611116710 N. —The FAn of blorgreasual, on blondaY,
to moose far ROAM, of the total amount of sums appearing to be due,
as debt, damages, and cds, under decrees, order., and judgments
obtamed in Ireland tarsier the a t A Geo. 4, e. 35: also n return of the
rents reerired by the agents appointed by the (brut of Chancery, from
the Ist of January, DM, to the Ist of .hmuary, 1517.

FOREIGN POSTAGE.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he wished to call their
lordships' attention to one circumstance connected
with the fin ign rates of postage. Since the esta-
blishment of the postal conventions with France, Holland,
and Belgium, the advantage was mutual; pre-payment be-
tween one country and the other was optional ; but letters
to Germany and Italy, if not pre-paid, were lent back.
POOR LAW FOR IRELAND.

Lord BROllsl;2l,i;presentinethepetition from Rut
Lone, asked if it was probable that the provisions of the
contemplated poor law for Ir land would soon be laid before
their lordships ?
The Earl of CLARE (DON said, the bill had been printed
for the House of Commons, where it had been introduced,
and it had been delivered in the Vote-office the preceding
day.
Lord BROUGHAM regretted that an opportunity had
not been afforded their lordships for discussing the provisions
of the bill before its introduction in the other house. Parlia-
ment was on the eve of a dissolution, which must take place
this year.
Earl GREY.—Not necessarily.
Lord BROUGHAM.—Nut necessarily, but every one con-
fidently expected it ; and there was such a clamour abroad
on the subject of the poor laws, that it was impossible fur
members of the other house, under such circumstances, to
discuss the matter calmly. The Irish paupers in this country
were increasing every day ; oo Thursday last, at Liver
there had been relieved at the soup kitchen, between
and 3,000 paupers of the town, and 22,040 Irish paupers.
He had been informed that some persons of high re-'
ligions feelings in that town had prevented the
opening of the soup kitchen on the Sunday, for-
getting the example of the Saviour. This mixing up of
'oculist religious feelings with what ought to be charity
was, at this moment, the greatest of all curses. (Hear.) Ile
understood that the Rev. W. Bickesrteth, a clergyman, had
recommended that a fund of 20,0001. should be raised for
sending missionaries to Ireland, " to strike while the iron
was hot," and to convert the Papists to Protestants. This
sowing of dissuisu slam dimity ought to prevail was one
Me taut wished aids's is homi over bard IA Then a
worthy banker in the city of London had said--" Who but
lan infidel can doubt that this cruel calamity which has
visited Ireland is a judgment for the Masnooth grant I"
(Laughter.) He would name the gentleman—Mr. Henry
Hoare ; be had printed his name at the bottom of that
d 'testable letter. He supposed that Mr. Hoare was not a
more pious mart than Mr. Addison, who, in one of his ablest
papers in the Spectator, had chidden moat severely and reli-
giously those persons who were always finding out things to
be judgments. (Hear.) He (Lord Brougham) wished to
enter his loud and decided protest against such all abuse of
the lawny of discussion as these persons were guilty of.
Earl FITZWILLIAM observed that, with reference to
the " judgment "on the Maynooth grant, the criminals,
if any, were the protestants and the protestant podia.
mcnt, who were entirely exempt from the punishment, the
evil falling on the individuals on whose behalf they had
sinned. (Hear.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TnuRADAY, JAN. 28.
The See•zza took the shair !I foss minutes before four.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SECOND READlNGS.—Bultesheau (tummuoioners) Deck Acts
Amendment (as to ounstructlon of KS wall along WdlLesey Pool),
Birkenhead ;Commentoners) Heck Arts Amendment (conoruction of
new works and alteration of culvert), Indio:dead Impmerment Acts
Amendment No. I), Birkenhead Dock Company and Herculaneum
Duck Company Amalgamation Bills.
PUBLIC BUSINIFSS.

PETlTlONS.—PromoeStrmmghor duty on tea ;
several petition. from Let Loge, Crenir.lll, for amendment or roped
of the Poor Removal Act; from Liverpool for relief from the esponses
consequent upon the influx of poor from Ireland.
SPIX)ND REA DlM:l.—Brewing front Sugar NM
00MAITITEE.—Buckwheat, &c , Importation Bill.
RETURNS PRESENTED.—Fran the Trinity Rome, and Northern
Leith:nue Commissioners.
NOTICES up MOTION.—Or. Rowan. to-morrow this day), to
move for returns commend with the tobacco dollen-111r. Fists, to-
morrow (tale day), for production of correspondence with the French
government on subject of Spniisti marriages.—Lord Itrorirrra, on
Wednesday neat, to ask leave to bring in a hill for the encouragement •
of Labour in Ireanrl on railroads.—Mr. Rowni ro, wh. n the imvern-
ment measures for In LW are brought forward, to move to take the
surplus revenues of the Irish church, and apply them to the educa-
tion of the V ogle ; to extend the property-tut to Ireland, and in any
I iw of settlement or removal, to provide that the Irish poor in this
country shall be removed to their parish!. in Ireland at the expense of
More parishes.

lany other religious or moral instruction given to these pox
am tchrs; the chaplain seldom visited the dying. and the
conduct of the surgeon, Dr. Beery, was most brutal. Mr.
Capper, the inspector, was most negligent of his duty, which
ne (:.::. Dune .uibe) believed had been performed only by
his son or ncohew, who was a grocer in the Strand. (Hear,
hear.) lie al-o complained of the irresponsible power of the
overseers, who might flog men whenever they were reported,
and it was known that a poor lunatic, effiled Hetherington,
and now in Bethlehem Hospital, had been most cruelty
flogged on board the Justitia. Six men had also received
three dozen lashes each on board the Warrior, for being
fiveminutes after time. The treatment of these poor creatures
in the hospital was cruel to the last degree. One of them,
with a broken leg, had been allowed to lie on his back until,
from want of moving for the relief of nature, the flesh of his
leg putrefi. d and fell off ; and another, when, on his death-
bed, he requested to have spit itual topsoil:Um) from the sect to
which he had belonged—the Wesleyan—was laughed at by Dz.
Bossey, and told in the most brutal manner that he would
never more go home, but mast lie there and die; if
his triends were at the gates they might be per-
mitted to see him, but that was the only consola-
tion he would have. AU these facts he (Mr. Bun-
combe) could prove before a committee. (Hear, hear.)
The next case was that of J tones Brandish, a lunatic, who had
also been most cruelly treated. A person, named Cooper, who
had a lump of matter on his body, was so knocked about and
squeezed by Dr. Bow,: that he was not able to get up the
nest day. He was what was called a nurse, but it seemed
the nurses were worse off than the other prisoners. Henry
Eaton was ordered to work though he was ill and declared
himself unable to do anything. lie was forced to work, and
died in a fzr hours, declaring, on his death-bed, that he was
a murdered man: this happened in June, 1846. Henry
Driver was treated in a amilar manner, and died in four
days after he enteted. The entrails were immediately taken
out, as was the case in many other instance., and Grown
into the river; and when the dissection was over, the vacuum
was filled with flannel before the coroner's inquest was held.
He wanted to know whether this was legal under the ana-
tomy set, which required forty-eight hours to elapse before
diatec.ion was allowed to sake place. The medical man did
not attend them in their dying moments, and the chaplain
scarcely ever visited them. He wanted to know if the right
hon. gentleman had any idea ,;f these things being practised;
or whether they could have occurred i: there was anything
like efficient control on board these convict ships? He would
undertake to bring forward evidence to support the whole a
these allegations, if the committee for which he now moved
was granted. On the motion being put—
Sir G. GH EY aid he fornd it diff.cult to follow the hon.
Gentleman through his statements, but, assuming them to
be true., he had no hesitation in saying, if such a treatment
of prisoners as he described took place eystcmatically, either
in their prisons or any where else in the country, such prac-
tices were inworthy of a Christian country, and could not
be reprobated in language too strong. (Hear, hear.) But
oatil the hon. gentleman made his statement ;hat night, he
had no intimation of the grounds on which the hon. gentle-
man proposed to ask for a committer, for he had not heard
any one of the charges against the medical officer from the
hon. gentleman or any other individual, and which the hon.
gentleman grounded oo a series of cases which he read to the
house. lie must, therefore, receive with some qualifitution
these accounts, made on the authority of prisoners confined
in the hulks. The hon. gentleman alluded to corpora)
punishment taking place in the hulks. Now he was
informed that Sir Gordon Bremer the superintend-
ent at Woolwich, reported that there was no ease
of corporal punishment at Woolwich for four years. Ha
could not but disbelieve the pownbility of a gentleman hold-
ing the offiee of surg, on acting in the manner that had been
described. But if t e hon. gentleman gave him the names of
' the persons who vouch for the truth of these statemeata, and
the does 011 which they are said to have occurred, the sub-
ject would be investigated, and the hon. gentleman would
. have an opportunity of substantiating them. The hon. gen-
Conan said he wanted a committer and not a commission.
He (sir G. Grey) was not surprised at that, because, when
the allegations in the petition of Baker with respect
to the 111Pbtuili Penitentiary, for the truth of every
statement in which the honourable gentleman vow 1104,
were investigated before a commission, the result, though
not quite sat isfaetory, showed that the allegations in that pes-
' tition were greatly exaggerated, and that the charges against
the authorities were untimodsl. He did not think that an
examination before a commission, where the witnesses were
examined on oath, wan leis saris actory than a cornmitt• e of
the house. He hoped, therefore, the hour would allow
him to institute inquarzespreviounly,and that the hon. gentle-
man would la this purpose put the case in his hands. but he
trusted the house wool!, not grant the committee asked for.
... . ... . .

Lord 3IAHON said he was perfectly satigied with the de-
claration of the right linn. gentlemen, that upon getting the
names and dates he would investigate this matter. But he
must . xpreo his decided opinion that the working of the
hulk sy.tem up to the pre‘ent time had been anything but
sati‘factory. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ItiLIONBN" said he would rote for the motion of
the hon. member tnr Fin,bury-, if he pressed it to a division.
Mr. WAK LEY said his hon. colleague was bound to
divide the house after the statement, which he had made,
and n bleb he said he hail investigated.
Mr LSCOTr did not see what objection the government
could entertain against. granting a committee, after the
statement, of his hon. friend the member for Finsbury.
Mr. FEItRAND thought the bon. gentleman (Mr. Dun-
combo) had a right to demund a committee of inquiry.
Mr. IM:ME thought the holm should come to soma
understanding on the suhj. et, and that the public should not
be aliowed to suppose they were unwilling to grant in-
quiry. He thought a c.mtnittze ought to be granted.
1 he mischief entailed by r, fusing an inquiry would be such
that he could not refuse to support the motion.
Mr. MUNTZ said the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey)
admitted that there had b. en very had managem, nt, and he
saw no reason, therefore, why there should not be a com-
mittee.

Sir W. J AMES, after balancing the evils which must arise
from granting or refusing the committec,was dispns d to vote
for the motion. He must say, however, that the hon. MOM.
her for Finsbury frequently made statements to the house
which afterwards proved not to be well founded his
charges respecting the post-office were open to that Omer-
ration.

Mr. O. STANLEY thought that inquiries made by public
servant: were generally unsatisfactory to the public. He felt
bound to support the motion.
Mr. EWART con-iderrd it very dangerou. for a member
of parliament to become entangled in the labyrinth of a
government office. In a case like the present, the best comae
for all parties was to grant an inquiry like that now sought.
Mr. T. DUNCOMI3E in reply protested against the
principle laid down by the home secretary ae subversive of
all independence on the pert of members. All that the
house had any right to require from • member in such mat-
ter. was, that he should make out a prim', facie ease for in-
quiry, end, the commitb e being granted, the reproach and
disgrace of not ouletantiatine his allegations would rest
with the member himself. in the present ease (as was under-
stood) as in that of the post-office, there bad been a grim and
shameful attempt to intimidate witnesses who gave evidence
before the coming ...inn ; and the right hon. gentleman was
aware that • memorial had been presented to him,
complaining of persecution ever since the inquiry.
As regarded the post-office case, it must be remembered that
the committee was a secret one, and the evidence
taken before it had not been printed. The report of
the committee supported his allegations, and every one was
convinced that a system of espionage hail prevailed in the
post-office department. The right hnn. gentleman the Home
Secretary relied entirely u; on special pleading. When asked
by him the other day what was the nature of the case with
respect to the Woolwich hulks, he told the right bon. gen-
tleman that it had reference to the cruelties practised to-
wards prisoners on board, and to some deaths which had oe-
emceed and the latter immediately said that befere takine any
step he must hear what he (Mr. T. Duneombe) had to say
in the house. (Hear, hear.) Wss it consistent then to
object to his preecnteourae, and to say that he ought to be.
contented with an. inquiry at the Home-office ? lie sup-
posed that he should obtain is commission in the case of the
Woolwich hulks ; but unless he himself were a member, par-
ties would refuse to come forward and give evidence. Let
the right hon. gentleman appoint one member, the Speaker
another, and let him (Mr. T. Dencomhe) be a third ;
(laughter)—he would then be guided by the opinion of the
other two.
Sir G. OBEY had not understood the hon, gentleman's
reply to hie question respecting the Woolwich hulk, in the
manner stated. His impreevion had been that he said his
reason fur desiring an inquiry was, that the inspection was
defective, and that he wiehed the hulks to be brought under
the same ineptetion as prisons.
The house then divided.—For the motion 44
Against it 121-77
POOR-LAW COM M InS I ON RItS.
Mr. FERRAND roes to move for • "select committee, to
inquire into the mode adopted by the poor-law commissioners
and their awistant commireioners in drawing up reports, end
their treatment of boards of guardians • and what control
the right hon. Sir J. Graham, bait., ezer'eised over the poor-
law commissioners and their Resistant eunimirioners during
the time he held the office of her Majesty's principal Scree-
buy of state for the Home Department. Also, whether,
under the enforcement of the new poor-law, wages have not
been reduced ; whither crime ha* not increased; whether a
!system of terror, instead of &system of kindness, has not been
adopted towards the poor ; whether the favourable antieipa-
thins .preesed in parliameict by the promoters of the New
Poor-law have not entirely fadid ; and whether the prin-
ciple upon which the new poor-low is founded is not •
direct iiulatian of the coocitution of England." The hon.
member said, the house would remember that in 1844 it did
what he had eiways since considered en act of cruel injuetice
to himself. (Hear.) He hoped to be able to con-
vince tke house that evening that he was justified in
using the language which he had done at a public meeting
in Leech. it was not his intention to enter then into the
principles of the new poor-law, hut there could be no greater
proof of the rottenness of the system, and of its debasing in-
fiuence on the minds of the poor, than the fact that it had
received its death-blow in • workhouse squabble. The
people would never be satialied with anything but • total
repeal of the present intarnots law. No law-officer of the
crown had maintained that the laws made by the three com-
missioners were binding. The honourable member then
proceeded to quote the report of the Andover committee.
Mr. Parker, in his evidence on the 31st of July, was
"To what duplicity do you allude 1" lie called upon the
him, in justice to himself, to listen to the answer, which
had been *truck out of the report:—" To the statement of
Sir J. Graham in the House of Commons, that Mr. Mott's
visit to the Keighley Union wee voluntary, he having re-
ceived instructions from Sir J. Graham to go there." The ful-
lowing was the opinion expressed by Sir F. Lewis. in reference
to Mr. Chadwick Mr. Chadwick was an able man, but I
thouaht him as unscrupulous and as dangerous an officer as
I ever saw within the walls of an office. ' Yet Mr. Chad-
wick had not been disonaud, because, if he were, he might
reveal what it was the interest of the poor law 00111111ialliOW rs
and their supporter' to motes,. lie had the opinion tit the
present Attorney-General respecting the late Secretory
of State for the Home Department. There had been
•a clerk of the name of Jenkins Jones in

• 4d,
-;" d
.s: • '' 0
-
A

1~