The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

THE CASE OF LIEUT. SANDHAM.

The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH said he wished to ask
the noble earl the President of tho Council, whether he had
any objection to produeo copies of the proceedings of two
courts-martial held in India, one in IMO, and the other re-
cently, upon Lieut. Sandham. In 1840 this officer was
accused of drawiog his sword on his superior officer on pa-
rade. The sentence of the court-martial was that he should
be degraded and reprimanded ; and on being sent back by
the Commander-in-Chief, Sir C. Napier, for revision, It was''
confirmed. From sec-ousts received by the last mail it op-
geared that the same officer had recently been tried for
three separate offences against native,. lie was accused and
convicted of severely ill-treating • native cloth-merchant;
be was accused and convicted of severely ill-treating
an attendant of • brother officer; and he was also
amused and convicted of breaking the arm of one of his
own attendants. For this last cffence he was mulcted of
all months' pay, and Sir W. Gomm, the Commander-in-
Chief, told him that he hoped he would learn in future to
treat his fellow-creatures a area and not as brutes. This
officer still remained as Offing of the Indian army, an
army apes wbsa dastien and Yelity this salary
depeodeahemstbin he themalsassawofilasmidesfa
India, web that Malan and Meaty mealy rated upon
sweat for the Enrepess character. Under the Mecum-
Mmes, it appease to him absolutely that the
I=lll sMsid direct the prosecatien of is ellen
11spremie Court of India—a Nan which was
atibibbe rfedg fee the protection af We and he
wadi mese that if a verdict was pesesseed against
him. he &esti be removed from the esay wader sign
mensal.
Earl GRANVILLE said he entirely agreed with the
sable earl with regard to the treatment of natives et India.
There was, however, a regulation ado bnaa government
to the effect that the Indian gomratest shied send to this
country an account of every case in which an Indian officer
had been found guilty of maltreating • native, and he had
no doubt that on an early day • communication on the sub-
ject would be received.
THE COUNTESS DE ROLLAT.
Lord ABINOER moaned the presaaletioa of a petition
with regard to this lady until Monday nat.

COMMON LODGING HOUSES BILL.
This till pared through committee.
CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS REGULATION ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY sewed the order of the
day for bringing op the resort ea this bill.
The Earl of CLANCARTY complained of the precipita-
tion with width this memare was being harried forward.
Me wax inforumll Mid the failure of the existing act was
swiss, not to wiled mien of it, but to its impracticability.
During the Whitson MOM he hid examined • number of
master sweeps is Irelemd, who all agreed in this statement.
Be had aloe wMIIIW W the Mayors of Dublin, Belfast,
Limerick, sad Mb" Owns, sad the answers which he had
received eorpespewded with the statement of the trade.
Boeing that fin bill wet bressist forward as an,pmendment
of the exist's, law, he would suggest that it should be re-
ferred toe select committee.
Lord BEAUMONT regretted that as noble earl had not
done a step farther and moved this rejection of the bill, for
It wee erroneous and &swam is principle, and its details
were petty and misseahle. It was a bill simply to prevent
postai persons under the •ge of 16 from carrying • beg and
• brush. (Hear, hear.) It was not a bill to prevent boys
from going up chimneys—there was already an act for that
purpose. If this kind of legislation was to go on, where
were they to stop? By and bye they would be asked
to prevent boys from being trained to ride rocs
horses. He could call this bill nothing bat
the pitiful ant of peeudo-philanthropy. (Ironical
Mies of " Rear, hear," from the Earl of Shatter
Wiry). For his own part, he wished the former bill had
sever bees enacted ; for he believed the sole effect of it
was, that a few extra persons had been burnt in their beds ;
the only set-of being what was termed the moral lizsprow-
meat of the sweeps. There was no reason why children
employed in the chimney sweeping trade should not tw
educated as well as other children ; end as to accidents,
they might have been entirely preveoied by proper regale-
bens with regard t, the construction of chi:nneys. He would
won as an amendment upon the amendment of the noble
earl (Cie:warty) that the bill should be reported that day
Mt months.

!40rdli.NMURE said even at the risk of exposing him-
self to the charge of rfudo-phtlaathropy—rcheer*)—he
lawn say OM Ward with regard to this bill more especially

as his noble friend who had just sat down had expressed •
wish that the original bill had not passed into • law. lie
had the satisfaction of introducing the original bill as •
member of the government of the day, and he must say he
had never attached his name to a bill with greater satisfac-
tion. It was not unbecoming the dignity of that house to
throw the shield of Re peoteetion over intents who were un-
able to protest them‘elves. They had does so in the case of
factory children, and it was unquestionable that children em-
ployed in chimney-sweeping were exposed to greater hardship.
By the 3rd and 4th Victoria children under 16 years of age
were prevented from being bound apprentices to the trade
of chimney sweep., and the ed.o et bad been to save the
lives of maey hundred children. There was, however,
another result. Many masters, having been deprived of
the power of taking children as apprentices, had induced
poor people to let them have their children virtually as
!slaves ; and the object of this bill was, he understood, to
meet that CAM..
Lord ST. LEONARDS said he entirely agreed with the
noble lord that young children 'should not be forced to go
up and down chimneys. But the noble lord appeared to
have forgotten the plovisione of his own act. That act
prevented children Irma being taken as apprentices under
16, hut it did not touch the question of going up and down
a chimney at all. What it did was to pr ivide that no one
should do th it who was under the age of 21, and as persons
of that age were generally too rational to do so, the provi-
sion was virtually a prohibition. Ile thought the object of
the noble earl was a good one, but the subject required
MOM consideration. If they were not careful they might
lairey the trade altogether. It sometimes happened that
the machine stuck in the chimney, and it would be nines.
airy that • boy should go up to extricate it. (Hear, bear.)
The principle of preventing boys from being ill-used was a
emir, but they should take care that they did not em-
the trade without doing any good. (Hear, be .r.)
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he was in favour of
the rejection of the bill altogether ; not that ho objected to
its principle, but that no reason or ground fur legislating
on this subject had been shown. The law imposed a pe-
nalty of 1001. on master sweeps if they sent • boy up a
chimney, and any person in the hcuae who knowingly per-
mitted him to ascend was autject to the same penalty.
This was amply sufficient to prevent the law being
least evaded;
at if this did not, he did no: know anything else that
would. The noble earl said tbst it was in the country
principally that the law was evaded. If so, it arose from
an ignorance of the law, and not from its insufficiency ; and
it would be better fur the noble earl to circulate handbills,
stating what the law was, than to bring in this bill. It was
mischievous is itself to load the statute books with laws
for which there was en necessity. (IL ar, hear.)
The Duke of AIWYLL said there could be no doubt
that evasions of the law had taken place, and it was to
prevent these evasioas that the noble earl had introduced
the presert bill. Ile thought the principle of the bill was
a good one, and that all those who siipported the former
set ought to vote for the bill of the noble tall. (Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE called the attention of their lord-
ships to a standing order of the helve, which provided that
no bill for regulating the conduct of a whole trade be read
• second time in the house till a select committee shall have
inquired into the expediency or inexpediency of the pro-
posed regulations, and shall have reported to the house
thereon. If this was • bill for the regulation of a whole
trade—and he did not think there could be a doubt that it
was—it was not competent fur the house to proceed with
the bill without referring it to a select committee for this
purpose. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that the bill having
arrived at its present point, he should net, as far as he was
concerned, recede from the position he had taken up.
With regard to the sentiments and language of the noble
earl opposite (Beaumont), who charged him with "cant
and a miserable pseudo-philanthrophy," he would only say
that he trusted in God he should live under his censure,
for he should rejoice to be the object of such observations
from the noble lord, and such as be, to the last hour of his
life. He denied the statement of the noble earl that the
last act had led to the burning of houses and loss of life.
On the contrary, there were thousands of children now at
school or learning trades more in accordance with the dig-
nity of freemen and Christian beings, who but for that set
would be employed in the disgusting and demoralising
trade of chimney-sweepers. If a few houses had been
burned in the country from sooty chimnics, it was because
no attempt hail been made to make use of chimney doers,
which could be made in every house at little
expense, and would enable the machine to be
worked in all eases. No system had ever been put
in operation which was more disgusting and degrading,
both morally and physically, than that of chimney-sweep-
ing by means of boys, and it was only because it operated
on so small& camber that the humanity of this country did
not repudiate it, as tl.ey did the System of slavery. The
noble lord said that this was a piece of petty and miserable
legislasion, and that it was below the dignity of their lord-
ships' house. He could only say that if their lordships re-
jected the bill now, which he hoped they would not, he
would, wish Ool's blessing, bring it forward again. (Hear.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN evirested that Use bill should
be referred to a select committee to corer the standing
orders. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PANSIURE wished to be informed whether a Lill
that had passed through committee of the house could be
referred tea select committee ? _

.
The Earl of REDESDALE said it could be so referred,
even after a third reading.
Alter some conversation the amendment was put in the
form suggested by Lord Monteagte, namely, that the bill
be referred to a select committee, for the purpose of in-
quiring into the expediency or inexpediency of the proposed
regulations.
(heir lordships then divided.
The gallery was then cleared for • division, but none
took place. After a short debate, with closed doors, it was
agreed to refer the bill to • select committee, to inquire into
its compliance with the standing orders.
Their lordships adjourned at boll-pat 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY, MAT 23.
The SriAlum took the cbair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were ivy/rally read a third time
pas,ed Gravesend and Wroittam Road ; Great Batra-M
Cemetery Association ; Kilkenny and Great Southern
Western Railway ; Ludlow Cattle Market and Slaught
homes; Manchester Improvement; Midland Railway
(Leicester and Hitchin) ; North British Railway ;
Staines, Wukingham, and Waking Junction Railway ;
Swaffhaus and Bottisbans Drainage (No. ; Weston-
super-Mare Waterworks ; York Drainage and Sanitary
Improvement and Foss Navigation ; Edinburgh Water-
works (No. 2) ; London and South-Western Railway ;
Imams, Brighton, and South Coast Railway ; North
and South-Western Junction Railway (Hammersmith) ;
Sunderland Dock.

The following bills were severally read a 'seated time:
Aberdeen Tellers' Incorporation Estate, Fisher's Divorce,
and %rods and Central India Railway Company.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (HENLEY) BILL.
On the order for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. CHRISTOPHER complained of the conduct of en
hon. member an the ministerial side of the house In moving
for the recommittal of this bill to a fresh committee in his
absence, he (Mr. Christopher) having beta chairman of the
original committee.
Mr. OLIVEIRA defended the course he had taken. His
I only object bad been to have the awe decided on its merits.
He had not the slightest, intention of offending say hors.
member of that how.

The bill was then read a third ties and paned.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE ROUSE.

moved that the bean at its rids;
ste Thezahty ant. Agreed to.

4ad

REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

Lord D. S f UAftT nave entice that, iiiiiiiiiiii Mouth,
be should move for lave to bring iu a bill to repeal the
Septennial Att.
EDUCATION BILL. _ _

Mr. MIALL gave notice that in committee on the Edu-
cation Bill he should move the insertion of a clause ex-
empting individuals from the borough rate to the amount
of their subscription' to voluntary schools in the district
DOCKYARD COMMITTEE.—REPORT.
Lard SEYMOUR brought up the report of the committee
on recent appointments in Chatham Dockyard. His lord-
ship moved that It be road by the Clerk at the table.
The Cm= proceeded to read in a rapid manner and low
"dos, the report, which recapitulated the circumstances
ands which the committee had been appointed, thecireular
sent to the dockyard superintendents in 1849, and the cir-
cumstances under which Sir B. Walker tendered his resig-
nation. The committee bad also to inquire into the circum-
stances attending the appointment of J. Wells, and gene-
rally into the exercise of the government patronage by the
Admiralty in the dockyard boroughs. Four distinct ques-
tions had been submitted to them, respecting which they
would offer separate observations. The filet question was
thesancelliag et the circular to the superintendents by the
set of the I9ih April, without any order or minute of the
Board of Admiralty, and in order to render their re-
marks on this point intelligible, the conunmittes must
advert to the circumstances of the case. The report
then proceeded to recapitulate the evidence, the original
order establishing a system of promotion by merit only, the
board reserving to itself the right of first appointment. In
1849, Sir F. T. Baring introduced • further security for
impartiality, by pledging the superintendents, on their
honour, to discard all political prejudices in the exercise of
their duty. The committee approved of this step, but
thought it inexpedient with referents to the lower
functionaries. Having detailed the mode in which promo-
tion was regulated under Sir B. Walker, it proceeded to
the circumstances already detailed in evidence, commeacing
with the %id March, 1842. The Duke of Northumberland
had, it appeared, handed all the civil patronage over to Mr.
Stafford, and Mr. Stafford had complained that it was gene-
rally ciistributed among the opponents of the then govern-
ment. The report then recapitulated the evidence of Sir
B. Walker, of the clerk Grant, and the various letters of
Mr. Stafford. The evidence of the Duke of Northumber-
land was next alluded to, and the discrepancies pointed out
in the evidence of Mr. Stafford and Sir B. Walker. The
latter bad deposed to Mr. Stafford having said, there was
no blinking the matter, that he could not withstand the
pressure of Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and Admiral Parker confirmed Sir Baldwin's tee.
timony. Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had attended
the committee, and deposed that they had never said any-
, thing of the kind. On the sth of April a promo-
eon was made, which gave rise to serious remonstrances.
The document then proceeded to give the substance of the
evidence of Captain Richards, the Superintendent of
Chatham Dockyard, in reference to the appointment of
Ridgeway through the influence of Sir Frederick Smith,
land in violation of the Admiralty order., of 1817 and 1849,
and declared the opinion of the committee that the late
Secretary to the Admiralty had acted in opposition to the