PENITENTIARY HOUSE AT MILBANK. (Hansard, 1 March 1824)

Mr. Gordon
wished to know from his majesty's government, what was intended to be done with this establishment. It was now unoccupied, and had been so 637 for six months, and he thought some explanation on the subject would be desirable.

§ Mr. Peel
said, that the policy of having commenced that building had been often discussed, so that it was needless now to discuss it. It was from motives of humanity, that the prisoners had been removed from it in the course of last year. As to what might hereafter become of it, he should not take upon himself the responsibility of sending back the prisoners without the fullest inquiry. In consequence of a conversation with an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bennet), whose intention it was, to move for the re-appointment of the committee of last year, he thought it unnecessary to say more upon the subject now, than to assure the House, that when that committee should he appointed, the whole question would be investigated.

Mr. Gordon
said, he did not mean to find fault with the removal of the prisoners. He was sure it proceeded from motives of humanity, but he thought they should not now be called upon to defray the annual expenditure when the institution was empty.

§ Mr. Peel
said, that although the penitentiary was empty at present, the prisoners had been removed to the Hulks, and this vote went to provide for their maintenance. In addition to this, some alterations were rendered necessary, which necessarily increased the expenditure.

§ Mr. Holford
observed, that it had been necessary to remove the officers of the institution, as well as the prisoners, and that also had added to the expense.

§ Mr. Hume
objected to the great expense of the officers, which was no less than 6,000l. This he considered quite disproportionate, whilst the victualling of 1,000 persons at the penitentiary amounted only to 8,000l.

§ Sir M. W. Ridley
wished to know whether there was any objection to lay before the House the report of the committee of medical men who investigated the disease which was prevalent some time back at the Penitentiary? He was the more anxious for the production of that report, because he was inclined to think it would disclose a circumstance not generally known, namely, that diarrhœa prevailed there for a much longer period than was generally supposed.

§ Mr. Peel
said, that if the report could throw any useful light on the subject, he 638 should not oppose its production; but as that would form one of the documents to be produced before the committee, he thought it would be better that all the in? formation should be produced at once, and by that means the House would avoid prejudging the question.

Colonel Davies
objected generally to this vote. In the first place, admitting the justice of a part of the demand, it was much too large; but he could not see upon what plea of justice, or of common sense, we should be called upon now to grant salaries to men for sacrifices which had been made, not for us, but for the interests of their lawful sovereign. He thought it exceedingly hard that now, after the restoration of the Bourbons, England should be saddled with the burthen of paying Frenchmen for supposed, services, which, if they were ever performed, were done for the purpose of restoring the French monarch to the throne. This vote, to say the least of it, was extremely questionable. With respect to the St. Domingo sufferers, they perhaps had some claim; but, after the reduction, which he meant to propose, a very liberal allowance would still remain for them. He should, therefore propose, "That instead of 16,520l., the sum of 10,520l. be, substituted."

§ Mr. Hume
seconded the proposition. He had hoped, that this year a considerable reduction would have been made instead of which he found an increase. It appeared to him, that on the restoration of Louis 18th to his throne, it was the duty of ministers to have stipulated that he should have provided for his adherents; and he still hoped, that the application might not be made in vain. However, of this he was quite sure, that the only way for the House to make the government exert themselves in the matter, would be to refuse the grant.

Mr. Herries
said, that the increase, arose from a transfer of a balance of last year's account, which made an apparent 639 increase, whereas in fact there was a real reduction of 150l. in the present year.

Mr. Gordon
concurred in the opposition to this vote, and thought his hon. friend had put the subject on its proper footing. Let parliament refuse the grant, and government would soon do away with it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that at the time of the peace, the government had felt it its duty to see how far a beneficial arrangement could be made. The negotiation set on foot with the French government at that time had this effect, that all persons who were French emigrants merely were to be taken off the list; and accordingly they are now actually supported by the French king. But the case of the others was widely different. Their claim was founded upon services rendered to us in the war against France, not as subjects of Louis; but they were services of a confidential nature, which actually had enabled us to carry on the war against the enemy; and, having enjoyed the benefit of these services, it would be hard if we compelled the French government to take upon themselves the burthen of compensation. It was true, that Toulon was taken in the name of the French king, and the vessels were surrendered to us under the name Of France We had had the benefit of them, and it would be too much now to call upon the French king to make good the expense.

Colonel Davies
said, that these vessels were taken to prevent them from falling into the hands of the republicans. Instead of a hardship, he thought it would not be going too far to call upon Louis to make some compensation for the blood and. treasure we had lavished in effecting his restoration. He thought these people had no more claim upon us than upon the emperor of China, and was quite satisfied that many of them were receiving pensions from the French government.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was impossible that that could be the case, because before they received their pensions in this country, they were obliged to sign a declaration, stating, that they received no pension or allowance from the French government, that they were not in the service or employment of any foreign power, and that they had no other means of subsistence besides their pension.

Colonel Dawes
said, he had no wish to 640 to cast an imputation upon any one, but he could produce a letter which he had read to the House two years ago, which would distinctly prove the fact.