said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will have any objection to permit prepaid letters which may pass through the Post Office with wrong addresses to be re-transmitted within the space of three days by the same channel to the persons to whom they are addressed, without any extra charge?

said, that the rule with regard to letters of this class was found in the 3 &c 4 Vict. c. 96, which provided that every letter that was re-directed, whether with a stamp or not, should be charged from the place whence it was re-directed (in addition to all other rates thereon) just the same amount as it would be liable to if prepaid. That rule was now strictly complied with. If a letter were delivered and then re-directed and put again into the post, it did not pay on its receipt the double postage to which in strictness it would be liable, but only the postage to which it would be liable if it had been prepaid. There was a double process—a delivery and a second transmission through the post; and it seemed reasonable, therefore, that the Post Office should receive a second payment.

said, he would now beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the papers relating to the cession of the Kuria Muria Islands, and the correspondence relative to the supply of guano, with the terms which had been concluded with Mr. Ord and others, would be laid on the table before the dissolution?

said, he was not aware that the papers would supply any fresh information beyond that already published. There were different opinions entertained as to the quantity of guano derivable from these islands. Some thought it would be very great, while others thought it would be very little.

said, as, according to the Act of Parliament, no new Master in Chancery for Ireland could be appointed without the consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to fill up the present vacant mastership?

The question is still under consideration, and no decision has been come to upon the subject.

said, perhaps he might be permitted to remind the noble Lord that there were only four Masters in Chancery in Ireland, until a fifth Master was transferred from the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chancery. The Statute, however, made provision that when the new Master died another was not to be appointed without the consent of the Lords of the Treasury.

said, he would beg to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of the Government had been called to the understanding which existed at a former change in the Customs duties, that on the first appropriate opportunity the duty on currants would be reduced to the same amount as the duty on raisins?

said, his attention had been recently called to the subject, and he believed it was quite true that when the duty on raisins was reduced to 10s. an intention existed of reducing the duty on currants from 15s. to a similar amount; that, however, had been rendered impossible through the failure of the crops, and the consequent difficulties of increasing the importation so as to cover the loss to the revenue. However, he thought the subject was one fairly open to consideration at an opportune moment.

said, he must beg to repeat his question of Friday evening, whether the officers of the 85th Regiment were to receive any compensation for their detention at Portsmouth, and for the injury done to their property on their voyage to the Mauritius by the leaky state of the Megœra troop ship when she put to sea?

said, that a regulation existed by which a daily allowance was granted to officers who might be unexpectedly detained in proceeding on duty from one place to another, as well as compensation for any injury done to their baggage through casualties of any kind. The regulation, however, had only reference to a state of war, and, therefore, the case of the officers of the 85th not coming within that category, must be decided upon the merits of each individual application.

said, that at the close of last Session there had been some understanding that the Bill should be printed. It was an important Bill, and should be printed, like all other Bills, in order that Members might see in what form its provisions were expressed—if it was in the form of the usual Appropriation Bill, or if there was any change from the ordinary proceeding. He at the same time would call the attention of the Government to the measures proposed for the Savings Banks. Communications had been received from various quarters, to the effect that strong objections existed to their being placed under the National Debt Office, as well as to the reduction in the amount of deposits. The vast mass of accounts was for small sums of a few shillings. He urged this matter on the attention of the Government before the details came before that House, and begged them to consider the opposition made to the proposal.

said, that in strictness an Appropriation Bill was not required at the end of this Session, as no Votes had been taken except on account. It was, however, thought desirable to have an appropriation. The precedent of 1841 had been followed, in which an Appropriation Act had been passed, that the Votes for the civil service might be appropriated to the several purposes for which they were voted. He had no objection to printing the Bill, but there was no especial reason for so doing this Session. At the end of last Session there was a special reason. He was obliged to the hon. Baronet for his remarks on the Savings Banks, and would take care that the point should be considered before the Bill was again laid before Parliament.

wished to ask the Under Secretary for the War Department whether the Government had taken into consideration a memorial that had been presented some six months ago relative to the charges made upon counties for the maintenance of persons committed to prison for military offences? The visiting magistrates at Reading had just made a requisition to him for his interference, complaining that since the establishment of the camp at Aldershot the commitments had become very frequent, whereas formerly they were very rare, and that the amount paid by the Government on account of such offenders was not one-half of the expense to which the county was put. He thought that a clause might be inserted in the Mutiny Bill that would remove this cause of complaint.

said, the present Bill did not contain a clause to that effect; but he would take care the subject should not be lost sight of.

would like to know what extra pay the troops would receive that were about to be despatched to China? The climate of China was at least as trying as that of India, and there the men received double pay. He next wished to point out that as they were on the eve of sending out so large a force it would be advisable to consult all the army medical officers now in England or Ireland who had served in the late war with China, as well as those who had served with regiments in China, in order to ascertain what would be the best means to secure the health of the troops while serving out there.

said, that every precaution would be taken to preserve the troops against the effects of the climate of China.

But the hon. Gentleman has forgotten to say whether the troops are to receive any extra pay, or field allowances.

The regiments going out will be paid after the same rate as the regiments now stationed at Hong Kong.

complained that although the Bill now before them purported to relieve the people of Scotland from the hardship attendant on the billeting system, it in reality only shifted the burden from one class of the community to another. For while private housekeepers would be freed from the necessity of providing billets, publicans and spirit-dealers would have to bear the burden in an enhanced degree.

would take that opportunity of appealing to the Government on behalf of the wives and families of the soldiers that were being sent out to China. If there was to be no increase of pay or no field allowances, how were they to maintain their families in the meanwhile?

said, with reference to the billeting question in Scotland, he could not see how troops were to be moved without being quartered somewhere on the march. If any relief were afforded it must be general, and he could see no reason why an exception should be made in favour of one part of the kingdom over another. The present discussion was premature until the subject was taken up as a general question.

wished very much the subject was taken up as a general question; for the whole system of billeting appeared to him to be most unjust. Either barrack accommodation should be provided, or lodgings should be hired for soldiers on the march just the same as for any other travellers.

said, he could not see why Scotland should be more favoured in this matter than England or Ireland. He did not know why private persons in Scotland should be exempted from this duty, when in Ireland they were compelled to discharge it. He remarked that there was always a great row made by hon. Members opposite when any measure was taken for the comfort or convenience of the soldier. He did not understand why there should be this outcry because there was this practice in Scotland, which he admitted to be somewhat disagreeable.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member misunderstood him. He (Sir J. Anderson) was arguing in support of the comfort and convenience of the soldier himself, who was, under the present system, driven about from house to house, wherever he could get an entrance. He was an advocate for one uniform law. If the present miserable allowance made to the housekeepers for the accommodation of the soldiers—he believed 1½d. a night—were increased, there would probably be no difficulty about the matter.

said, a system prevailed in England, in corporate towns particularly, which he thought might be advantageously established in Scotland. When troops were quartered upon one of those towns the inhabitants engaged a large building or storehouse, where they located those soldiers, without any inconvenience to the town itself. He would recommend the municipal authorities in Scotland to adopt a similar plan.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member opposite did not seem to be aware that Scotland had been labouring under a peculiarity of oppression that was unknown in England or Ireland. By the new clause in the Mutiny Act that evil was remedied, and the law was made the same in Scotland as it was in England and Ireland.

said, the difficulty was not so much in the system of billeting; but it arose from the natural reluctance of persons to afford the soldier the necessary accommodation for only one or two nights altogether.

said, there was a subject connected with this Bill to which he wished to call attention before they proceeded further in Committee. He believed that the Articles of War for the army or navy had not been altered for a vast number of years. Now they were very severe in their terms, but were never executed or fully carried out. They were ordered to be read frequently on board of ship, and were of a most intimidating character, because many of them pronounced death for certain offences, when it was never intended that death should follow. He, therefore, thought that it was deserving the consideration of the Government whether those Articles should not be reconstructed. When he was a boy he remembered being afraid, on hearing those Articles read, that they would be hanging men every week. He thought that these apparently harsh regulations had a deteriorating effect on the service, and that ignorant seamen were very likely to be deterred from entering into the service from the severity of those articles.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member would find that the punishment of death no longer existed in the cases to which he referred, but was modified by other punishments.

said, he was perfectly well aware of that fact. He, therefore, wanted death to be expunged from the Articles of War.

said, the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) applied equally to the Articles of War in the General Mutiny Act.

considered it rather unfortunate, after the late discussion, that this question should again be brought under public notice. On the last day of the last Session he offered some remarks in reference to Sir Charles Trevelyan. Those remarks were certainly not of a personal nature, for he had not the pleasure of that gentleman's acquaintance. He certainly did express his regret, and that regret, he believed, was general, that Sir Charles Trevelyan had not received the directions of the Government to attend the Commission during the time it was sitting. It was only fair to the Commissary General and the officers whose conduct was impugned that Sir Charles Trevelyan should have attended during the inquiry. That gentleman would then have been enabled to explain those matters with which he was concerned, and the Paper now moved for would, in all probability, be unnecessary. He believed that the Commissary General had stated that Sir Charles Trevelyan paid no attention to the requirements of the army; that there had been, or example, 2,200 tons of hay demanded in all haste; and that up to the 28th January, being a considerable time after the supplies should have been sent out, only 228 tons had been received by the army. He would make no further remarks, as the Paper of Sir Charles Trevelyan had been moved for. Should he (Colonel North) have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, he would certainly make some more remarks upon the subject. If Sir Charles Trevelyan had been ordered to attend the Commission the inquiry would have been much more satisfactory to all parties concerned.

said, he had the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, and he was much struck by the truth of many of his observations, some of which were most galling and annoying to certain individuals. As the Government were about to send out a large expedition to China, he hoped that the fullest information would be afforded the House as to the number and character of the troops that were to be despatched, as well as to the precautionary measures that would be taken for the preservation of their health in the dangerous and pernicious climate to which they would be exposed. He should like to know what measures were taken for provisioning the regiments in their land passage—for victualling them when they arrived, and for clothing them while they were engaged in the Chinese war.

in reference to the observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Col. North), remarked that the Board of General Officers was not appointed to inquire into general statements, or into any system established in the army; but rather to receive any statement exculpatory of the officers whose conduct was impugned. He (Sir W. Codrington) thought it was therefore quite right that Sir Charles Trevelyan had not appeared before the Board, because his conduct had not been inculpated by the Commission.

said, that this Act of the Indian Legislature was invalid because it was in contravention of the Act of the Imperial Legislature, which provided that no law should be made by that Legislature which interfered with any of Her Majesty's prerogatives; and since, by this mode of dealing with the property of Her Majesty's subjects in India, without even an appeal to the Privy Council, the prerogative of the Crown was entirely set aside, he confidently predicted that if ever this Act should be brought under the cognizance of a court of justice in England, it would be set aside on that ground. It would, however, be impossible to bring the validity of that Act under the consideration of such a court without a course of litigation which it was alarming and painful to contemplate; and he therefore thought it was highly desirable that the Board of Control should recommend the Indian Legislature either to repeal this Act, or so to amend it as to allow an appeal to the Privy Council. The course was not only just but highly expedient; for even the persons in whose favour the award had been made were dissatisfied. Nothing was wanting but a little firmness and vigour on the part of the President of the Board of Control. Instead of this subject having been referred to the law officers of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor had been consulted upon it. No one could respect the opinion and decision of the Lord Chancellor more than he did; but nothing could be more inconsistent with the first principles of justice than to submit such a question to any one without giving to those who were interested in the decision an opportunity of being heard. Had the Lord Chancellor heard counsel for a quarter of an hour, he must have pronounced that this Act was invalid, and must be repealed or amended. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control would either on his own responsibility recommend the Legislature of India to amend this Act so as to give an appeal directly to the Privy Council, or would give this aggrieved gentleman the opportunity of being heard, if it were but for half an hour, by some counsel at the bar, who, he was sure, would not fail to satisfy either the right hon. Gentleman himself, the law officers of the Crown, or the Lord Chancellor, that this claim was founded on law and equity, and that justice never would be done unless some appeal were allowed.

said, he had been forcibly struck by the argument that the prerogative of the Crown had been set aside by this Act of the Bombay Government. He thought it most desirable that the Attorney General would state his opinion as to the validity or invalidity of that clause in the Act passed by the Indian Legislature which abolished the right of appeal.

said, he should have no objection to the production of the correspondence moved for, inasmuch as it would furnish the House with further information, which was absolutely necessary for the proper discussion of this subject at any future time. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport had not stated this case correctly nor fairly. The whole case had been submitted to Parliament last Session in the shape of a Bill, which passed through the House of Commons, but was rejected by the House of Lords; and he should not therefore enter into details—especially because since that time the East India Company had offered to the gentleman calling himself the Nawab of Surat a sum of money which he believed was perfectly satisfactory to him. and which his friends had advised him to accept. The question was now confined to the right of appeal to the Privy Council in respect to the private property. He believed it had already been decided by the Privy Council that no appeal would lie; but an opinion had been expressed that the Crown might direct a reference. The course which he had pursued in respect to such a reference was the only course open to him. The hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) had found fault with him for no taking the opinion of the law officers instead of the Lord Chancellor on this point but he did not know that the law officers would have had the power of hearing counsel, nor could he exactly see how the parties could have appeared before the law officers by counsel. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had already given an opinion on the subject, in his private capacity, and it would not have been exactly delicate to refer the question to him again as a law officer. His predecessor, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, had refused to direct this reference and the opinion of four eminent counsel who had been consulted by the East India Company was also against it. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite maintained that this Act of the Indian Legislature was not valid; but it was the business of Mir Jaffir and not of the Board of Control to bring this point to a decision in a court of justice. As to the want of firmness and vigour on his part which was complained of, he hoped he should always be wanting in that kind of vigour which, by an excessive precipitation to act on ex parte pressure, too frequently committed injustice on absent unrepresented persons. In this case, the property referred to had been already allotted out to the parties interested under the award of Mr. Frere, and if there were now to be an appeal from that award low were they to appear? The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite maintained that these parties had themselves wished or an appeal; but he did not believe that that was the case at the present moment, Mir Jaffir himself had consented to that award; he had been heard before the Commissioners, and now that he was dissatisfied with their decision, he wished to upset the whole thing. But the other parties to the award had quite as much right to be considered as Mir Jaffir. As at present advised, he saw no reason to doubt that that award was perfectly just. As to the Act of Legislature, it was a great mistake to think that it could be superseded merely by sending out orders from the Board of Control. On the whole, looking to the opinion of the highest legal authorities in this country, and to opinions also expressed by the Committee to which the Bill of last Session was referred, he did not think it advisable to take any steps in the matter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman chose in a future Session to take this question up in another shape, he (Mr. V, Smith) believed he would experience the impossibility of dealing with an Act which had been sanctioned by Parliament, under which an award had been given by a competent person, an allotment of the property having been made under such award to certain individuals, who had no opportunity or chance of contesting their rights before the Privy Council except at an expense so enormous as to be utterly ruinous to them.

inquired, whether the question of the validity of the Act of the Indian Legislature had ever been submitted to the Lord Chancellor, the counsel to the East India Company, the law officers of the Crown, or any other legal authorities?

was not aware that it had; but the Act had been in operation for ten years.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) seemed to think the Indian courts had not the same power of declaring this Act illegal or invalid as the courts of England. Upon that point he (Mr. Lowe) differed from the hon. Gentleman. Colonial or Indian courts had exactly the same power of declaring an Act of the Legislature unadvised as the highest courts in this kingdom.

denied that any one of his propositions was incorrect or unfair. He had brought the case forward because the petitioner had been a suitor for justice for fifteen years. He understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) now to decide absolutely against the petitioner's case. If that decision had been given months ago the petitioner would have been enabled to take another course. The Attorney General had given an opinion that the Act of the Indian Legislature which took away from the Queen the right of hearing her subjects in the last resort was invalid, and he recommended an appeal to the Privy Council; but their Lordships had decided that the Act was valid. He (Sir E. Perry) believed if a measure on the subject were brought forward next Session he would be able to convince the House that the Act in question was founded upon principles of injustice, and that the House would think it their duty to repeal the Act, and leave all parties to seek a remedy before a judicial tribunal.