said, he wished to ask the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty whether the same protection against loss of life afforded to emigrant ships had been or would be provided for the ships about to embark troops for China, by supplying them with Clifford's lifeboat apparatus, which had been subjected to the severest tests from Her Majesty's ships under different circumstances of weather, and at every rate of speed, and of the complete efficiency of which reports had been forwarded to the Admiralty.

said that, had his hon. and gallant Friend given him notice of his question, he would have brought with him a list of the ships which had been fitted with the apparatus. He could only say, that in every trial which had been made of it, its use had been attended with complete success.

Controller of the Household, appeared at the bar, in full dress, and delivered Her Majesty's answer to the Address agreed to by the House on Thursday evening last, with regard to the services of Sir John M' Neill and Colonel Tulloch.

said, as he had a question to put, which would require a short statement, he would, to be in order, move that the House do adjourn. It related to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, as exemplified in an appeal in the case of Grey and others v. Pearson, which had been decided in the House of Lords on the previous day. It had been argued in favour of the creation of Lord Wensleydale, that such creation would facilitate the hearing of appeals. Now, the appeal in question was one from Lord Justice Turner, who was known as a Judge of great ability, to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor took a different view of the case, and varied the judgment. The case was then brought by appeal before the House of Lords. It was heard by the Lord Chancellor, sitting in appeal from his own judgment, by Lord St. Leonards and by Lord Wensleydale. The Chancellor adhered to his former opinion. Lord St. Leonards delivered an opinion against the Chancellor, supporting his view by several strong decisions—among others, one of Lord Hardwicke's. Lord Wensleydale concurred with the Lord Chancellor. Now, Lord Wensleydale was, no doubt, an able common law Judge, but he had been all his life engaged in common law, and had no experience in equity. The result was, that Lord Justice Turner, a great equity Judge, and Lord St. Leonards, another great equity Judge, concurred in their opinions; while, on the other side, there was the Lord Chancellor, assisted by a common law Judge. Both the bar and the public would give preference to the opinion of Lord Justice Turner or Lord St. Leonards over the Lord Chancellor. Here was the fact, that two eminent Judges in equity had pronounced an opinion which was set at nought by one equity Judge, assisted by a common law Judge. Last year he himself had pointed out the probability of the very case which had now occurred. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether, under these circumstances, the Government were not of opinion that much remained to be done before the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords would be in such a state as the wants of the country and the administration of justice required; and whether he would next Session bring forward a measure for the constitution of an appellate court of ultimate resort which should be fully adequate to the performance of its important duties?

said, that the question seemed to him an extraordinary one. He could not say, because a case was decided yesterday by the House of Lords, that therefore great changes were required in its appellate jurisdiction. He knew nothing of the case but from the statement of the hon. Member, and there was nothing in that statement to lead him to such a conclusion. Two noble Lords had decided against one in a minority. This was a case of frequent occurrence, and did not convince him that any great changes were necessary in the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. He did not think that the House would usefully occupy its time by discussing the merits of particular Judges, and endeavouring to provide that, contrary to the general rule, the opinion of one Judge should prevail against those of two others. So far as he was concerned, he did not think that the circumstances of this case rendered necessary any interference with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.

explained that he did not complain of the decision of the House of Lords being given by the majority; he complained that the decision was made by an equity Judge, sitting on appeal from himself with a common law Judge who never practised or sat in a court of equity, against the opinion of two great equity Judges, one in the House and the other in the Court below. The casting vote was given by a common law Judge.

said, seeing his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board in his place, he begged to ask him a question with respect to a matter which excited very great interest in Ireland—inasmuch as the grievance complained of was a very common one. It appeared that in the month of February last, a woman named Brosnahan applied for relief at the Killarney Union, being then on her way to Tralee; and she made a statement to the magistrates there that she had been married in London, and that her husband had been for five years a policeman in London, and subsequently had been employed in various parts of that city—that, in fact, she had been between ten and twelve years a resident in London. Her husband, however, subsequently deserted her, or left her with her own consent; and, although she stated most positively that the man had been born in England, yet, when she applied for relief at the Holborn Union, she was shipped on board the Bittern steamer and left to perish on the pier at Cork in a state of destitution. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend whether his attention had been called to the circumstances of the removal of a female pauper, named Honora Brosnahan, and her children, from the Holborn Union to Ireland; whether he had reason to believe that the said Honora Brosnahan's husband was born in England; and whether any remedy existed by the present law for the injustice inflicted on the woman herself and on the Tralee Union in Ireland, to which she had been removed?

said, his attention had been called to the case through a communication from the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland who, in their turn, had been attracted to it by the guardians of the Tralee Union. Inquiries had, therefore, been instituted into the circumstances by the English Poor Law Board, which elicited the following facts:—As the woman was the wife of a man who had been in the police in England, and the husband had deserted her and her children when she applied for relief to the Holborn Union, the question arose whether they were bound to give her relief—whether, in point of fact, she was settled or irremovable in that union. The guardians alleged that there was no evidence offered to them of any kind that the husband of the woman Brosnahan was either born or settled in England. It was disproved that there was any claim to irremovability on the ground of five years' residence, which was what was required by the law; and consequently the guardians were entitled to remove her to Ireland. The woman had stated subsequently that her husband was born in England, and that he had a settlement in some parish in this country; but the truth was, the statement was not supported by the evidence which would be requisite in a court of law. And he must add, that the guardians of the Holborn Union had assured the Board that the woman had of herself consented to go to Ireland, and that she had been treated with the greatest kindness previous to her transmission. He could not avoid stating that the relief of this very class of cases, which were so much to be deplored, was attempted by the Bill which he had the honour to introduce last Session of Parliament, but which unfortunately, as he thought, had not received the concurrence of the House.

said, it was not his intention, considering the state of matters, to proceed with his notice for the nomination of the Select Committee on the grievances of the Land Transport Corps. At the same time he was happy to state that those grievances were under the consideration of the War Department, and he hoped they would be adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties. Of course if they were not, it would be open to him to renew his notice early in the next Session of Parliament, if he should have the honour of a seat in that House. He wished, however, to remind the Government that the Order in Council with regard to the disbanding of the Land Transport Corps had not been as yet laid upon the table, as had been promised.

on behalf of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War, would undertake to say that the papers in question would be presented before the dissolution of Parliament.

claimed the attention of the House for a few moments, wishing to call their notice to the subject of the Sound Dues, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a treaty had been signed to capitalize those dues, and indemnify Denmark for giving up her reputed rights; and if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that such treaty should be acted upon before Parliament had voted the money for such object? The subject was one which had engaged a considerable degree of attention, and it was absolutely necessary to have further information with regard to it before Parliament committed the country to an expenditure of £1,000,000 sterling for the capitalization of those dues;—for it was stated that a treaty had been entered into with Denmark for their capitalization. A Committee sat last Session on the subject, and it was in accordance with one of its recommendations that the treaty was now about to be concluded with Denmark. He was one of those who had had the honour of a seat upon that Committee, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, had devoted a great deal of attention to this question; but he must state, as far as the evidence adduced before them went, it was entirely, or nearly so, the evidence of persons interested in the abolition of the dues. Now, inasmuch as the claim for dues affected only a special class, he did not think that their abolition ought to be taken as a national question. The claim was one of great antiquity. So far back as the year 1645, Sweden was specially exempted from the payment of the dues; she afterwards, however, in the year 1720, renounced the privilege in consideration of large concessions made to her in the shape of territory. But when Denmark ceased to be the owner of the two shores, it became a legitimate question with all nations whether they should any longer pay the dues. The Americans had recently reopened the subject. He had been always of opinion that the matter was one for adjustment by treaty, instead of being determined by a heavy expenditure on the part of the nation. But there was another consideration involved in the settlement. It was generally understood that the dues had been hypothecated in London for a loan of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, and, therefore, it ought to be declared how this payment of £1,000,000 sterling to the Danish Government would be appropriated; whether it was to be appropriated in payment of the loan, or whether the bondholders would lose their security. They ought, also, to be informed whether the proposed capitalization of the dues was founded upon a prospective increase or decrease in trade. This was important, because, if they referred to their experience since the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, they would find that there had been a gradual decrease in trade as far as tonnage was concerned. The Returns established the following important facts:—The number of British vessels that had passed the Sound in 1849 was 6,876; in 1850, 5,464; in 1851, 4,794; in 1852, 3,902; in 1853, 4,654; and in 1854, 2,000. It was hardly fair to carry the figures farther, on account of the interruption of the war. But, on the other hand, it was necessary to guard the House against being led away by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, as to the prosperity of the shipping interest. He stated that there had been a large increase in British tonnage between 1853 and 1856, and a small increase in foreign tonnage in the same period. There was considerable ingenuity in the selection of these two years for the purpose of comparison, because the first of them was the date at which British tonnage was at its lowest ebb since the repeal of the navigation laws; and if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look into the Returns for 1853, he would have found that between them and the Returns for 1849 there was a difference in favour of the latter year of 222,000 tons; while, if he had pursued the inquiry up to 1856, which could count all the advantages of a resuscitated trade after the war, and compared that year with 1849, he would have seen that while the foreign tonnage had increased in this kingdom 180 per cent, British tonnage had increased only 33 per cent. However, to return to the subject more immediately before them—according to the evidence of the witnesses before the Select Committee the chief ground of complaint was not the expense which shipowners were put to through the levying of these dues, but it was the delay that was caused by their collection. Now, surely some arrangement might be made to obviate that delay. In the case of steamers that had been already done, for they merely delivered their papers and were not called upon to pay the dues until they got into the port of discharge. A similar arrangement for the benefit of sailing ships might be made by treaty, and then the dues, whether light or heavy, would fall upon those who ought to bear them. He believed the new treaty was to come into operation upon the 1st of April, and unless the explanations of the Government were satisfactory he should be prepared to give it his determined opposition. He should conclude with moving that the Papers relative to the treaty be laid upon the table of the House.

said, as he saw from the public journals that the treaty had been signed by the various Powers, he wished to ask—first of all whether it included the redemption of a portion of the transit dues; and secondly, whether one-fifth of those duties would still remain unredeemed?

said that the evidence taken by the Committee of last Session, as very truly stated by the hon. Member for Maldon, showed most conclusively that the Sound dues were onerous to navigation and detrimental to the trade of this country with the Baltic, not only on account of the sums which were levied upon ships passing through the Sound, but also by reason of the delays which they occasioned, and the additional charges incidental on those delays. It had been admitted on all hands for some years that if these dues could be extinguished by some sort of equitable redemption the change would be beneficial; and, in consequence of a question raised by the Government of the United States, negotiations had been going on during the last twelve months between the Danish Government and the Governments of all the principal States of Europe for the redemption of these dues. With that view, on the 14th of the present month two treaties had been signed at Copenhagen; the first between the Government of Denmark and the Governments of Russia, Prussia, France, Great Britain, and other States, which contained the general stipulations referring to all these States; and the other, a separate convention, signed on the same day, between the Governments of Great Britain and Denmark, which contained the particular stipulations affecting these two countries. Her Majesty's Government only knew of the signature of these treaties by a telegraphic despatch, and at present they had no copy of them as they were signed; but from the draughts in the possession of the Government, which he believed to be identical with the treaties signed—though, of course, he could not pledge himself that such was the case—he would shortly state what the effect of these treatise was. By the second Article of the general treaty the Sound dues were to expire on the first of April next; the amount of compensation to be paid by each State was fixed by the 4th Article; the 7th Article made the execution of the treaty dependent upon the sanction required by the constitutional laws of the respective countries; and the 8th Article stipulated for ratification in the usual manner. By the separate convention between Great Britain and Denmark it was provided that the amount of compensation to be paid by this country should be paid, in the event of the assent of Parliament being given to it, within three months after the passing of the requisite Act of Parliament ratifying the treaty. Although an early date had been fixed for the opening of the Sound, in order to meet the convenience of those States which had no Parliamentary Government, and were therefore able to pay their stipulated amount of compensation without consulting any legislative body, the Danish Government, by a protocol signed on the 16th of February, retained the right of maintaining a sort of status quo until the engagements of the 7th and 8th Articles of the general treaty were fulfilled. This would be done by taking a security from the vessels passing through the Sound for the eventual payment of the dues in case the arrangement made by the treaty was not sanctioned. The faith of Parliament was in no way engaged by the arrangement, and whatever change might take place on the first of April the next Parliament would be left quite free to come to whatever decision it might think fit. It would be the duty of the Government to lay the whole subject before Parliament at the earliest period, to explain on what grounds the negotiations had been carried on, and to suggest such means as it might think most advisable to carry out the arrangements arrived at. He was not aware that the treaty contained any engagement with respect to the application of the compensation received by Denmark. That was a matter between the Danish Government and the bondholders, and it would not be competent for the British Government to make any stipulation on the subject. As to the question of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) respecting the transit dues, he believed that four-fifths of them were to be remitted. He was not in a position to give the details of the stipulations on that point; but the proper time to explain the ground on which that arrangement was made would be when the treaty was before the House.

What is the amount of compensation which this country has undertaken to pay?

Our share amounts to £1,125,206.

wished to put a question to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General relative to a Bill, of which they had heard something, for winding up the affairs of the Royal British Bank, and which was to have been introduced during the present Session. Of course it was now too late to pass any Bill of the kind this Session, but he thought it would be a comfort to all concerned to be assured that as early as possible after the assembling of the new Parliament the Bill would be introduced.

very much regretted that the sudden termination of the present Parliament had prevented him bringing in two Bills—one with regard to fraudulent breaches of trust, which he hoped would be a means of punishing such delinquencies as had been exhibited in the case of the British Bank; and the other to remedy in some degree the distress which had been occasioned to the shareholders in the process of winding up that bank. The whole case of the British Bank was an opprobrium to British jurisprudence, inasmuch as it had exhibited the inability of the law to punish this class of offenders, and the utter incompetence of the tribunal which had attempted to wind up the affairs of the Bank. In the next Parliament it would be his desire to bring these two measures forward at the earliest possible period.

said: Sir, I take this opportunity of making an inquiry of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which I was prevented from making at the commencement of business, in consequence of his absence from the House. It is in reference to certain papers which were laid upon the table in the early part of this Session. The House will understand that the papers I refer to are those connected with the communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Two Sicilies. The papers were of a meagre character; and an hon. Gentleman having inquired whether they contained all the correspondence that had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Two Sicilies; the noble Lord said "No; that the remaining correspondence referred to a proposition which, having terminated without any result, it was therefore not necessary to lay it upon the table." Now, I find from some foreign journals and from one of our English papers, that foreigners and the public out of doors are more favoured than the British House of Commons in respect to this correspondence, inasmuch as such correspondence has appeared lately in a portion of those journals. It is in respect to one of the allegations contained in the correspondence thus given I wish to say a few words. It is therein stated that Her Majesty's Government had made an offer to a foreign Power to undertake, in case of any attempt being made to establish republican institutions in the south of Italy, to prevent, even if necessary, by force of arms, the occurrence of such an event. I wish to know from the noble Lord whether there is any authority for that statement; and whether it is true that a communication of that character, or in that spirit, was made to any foreign Government by the Government of which the noble Lord is the chief? I hope that the noble Lord will give me a frank and not a technical reply.

The reply which I made to the communication of the hon. Member to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, is not precisely as the right hon. Gentleman has represented it to be. What I stated in answer to the question put to me on the occasion alluded to was this—that the papers laid upon the table contained everything that bore upon the course of policy which Her Majesty's Government had adopted; but that there had been some instructions given to our agents at Naples, directing them as to the nature of their mission, and as to the course they were to pursue under certain contingencies, which, however, had not happened. As those contingencies did not happen, those instructions fell to the ground, and therefore it was not necessary to produce the correspondence containing them. I did not refer to communications made to Her Majesty's Government, but to instructions from Her Majesty's Government to their own agents at Naples. I stated also that other instructions had been given on matters wholly unimportant, and having no reference whatever to anything that had taken place. I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know whether the British Government made any suggestion to a foreign Government that if any attempt were made to establish republican institutions in Italy, the British Government were prepared to oppose by force of arms such a movement. Am I correct in this understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's question?

I wish to have my question perfectly and distinctly understood. I wish to know whether, in the course of communications which took place in reference to the affairs of Sicily, Her Majesty's Government had made an offer to a foreign Power, that if any attempt were made to establish republican institutions in Southern Italy, they were prepared to interfere, if necessary, even by force of arms, to prevent the establishment of such institutions?

No such offer was made by Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, I cannot help thinking that a little confusion has arisen from the answer given by the noble Lord to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend. I understood the noble Lord to say that the portion of the papers not laid upon the table on the occasion referred to consisted of communications made to the English agents in Naples, in reference to certain contingencies which did not arise. When pressed by my right hon. Friend for a categorical answer to his question, whether in the course of communications in reference to the affairs of Sicily, Her Majesty's Government had made any offer to a foreign Power, that in the event of an attempt being made to establish republican institutions in the south of Italy the British Government were prepared to interfere to prevent such a movement, even by force of arms, the noble Viscount answered that no such offer had been made. Now I confess that from the explanation of the noble Lord an impression was left on my mind that some of those communications that were made to the British agent at Naples, contemplating such a contingency as did not happen, did actually contain such an offer from our Government. I do not know whether the noble Lord wished that his statement should convey such an impression.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for affording me the opportunity of removing such an impression as it appears my language conveyed to his mind. The communications made to the British agents in Naples to a certain extent were as to the conduct they should pursue in the event of such and such overtures being made by the Neapolitan Government. But none were made to them; none of our instructions had any relation whatever to the contingency of republican institutions being attempted to be established. They merely said, "If the Neapolitan Government ask for so and so, you are to act so and so." But no such applications having been made by the Neapolitan Government the contingencies to which the instructions applied did not arise. As I have said, those instructions had nothing whatever to do with the establishment of republican institutions. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman feels convinced that the British Government would never think of interposing by force of arms to prevent any form of Government being established in Southern Italy which the inhabitants themselves might think fit to decide upon. In such a case, no doubt, we might have our own opinions upon the subject; but those opinions we certainly should not think ourselves entitled to enforce by an appeal to arms.

Am I, then, distinctly to understand from the noble Lord that no communications took place between Her Majesty's Government, of which he is the chief, and any foreign Power, in which the contingency of an attempt to establish republican institutions in Italy was contemplated, and in which was expressed the course Her Majesty's Government in that contingency were prepared to take?

That is quite a different question from the one first put by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether any offer was made by Her Majesty's Government to any foreign Power, in the event of an attempt being made to establish republican institutions in Italy, to co-operate—

No, I did not say "to co-operate." I merely asked whether Her Majesty's Government had made any offer to a foreign Power.

Well, any offer to a foreign Power to do something, and that too, if necessary, by force of arms in reference to the establishment of republican institutions in Italy. As I have said, no offer of the kind was made.

said it appeared to him that the system adopted for the billeting of soldiers in Scotland was the very worst that could have been selected. He was quite convinced that the Government, if they pleased, could effect their object in a much more satisfactory manner, and in a way that would be more convenient to all parties. When the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War was lately in Scotland, he (Mr. Duncan) had the honour of an interview with him, and pointed out to him the hardships of the present system in that part of the United Kingdom. The public-houses in Scotland were a different class of buildings to those belonging to the licensed victuallers of England. The borough which he had the honour to represent, would be greatly oppressed by this system, inasmuch as the public-houses there were comparatively few in number, and would have to bear the whole burden of this billeting system in that town. Generally speaking, public-houses were the very worst lodging-houses that could be selected for soldiers. He hoped that the noble Lord would re-consider this question, and consent to empower the authorities to order the troops to be billeted in other places than public-houses, if there were such accommodation to be found in the town.

wished to confirm all that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. The borough which he (Mr. Kinnaird) represented was in precisely the same situation. There were unoccupied barracks there which could be much better employed in lodging the soldiers than the public-houses.

confirmed what had been said by the two hon. Members who had preceded him. Although the borough which he represented had no barracks in it, there were large storehouses which might be made available for the purpose. He was speaking as much for the good of the soldier as for the convenience of the people generally. The soldiers, he thought, ought to be kept as much as possible from coming into close contact with the population, as the communication had a demoralising tendency.

asked if the power of billeting were to be done away, how were the troops to be marched? The men must be fed and lodged. He considered it would be impossible to move troops unless some such power as that of billeting were maintained.

I think what has passed on this subject is an illustration of the maxim—"give an inch, and they will take an ell." Last year we were told—and I confess with somewhat of justice—that Scotland suffered from a great grievance, inasmuch as in that country the troops were quartered in private houses, while in England such houses were exempted from the burden. Well, we admitted the evil, and promised to redress the grievance. This year we introduced an Amendment into the Bill by which that evil was altogether remedied, and Scotland was placed in the same position in regard to this subject as England. Now the hon. Members representing Scotland urge upon us the hardship of subjecting the innkeepers and proprietors of public-houses to this burden of accommodating soldiers occasionally, which is borne by the same description of houses in England. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Codrington) has observed, how is the public service to be provided for if this billeting system were to be given up? As I understood, my hon. Friend proposes that there should be a clause in the Mutiny Bill to provide that the troops, instead of being quartered in public-houses, should be afforded barrack accommodation in all towns where such accommodation is available. Well, that arrangement appears to be a proper one to be adopted on certain occasions. But that is a matter to be arranged by the military and the parties themselves, and not one for legislative interference. In towns were there are barracks no doubt it would be advantageous to locate troops when they are on the march in such quarters; but, in respect to small recruiting parties, the circumstances of the case would be different. It would be very difficult to make all the necessary arrangements in large barracks for only three or four men, unless a much larger expense than was actually necessary for so few men were resorted to. Now it may be a fair matter for consideration whether in England as well as in Scotland the allowances made for the accommodation of soldiers ought not to be increased. But that is a question for the Estimates. I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) that it would be far better for the troops, as well as for the community generally, that the soldiers should be placed in barracks, when it is possible or convenient to do so. Their discipline would obviously be much better preserved, and the convenience of the public would be much better consulted. Our feeling is so much in accordance with that expressed by my hon. Friend that we have been most anxious to increase the barrack accommodation all over the kingdom. This year, however, we have been obliged to postpone those barrack arrangements, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to make both ends meet. I, however, can assure the hon. Gentleman that I quite agree with him in principle. If there are places in which there are barracks without any troops being quartered in them, I am quite sure that my noble Friend at the head of the War Department would have no objection to make arrangements for the placing of the troops in those barracks; but, as I have observed, I do not think that they can be applied to the wants of small recruiting parties.