The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-12 00:00:00

OHINA.

-
Lord R.. MONTAOU, on the— of the boo. member
for Northumberland (Mr. • ), gave notice that the
hen. lientleman noakl bring on his motion in reference
t. Oluna is Sheikh of ApnL
OBSERVATIONS ON THE WEATHER.

Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH hiked the President of the
Beard of Trade whether any observations had been made
far the purpose of recording the actual weather correspond-
ing to Admiral-Army'. daily foreeseta and oocesional warn-
ing signals ; and if so, whether there would be any objection
to lay the results before the house.
Mr. M. GIBSON mid he had to state that observations
led been made daring the past year with a view to corn-
pariag the actual weather with the predictions which had
bees made by Admiral Fitzroy, and the Board of Tradewere
eedeavouring to digest that information, and to put it in •
Asps which would be intelligible to the house, and when
that had been does, and when Admiral Fitzroy had hadan
opportunity of seeing this information, and of making his
remarks upon it, he hoped to be able to lay it before the
house ; and he might also state that by the kindness of the
French authorities the Board of Trade had received a simi-
lar comparison which was made at Brest, and if possible
that information would be laid ea the table of the house
at the same time. (Hem, hear.)
THE MHOW COURT-MARTIAL.
Sir J. FERGUSSON asked the Coder Secretary of State
fur War what opinion of the Judge Advocate-general on
the subject of the Mhow coart.martial was cited by his
Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief in his memo-
!sedum of lath December, 1861 What was the date of the
epiniou in which. se stated by the I:oder Secretary of State
Men the th and 30th Jaw, 1863, after coesiclesation of the
*bole of the proceedings, the Judge Advocate. General
Oviaed that the sentence of the Mhow court-martial was
lap]. and in consequence of which opinion Paymaster
Illesales was, "after a time," garotted out of the regiment.
Whether be will lay upon the table the evidence upon which
ii was determined to bring Colonel Crawley to • court-
martial. Whether that evidence was previously sub-
mitted to the Judge Advocate-General for his approval.
And whether, before the court-martial was ordered, any
statement was received from Colonel Crawley in answer to
ea parte evidence.
Mr. HEAI)LAM said he would answer the questions of
the hoe. and gallant gentleman. le the first place be was
sorry to have in appearanee to contradict anything which
the bon. and gtlant gentleman bad stated, but he had
found on referring to the draft of his opinion that the
word " legal" was not in it. What he stated was, that
after the proceedings and evidence were laid before him,
and he had considered them, he came to the opinion that
if such a trial had occurred in this country, and he had
submitted the proceedings to her Majesty, he oould not
have advised her to approve of them. But he did not upon
that opinion advise her Majesty to grant • pardon, sod
although in point of fact he stated that the proceedings
would be submitted for revision, yet they were legal. The
date of his opinion was the 27th November, 1862. A
subsequent opinion was given upon which a pat doe was
granted, as be had stated to the home on a previous occasion.
The papers and evidence were laid before him before the
court-martial was ordered, and be gave an apioion that in
the absence of a satisfactory explanation they would sup-
port a conviction. (The boo. gentleman was very India-
Strictly beard in the gallery.)
lord HO THAN salted for the date of the letter to which
the right hon. gentleman had referred°
Mr. H EADLAM. —The 23rd June, 1663.