The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-27 00:00:00

MORTALITY IN THE CRIMEA.

Sir DE LACY EVANS enquired relative to the extraordinary
discrepancy i❑ tho statements of the government as to the
reasons for withholding the information obtained by the Cri-
mean commissioners relative to the mortality in the British
army in the Crimea ?

Air. PEEL denied that there was any discrepancy in the
government statements on the subject. With regard to
the reason he had given for the non-production of the mortality
returns, he had lately received a letter from Colonel Tulloch,
stating that the difference of opinion between the Commission-
ers was 'not upon the mortality returns. The Government,
however, did not think it advisable that the documents should
be produced in the same paper with the report.
Sir Ds LtCY EVANS asked whether they would be printed
as a separate paper P
Mr. PEEL replied that they would not bo produced at the
present time. It was true that a:collision had taken place
between certain soldiers of the German Legion and the police
at Folkestone,
reason to p
e, huttheapreiena any n
ringleadersl had beenseh
arrested,
and
they had no disturbances
for the future. The statements with regard to drunkenness
in that corps were, as far as he was informed wholly
unfounded.

THE BRITISH GERMAN LEGION AT SHORNCLIFFE.

Major REED asked the under Secretary for War,
whether the attention of the war office had been called
to the alleged riotous and insubordinate soldiers of the
British German Legion stationed at Shorncliffe? Whether
it was true, that a collision had taken place between the
police (aided by the inhabitants) and the soldiers. in
which several persons were severely injured ; that the
riot act was read and application made to the camp for
assistance; that drunkenness prevails to a disgraceful
extent, and in some cases the men have refused to obey
their officers; and, if so, whether any and what means
have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such
dangerous proceedings
Mr. PEEL said that from a report he had received he
ascertained that there had been some misunderstanding
between the soldiers of the Legion and the police at
Folkestone, and the result was that ono of the soldiers
was taken to prison. On the following day some of his
comrades attempted to rescue him ; but all the misunder-
standing was now at an end. As to the report that
drunkenness prevailed amongst the legion at Shorncliffe,
he might say that he believed the statements to be
unfounded.

TURKISH RAILROADS

Lord PALMERSTON, replying to Mr. Ewart, said that
repeated attempts had been made by the British Government
to prevail upon the Porte to construct a road between
Trebizond and Erzeroum, which was objected to on the ground
of want of means. Very recently a most urgent communi-
cation had been made to the Sultan upon the subject.

Tuß Nv,A,RRANT OP THE CRIMEAN COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Roznuct. asked whether there was any objection on
the part of the government to lay on the table a copy of the
warrant appointing the Commissioners to enquire into Sir
J. McNeill and Col. Tulloch's report, and the names of the
general officers who were to constitute the commission ?
Lord PALAIERSTON said ho was about to lay the Royal
warrant on the table. The names of the commissioners were
Gen. Lord Beaton, Gen. MacMahon, Gen. Peel, Gen.
Becher, Sir John Ball, General Knowles and General Rowan.

THE CASE OF MR. DYCE SOMBRE.

Mr. OTWAY asked the President of the Board of Con-
trol, whether he was aware of the proceedings that had
taken place in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, in
6, re Dyce Sombre," and of the judgment of the Judge,
the Right Bon. Sir John Dodson; and whether the Court
of Directors of the East India Company have power to
disburse generally monies from the revenues of India for
any object or objects, including the discharge of law costs
and expenses incurred by them in this country, without
his sanction and authority ?
Mr. V. SMITH said he had no further knowledge of this
proceeding than other hon. [members had gathered from
tt
hh
ee reporteer t
find
rheee nt
eerws s phaapde rs .
not A
tsh toe tpheewsee cr
so nadl udeesdt ot
on
without consulting the board of control.

LOCAL DUES ON SHIPPING.

Mr. LINDSAY asked the Vice-president of the
Board of Trade, in reference to the local dues on
shipping bill, whether it is intended that the Board
of Trade should have the power of applying taxes
raised at one port for the benefit of another?
Whether any taxes levied at any port, and paid to the
Commissioners of Customs, would be applied to any pur-
poses except to the payment of the debts, or to shipping
purposes,-at the port where levied ; and whether, if ap-
plied to shipping purposes, it would be so applied by the
Board of Trade, or by local harbour authorities ?
Mr. LowE, in answer to the first question, said it was
not intended that the Board of Trade should have that
power. As to the second question, the only purposes
contemplated by the Board of Trade were those men-
tioned in the question. In the third place it was intended
that the shipping purposes should bo decided by the
authorities and not by the Board of Tra4e,
Sir J. PAXINGTON
gave notio of an amendment to Mr.
Roebuck's motion on the Crimean commission, to the effect
that it was the opinion of the House that the report of the
commissioners ought to have been submitted to the Comman-
der-in-Chief before it was laid before Parliament, by which
It would have avoided the necessity of appointing a tribunal,

1 without adequate information on the subject, to report uponthe
decision of the commissioners selected by the ministry.

THE JOSEPHINE WILLIS,

In answer to a question,

Mr. LOWE said he objected to printing the evidence in this
case, which would cost £3OO. It was at the Board of Trade,
and any one who pleased might see it and take extracts from it.
He had no objoction to printing the report.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOCAL DUES ON

SHIPPING BILL.

On the order for resuming the debate on the second
reading of the Local Dues on Shipping, &c., Bill,

Lord PALMERSTON said : I think it my duty to state to
the House the course which her Majesty's Government
has deemed it their duty to take with regard to the mea-
sure now under the consideration of the House. That
measure was proposed to Parliament upon a full consi-
deration of the matters to which it relates. Her Majesty's
Government felt that the burthens which exist on shipping,
and on the industry of the country by reason of the dif-
ferent imposts and duties to which the bill relates, were
matters deserving of the interference of Parliament for
the purpose of relieving these interests from those imposts
under which they laboured. (Hear, hear.) It was with
that view that the measure now before the House was
proposed to Parliament. 1:In the discussion which
has taken place on the bill, nothing has been adduced
by those who have opposed the measure which in
any degree tends to shake the confidence of the Govern-
ment as to the justice or policy of the course they have
pursued. (Hear, hear.) I will not now enter into the
arguments that have been adduced, but I think it right to
record the opinion of her Majesty's Government, which
has not been shaken, on the question of right or policy
they have adopted. In the course of the discussion last
night it was made manifest that there are, in regard, to
the cases of towns that would be affected by the measure,
a far greater variety of different circumstances and of
complicated interest, than perhaps her Majesty's Govern-
ment were led to suppose. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
These are matters which every gentleman must
see, would be very imperfectly and inconveniently dealt
with in a committee of the whole House. It is im-
possible in conducting a debate in a committee of the
whole house on a bill, to separate and singly deal with,
particular cases, especially if complicated by a great
variety of circumstances, in such a manner as either to
be satisfactory to the house or just to the parties
concerned. (Hear, hear.) The bill consists of two
points; one simple, the other more complicated. One
relating to passing tolls ; the other, differential duties
and town dues. It is evident that a great variety of re-
presentations are justly entitled to be made by the towns
which are concerned. Tha Vice-President of the Board
of Trade stated yesterday that, with reference to the re-
presentations that had been made from Hull and Bristol
within the last few days they had led the Board of Trade to
think that special provisions should be made in the bill
to meet those particular cases. The special provisions
are difficult to be dealt with in a committee of the whole
house; and considering the great difference of opinion
that prevails in this House with regard to the provisions
of the measure, and considering also that it is not the
duty of her Majesty's government to call on this House
to bestow time and attention on a measure on which they
were not likely to come to a just and satisfactory con—
clusion, the government have come to the opinion that
it would be more consistent with the public interests
involved, to refer this bill to a select committee of the
house. I hope the suggestion will be adopted by the
house, because the matter cannot rest in the state it now
is either with justice to the towns concerned, or with satis-
faction to that public investigation which the subject
required, and which inquiry, I balieve, can best be conduc-
ted by a select committee of the house. Under these
circumstances, I ask the house to allow her Majesty's
Government to withdraw the bill now before the
house, in order that the subject might be investigated by a
select committee. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. DISRAELI was glad that the:Government thought
fit to withdraw the bill. He considered it a source of
satisfaction to the House of Commons that without
entering into party debate, they had succeeded
in avoiding the effects that would have resulted
from the crude and thoughtless project put forward in
this bill. The noble lord had admitted, that the bill was
brought forward without perfect consideration. He
wished to know whether any consideration whatever
had been given to the important subjacts touched upon ?
He condemned the proposition to refer the bill to a select
committee, observing that that would be delegating to a
tribunal appointed by the House, the duties of her
Majesty's ministers. They had hoped thit the present
ministry would, with a forbearing opposition, have been
able to conduct public affairs, but, notwithstanding their
forbearance, the first week of the session had been char-
acterised by marked feebleness, blunders, mistakes, de-
feats, and discomfiture of the ministry. He then referred
to the proceedings of the session, including the Wensley-
dale peerage case, the report of the Crimean commission,
and the present motion, remarking that the government
had in one case, set itself against all the legal opinions in
the country, and in another, against the mercantile
interests of the nation, and had in both cases met with
signal defeat.
Mr. LABOUCTIERE vindicated the conduct of the govern-
ment. He denied that the measure was brought forward
without consideration, and said that the only reason for
withdrawing it, was that the local interest was too strong
for them. With regard to the forbearance of the opposi.
tion, he observed that it was not asked for by the govern-
ment, and it must have cost the right hon. gentleman, (Mr.
D'lsraeli) much, if they were to judge from the unpro-
voked attacks to which they, the government, had just
listened.

After some remarks from Mr. HADrIE4D and Mr.
HEADLAM, the order of the day for the second reading
was discharged, and the bill was withdrawn.

CHARITABLE USES BILL.
The bill was read a third time and passed
CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the following
members constitute the committee on the court of chancery
(Ireland) bill :—The Solicitor•general for Ireland, Sir J.
Graham. Mr. Ellice, Mr. Henley, Mr. Walpole, Mr.
Keogh, Viscount Monck, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Mac Cartney,
Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. W. Fitzgerald, Mr. Whiteside, Mr.
de Vere, Sir E. Perry, and Mr. Kirk.
Mr. S. FrTzeznALD moved the substitution of the name
of Sir F. Kelly for Mr. de Vere.
The amendment was negatived without a division. The
name of Sir E. Perry was opposed, but was retained on a
division by 128 votes to 39; majority 89.
The remaining names were then agreed to.

ALTERATION Or THE PARRS. '
The committee on St. James's-park was nominated

SUPPLY, AND WAYS AND MEANS.
The Consolidated Fund Bill and Exchequer Bill were
brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The House adjourned at a few minutes after seven
•'clock.

COUNTY
COURT.-YESTERDAY
+

In the absence of the Judge, J. Pollock, Esch through in-
disposition, J. C. HARDEN, Esq., presided.

A CLAIM AGAINST A SHOPKEEPER.—GENTRY v. KELLY.
—ln this case a labourer, named Hugh Gentry, living in a
court off Fontenoy-street, was the plaintiff, and Peter Kelly,
a shopkeeper of 96, Fontenoy-street, was the defendant.
This was a claim for the sum of 9s. 6d., under the following
circumstances. On the morning of the 20th of January, the
plaintiff alleged that he sent a little boy to the defendant's
shop for a loaf of bread—that with him he sent half a sovereign
The loaf of bread was 4L-d, and instead of bringing back
9s. 7id., the child only took him led. The child was called
and examined, but he intimated that he did not know Gd.
from half a sovereign. The mother of the child
was also called, and from her statement it ap.
peered that tile and her husband wore in bed at the time,
and told the child to take the money from off the table. lie
did do so, and returned with a leaf and lid. They cut a
slice off the loaf, and, in about half an hour, went to the shop
and asked for the change of half a sovereign, The defendant
most positively denied that he had even seen the boy on the
morning in question, until ho came with his mother, who
endeavoured to bully him out of the change. That he had not
sold a loaf, and that he had challenged her to bring the loaf,
and compare it with other bread in the shop, which she refused
to do, and used the most abusive language. Verdict for the
e
defendant.

WOODS v. Fox.—This was a claim for £4. In this case
the plaintiff was a pawnbroker and clothier, living in White-
chapel, and tha defendant a clothier living in Sir Thomas's•
buildings. In this case the defendant's wife carried on the
business for her husband. On a certain day, the defendant's
wife went with a seaman's wife to the plaintiff's shop, and
introduced her with a seaman's note for £4. She was induced
to sign an I O.EF. for the amount, but it was stated, that at
the time she did so she did not know what she was signing.
His Honour held that the husband was not liable for such an
act done by his wife, but directed, at tho request of the
plaintig, that a nousuit should be entered.