The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-24 00:00:00

NEW 31E1IBER.

Mr. BRASSEr took tha oaths and his seat for Devon-
port in the room of Sir A. Buller, resigned. He was
introduced by Mr. Jackson and Col. White.

POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE; Sc. BILL.
On the order for the committal of this re-committed bill,
Lord FERXfOY denounced it as a sham, and moved as
an amendment that the bill should simply limit the con-
tinuance of the powers of the Poor-law Board for one
year. •

Mr. IL LEWIS seconded the amendment.
The SPEAKER reminded the noble lord that if ho car-
ried the amendment it would negative the motion, that he
should leave the chair, and the house would not be able to
go into committee even for the purposo of continuance.
Sir B. BRIDGES, Sir- J. SHELLY, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, and
other members earnestly pressed upon the Government
that the bill should be simply a continuance bill.
Mr. VILLIERS defended the bill, which, he said, was
exactly what it professed to be. •
A. long discussion followed, which resulted in the amend-
ment being withdrawn, the President of the Poor Law
Board, however, agreeing that the bill should be made a
continuance bill simply for a year, and the whole of the
other claims were, therefore, negatived.
The sitting was suspended at half-past three.
At six o'clock the house resumed.
CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS.
Mr. LAIRD called attention to•the report of Mr. Gal-
loway and Mr. Gray to the Board of Trade on the Chain
Cables and Anchors Act of 186-I, which was laid before
the house ou the Bth of March last. lle complained that
the tendency of the act was to throw a monopoly into the
hands of manufacturers whose works were situated near
Government establishments:

Mr. GIBSON suggested that it would be better to post-
pone discussion until the act had been some time in opera-
tion. The Government had licensed the testing machine
of Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co., believing it to be a
perfectly effective one—and had they not done so there
would not have been any machine to be depended upon in
London. If it were necessary there was no objection to
defer the operation of the act ; but by the Ist of July there
would be a sufficient number of machines licensed to an-
swer all purposes, and representations had been received by
the Government that it would be absolutely detrimental to
defer the operation of the act beyond that date.
Mr. HUMBERSTON was of opinion that it would not
be prejudicial if the operation of the act were postponed
until the Ist of January next.

Mr. HENLEY considered that the law required amend-
ment, but he did not think any serious injury would result
front postponing the op...mtion of the act for six months
longer.

THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.
Mr. COBRY then rose to Call attention to the policy of

Mr. STANILAND rose to call attention to the claims of
the Satpoora Field Force, and of the Goa Frontier Field
Force (portions of the Indian army) to the Indian mutiny
medal, the Government of India having rejected these claims.
The hon. gentleman stated that those forces, in conjunction
with Portuguese troops, had done good service in quelling
rebellion of the Saal Brothers on the Goa frontier. Their
conduct had been approved by the Indian Government ;
medals had been promised them, and, as he believed, actu-
ally struck; but the ordor had subsequently been counter-
manded by the commander-in-chief. He entered at some
length into documentaryevidence in Support of his argu-
ments, contending that the officers and men were fairly
entitled to the distinction that had been refused them.
Mr. T. G. BARING said he had been requested by his
right hon. friend the Secretary of State to say that this case
appeared to him to be one which must be left to the decision
of the Government of India. By the regulations laid down
on the subject, no force could bd entitled to a medal unless
it had been in actual conflict with the enemy. In reply to
a communication of July 1, 1861, from the officer in com-
mand of the force in question, the commander-in-chief
stated that there was no evidence that the force had been
engaged in military operations against the rebels ; and in
that opiniim the Government of India concurred: Ho there-
fore trusted that the hon. member would not see fit to make
a further motion on the subject.
I Colonel SYKES charged the Government with acting
most ungratefully towards the Bombay army in return for
their services in suppressing the great mutiny.

Sir F. SMITH asked the hon. member for Pontefract
(Mr. Childers) whether there was any valid reason for
limiting the tenure of office of the superintendents of the
Royal dockyards to five years, and whether he would ob-
ject to furnish a return showing the length of time which
each superintendent held office since 1841.

Mr. CHILDERS said there would be no objection to
granting the return required by the hon. and gallant mem-
ber if he would move for it. The reason for limiting the
tenure of office of the superintendents of the dockyards to
five years was that officers who had been acting as super-
intendents might be allowed the opportunity of gaining
experience as naval officers afloat; and on the other hand,
it was deemed desirable that the experience of those who
have been superintendents of dockyards should be brought
to bear in the management of our ships. However, the
First Lord had a discretion vested in him to re-appoint par-
ticular officers for a second period of five years, if their re-
appointment was very desirable.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND

(IRELAND) ACT.

Me. HENNESSY, alluding to the report of the committee
on the operation of what is known as the Cardwell Act,
and which was laid on the table that morning, expressed
his disappointment that the report maintained the principle
of the Act, that no tenant in Ireland should be entitled to
compensation for improvements undertaken by him without
previous notice given to his landlord of an intention to un-
dertake them, and he referred to a letter published in the
Irish newspapers by a member of the committee, stating
that the intention of the committee was simply to report
the evidence this session ; that they would meet again early
next session to draw up their report; and that a bill would
be introduced in the month of April by the Government,
giving full compensation to the Irish tenant for all improve-
ments undertaken by him. The hon. member then charged
the Government, through their organs, with practising a
delusion upon the Irish people. Though deeply regretting
the decision of the committee, he thought, nevertheless,
they had acted rightly in making their report before the
general election. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he had
no confidence in the committee, as he thought the members
had not been properly selected.
Mr. MAGUIRE could not exactly understand what was
the object of his hon. friend in bringing this subject forward.
(Hear, hear.) He passed no opinion on what would be the
result of ihe deliberations of the committee. It was scarcely
right that his hon. friend should have introduced this sub-
ject, for, at the present time, it was premature to force a
discussion upon it. In reference to the letter which had
been alluded to, he might inform the house that he (Mr.
Maguire) was the author of it, and sent it to a newspaper in
order to avoid the trouble of answering singly all the cor-
respondents who had written to him on the subject. After
alluding to the valuable evidence given before the commit-
tee by Mr. Curling, he concluded by expressing his belief
that, if the recommendations contained in tho report were
carried out, the faee of Ireland would be entirely changed.
Colonel GREVILLE thought it would have been better
if the evidence taken before the committee had alone been
reported, and the house left to consider what course should
be taken next year.
Lord NAAS, on the contrary, was of opinion that the
committee had acted wisely in refusing to acknowledge the
principle, which would, in his judgment, never be adopted
by Parliament, that tenants ought to receive compensation
for improvements made without the consent of their land-
lords.

Mr. C. MOORE thought the report would be received
with great dissatisfaction in Ireland.
Mr. M'MAHON thought they were under a great obli-
gation to the hon. member for his having brought this
subject under the notice of the house. He (Mr. M•Mahon)
had all along predicted that the result of the deliberations
would be the end of nothing dwindled down to a point.
Mr. LONGFIELD thought the committee had acted
wisely and beneficially in making the report, the effect
of which he believed would put an end to the question of
tenant right for ever.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN did not concur in the opinion that
the hon. member for the King's County deserved credit for
bringing the subject matter of a report before the house
which had only been agreed to at 5 o'clock that evening.
The report was only carried by a majority of three ; and
it was, therefore, absurd to suppose that it was a final set-
tlement of the question.
Mr. ESMONDE dissented from the course taken by the
hon. member for the King's County, and hoped that it
would not be understood that they were that evening dis-
cussing the report. (Hear, hear.) For himself, he did not
know its precise nature. He only knew that it had been
laid on the table, and that the manner in which the hon.
member for Dungarvan had conducted the inquiry had been
in the highest degree creditable to him. When the report
e of e
was printed, and in the hands of members, it could be dis-
cussed e
matter er
the thenh o
us ; to do so then was premature. (Hear, hear.)
dropped,toMonadnady tlhveasmthoetinonagfroeredthteo.ad-
journmn
COLONIAL GOVERNORS
(RETIRING
PENSIONS)

BILL.
After a few words from Col. SYKES, who deprecated
this bill as one injurious to the service) it was considered
as amended, and ordered for third reacting.
The Ulster Canal Transfer Bill was read a third a time
and passed.
The following bills passed through coliwaittee