vice, to the rank of colonel is to be so far retrospective that every existing lieutenant-colonel, who will have completed the qualifying service by the 1st of July, will be promoted colonel from that date. As regards the tenure of regimental command, the new rule of four years' tenure will not be retrospective, as those lieutenant-colonels appointed before the 1st of July will be allowed to complete their five years, subject to retirement on account of age.

Army Estimates, the different arrangements of the organization of the Army that were contained in the Memorandum which had been laid upon the Table. The question was one of some little delicacy, and had to be considered carefully. On the one hand, it was important that no interruption should take place to the discussions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee; and, on the other hand, he had promised, as far back as March last, that before the 1st of July a day should be given for discussing the

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-MIDDLE MACE, Estimates and the impending change.

CLAREMORRIS.

He had advised the Prime Minister that observed by assigning a full day to the the spirit of that promise would be best. discussion; and his right hon. Friend

MR. O'CONNOR POWER (for Mr. PARNELL) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whe-had accordingly authorized him to say ther his attention has been directed to the recent eviction of Michael Scanlan, of Middle Mace, Claremorris, who was evicted with six in family by Mr. Walter Burke, of Curraleigh, Claremorris, and who with his family have been living in a state of extreme destitution in a small hut built of sods in a ditch, the hut being so small and badly constructed, that there is not room within it for their little furniture, consisting of a table and a chair, which have been left outside; whether the police patrol had prevented them from going back into the house from which they were evicted, although the door of the house is open; and, whether the police are legally entitled to move persons by force from an empty house of which the door is left open?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the man Scanlan was evicted for non-payment of one and a-half year's rent, and he and his family were living in a hut now, as described in the Question. The police did not prevent these people from re-taking possession, but they had been served with a summons for doing so. [The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the landlord denying that there was any hardship on the tenant in the case.]

that if the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would withdraw his Amendment on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Friday eveningan Amendment that would probably occupy the whole of the Sitting-and if other hon. Members would do the same, the Government would put down the Army Estimates for Friday at 4 o'clock. ment, it being understood that the Land That was the proposal of the GovernLaw (Ireland) Bill should stand second on the Orders, so that if the debate on lated to the new Organization Scheme, the Army Estimates, as far as they reended at a reasonable hour, the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill might be resumed that evening. Friend the Member for Burnley to withHe, therefore, appealed to his hon. draw his Motion for Friday evening, and would urge the great importance of discussing the new Army Scheme before it took effect on July 1. He also hoped the Leader of the Opposition, would use that the right hon. Gentleman opposite,

his influence with hon. Members on his

side of the House with the same object.

MR. RYLANDS confessed that he felt himself placed in a rather difficult position. He thought his right hon. Friend was dealing rather hardly with

PARLIAMENT -ORDER OF BUSINESS-him under the very peculiar circum

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

MR. CHILDERS said, that, on the previous day, in reply to two Questions, he had promised to state on what day he proposed to place the Army Estimates on the Notice Paper with a view to an opportunity being given of discussing, as far as they could be discussed on the

stances of the Motion which stood in his name. He was fortunate enough to get a day fixed for the discussion of the Motion; but from circumstances over which he had no control, arising from the action of the Government in connection with the Peace Preservation Act, a Motion for Adjournment was unexpect

there was a desire to take a separate discussion on the point?

MR. CHILDERS replied, that he intended to take the Militia Vote No. 5.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: S› far as I can at present form an opinion on the subject, I think the proposal made by the Government seems to be a very fair and reasonable one. There is no doubt that an undertaking was given early in the Session that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of the new Army Organization Scheme. If that discussion is to be at all valuable it ought to take place before the end of this month. There is, no doubt, a gd deal of difficulty in the proposal that hon. Members should give way for the purpose of enabling the Motion of the Government to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Burnley Mr. Rylands) says, very fairly, that he is ready to give way for the convenience of the Government and of the House, with the full understanding that if he does so others will do the same. I am able to say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), with whom I had some conversation on the subject, that he would be perfectly prepared to waive his Motion

edly made, and the entire night was occupied by Irish Members. The Motion which now stood for Friday night had excited considerable interest on the part of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and he believed on the other side of the House also, and he had received intimations from several Gentlemen who intended to take part in the discussion. He did not know whether the Government, in the event of displacing him, would give him facilities for bringing forward the Motion at a reasonably early period; but it could not be expected that he should give way, however willing he might be to meet the convenience of the Government, unless they gave him another night. If he now withdrew his Motion, it must be on the distinct understanding that other hon. Members whose Notices had precedence of Government Business would do the same. There were two other Notices on the Paper for Friday evening, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had also announced his intention of bringing forward a Motion of great interest; so that it was necessary to appeal to others besides himself, and, if they declined to withdraw, he could hardly be expected to do so. And, even if the noble Lord un-if the hon. Member for Burnley did not dertook to efface himself, there was no guarantee that the whole evening would not be occupied by hon. Members from Ireland. He, however, placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the House. He did not wish to stand in the way of the progress of the Public Business, least of all did he wish to interfere with the arrangement of his right hon. Friend | at the head of the War Department; but he appealed to the Government not to press him to give up the evening unless it was quite clear that it would be occupied with Government Business. He might, perhaps, suggest that next Tuesday would suit the purposes of the Government equally well.

MR. T. COLLINS said, he would be happy to give up his position on the Paper for Friday if the Government would give him another day, or indicate that they were prepared to accept his Motion. Otherwise, it would be impossible for him to give it up.

EARL PERCY asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to take the Militia Votes at the same time as the Army Estimates, as he understood

Mr. Rylands

proceed with his. With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), he speaks for himself, and it is unnecessary that I should say anything further. But it does not seem to me necessary at this moment to come to an absolute arrangement on the subject. I think with reference to the possibility of other hon. Gentleman putting down Notices at the last possible moment that it is hardly to be expected, as it is not usual when arrangements of this sort are made for that course to be taken.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, as the subject of which he had given Notice was a very important one, and in order that there might be no mistake, he wished to state that should the Paper be vacant on Friday, he should certainly take advantage of the opportunity for bringing on his Motion

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, that this question of Army Organization was most important, and that they ought to have a full discussion on the Scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. could be done only in one of two ways

That

-either by the Government giving a day, or by postponing the operation of the Scheme to the 1st of October. He was told there was great difficulty about such a postponement. But supposing they could not get the whole of Friday, he would ask whether they could not commence the discussion at 2 o'clock on Friday, or on the Tuesday of next week, with the Speaker in the Chair? If that were done they would have an opportunity of discussing this important and most pressing question.

Notice of a Motion with respect to Tunis was the great reticence shown by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the position of the English Consul General at Tunis. If the Under Secretary would, on Thursday, in reply to a Question which would be put to him, place them in full possession of the information desired, he believed his noble Friend would not persist in his intention.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he should not be in a position to give full information on Thursday, because communications were going on.

EARL PERCY feared that the pro

MR. CHILDERS said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet did him great credit. He knew how anxious the hon. and gallant Ba-posal of the hon. and gallant Baronet ronet was for a full discussion. The hon. (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would hardly and gallant Baronet had also appre- meet the question of the Militia. If ciated the extreme difficulty-indeed, the the discussion was taken on the Motion absolute impossibility of postponing that the Speaker do leave the Chair the operation of the new Regulations. the two questions of the Army and If the hon. and gallant Baronet and Militia would be mixed up, and, as the other hon. Members would accept the right hon. Gentleman knew, the discusproposal that the debate should com- sion as to the Militia would go to the mence on Friday morning at 2 o'clock wall. with the Speaker in the Chair, the MR. CHILDERS certainly thought views of the House upon Army Orga- there should be a further discussion on nization, or upon the two or three lead-the subject of Militia arrangements, and ing questions connected with it, might that was what he intended. be satisfactorily gauged; and he would undertake after the 1st of July to press upon his right hon. Friend the propriety of giving him a day for discussing the Votes. If the hon. and gallant Baronet would accept that view, he would do his part to have the Army Estimates put down as the first Order of the Day on Friday.

MR. ONSLOW said, that it was not only in March, but also a few weeks ago in June, notwithstanding the numerous Amendments on the Land Law

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, as he understood it, on Friday next the new scheme of Army Organization was to be discussed with the Speaker in the Chair, no Votes were to be taken, and when the Votes came on upon a later occasion the noble Lord would have an opportunity of raising the question in which he felt interested.

(Ireland) Bill, that the right hon. Gen-LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—[BILL 136.] tleman promised that the Government

Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor
General for Ireland.)

would find a day before the 1st of (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. July. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Government to give a day for discussing this subject, which affected not only the Army in this country, but the Army in India.

COMMITTEE. [TWELFTH NIGHT.]

[Progress 20th June.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

PART I.

ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.

MR. CHILDERS said, he had stated, in discussing a Vote which came on late at night some weeks ago, that that discussion should not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the promise he had given. SIR HI. DRUMMOND WOLFF re-ject to statutory conditions). marked, that the reason his noble Friend DR. COMMINS said, the Amendment (Lord Randolph Churchill) had given which stood in his name on the Paper

Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy sub

was, practically, merely a verbal one. | Amendments in the interest of the It introduced no new principle whatever, tenant, some of which were extremely and only purported to carry out what reasonable; but the Government met he understood to be the object of the these Amendments with the statement framers of the Bill-namely, not only that they were not required by the to give to the tenant his interest in his equity of the case, or that the object own improvements, but to render him for which they were advanced had alquite capable of taking away buildings ready been effected; and no enthusiasm and substituting others for them, or was excited in the minds of the Liberal allowing them to go to ruin if they did Members, who were willing to leave the not suit him. Under the clause as it at matter in the hands of Her Majesty's present stood, a tenant who had erected Government. The Liberal Party had a house or a wall, or any other building, no enthusiasm in the interests of the and afterwards found it of no use to tenant; but the case was very different him, would, nevertheless, be compelled when they came to deal with the inteby the landlord to keep it in repair or rests of the landlord. Amendments forfeit his tenancy. He proposed to in- against the tenant, and in favour of the sert words in the clause to prevent the landlord, were proposed and were dis eviction of a tenant for such a cause as posed of merely by a nod. He (Mr. Healy), for one, was not content to allow this sort of thing to continue. They had been dealing a little too softly with the Government, and had got nothing for their pains. The Government had not opposed this Amendment on its merits, but had made one of those excuses that the Committee were continu

that.

Amendment proposed,

In page 4, line 31, after "buildings," insert "which have been wholly or principally erected by the landlord, or the entire interest in which he may have acquired by any separate or other title than that of owner of the land."-(Dr. Commins.)

Question proposed, "That those words

be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. It was admitted on all sides that the landlord was interested in the preservation of the premises in a good condition, as he had a reversionary interest in them; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought it was undesirable that there should be any relaxation of the Common Law rules, by which a tenant was bound to keep all buildings on his holding in repair. No doubt, they had the security that the tenant would keep these buildings in repair for his own sake; but that was not enough to protect the property. As to the fear of actual eviction, there would be a provision in the Bill to enable the Court in fit cases to relieve the tenant from the forfeiture. He did not think that it ought to be punished as waste for a tenant to pull down an old building for the purpose of erecting a new one.

MR. HEALY wished to draw a comparison between the manner in which Amendments coming from the Irish Members and those coming from other hon. Members were treated. Hon. Members sitting near him proposed

Dr. Commins

ally hearing. For the future, when the Irish Members brought forward a reasonable Amendment, they should insist on it, and, if the Government refused to accept it, divide the Committee upon it. He himself had brought forward halfa-dozen reasonable Amendments, and only in one case had he gone to a division; but, owing to the way in which the Irish Members were being treated, it would be necessary to change these tactics. He would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Member to go to a division on the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot allow the statement made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to pass without a reply. So far as we are concerned, it is without the smallest foundation. He said the right hon. and learned Gentleman near me (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not oppose the Amendment on its merits; but, so far as this is concerned, he is wrong in his statement of fact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to exaggerate the situation; but he said that the Amendment was a reversal of the principle of Common Law, and he laid down that the landlord had an equitable interest in the efficient condition of the entire holding, in which the tenant had a joint partnership, and in

which he received, or is to receive, tenant right. Therefore, it was upon the merits that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the Amendment. I beg the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) to believe that there is a strict and undeviating effort made by us to judge every Amendment according to its merits, without the smallest regard for the quarter of the House from which it comes.

ment. In the present instance, the Amendment had been met by a quibble. When a man signed a lease he contracted to keep in good repair all buildings on his holding; but it was a wellknown fact that in Ireland there were very often no buildings on the land when the tenant entered into possession. The tenant himself built the houses, and there was no contract as to what repairs should be done. The clause, as it stood, without Amendment, would introduce an entirely new law, and would attach a penalty upon that which, in times past, had not been in any way penal. Some tyrannical landlords, without having spent 1d. on the farm buildings them

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, the Attorney General for Ireland entirely missed the point of the Amendment, which was with regard to buildings to be erected by the tenant himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as though it related to buildings which were the property of the land-selves, would avail themselves of the lord.

MR. BIGGAR said, he could not agree with the Prime Minister as to the manner in which Amendments were received from different parts of the House. They had had an illustration only last night of the kind of thing to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had objected, for directly after a reasonable Amendment, proposed by an Irish Member, had been rejected by the Government, a similar Amendment, coming from another quarter, was accepted by a nod. That was not the way to treat Amendments" on their merits," and some reason should have been given by the Government for their change of front. The formula of all Liberal Associations in the Kingdom was that this Bill was an honest attempt to deal with the Irish Land Question; but it appeared to him to be nothing but a splendid attempt to sit upon two stools -to make it appear that they were giving something very considerable to the tenant, when, in reality, they were giving him little or nothing. What had occurred in regard to this Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN: Just as the hon. Member for Woxford (Mr. Healy) sat down, I was about to say to him that he had spoken for some time, but had not alluded to the merits of the Amendment before the Committee. I must call the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan to the fact that he is not discussing the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR said, he was not speaking upon the general question, but as to the mode in which Amendments were received by the Members of the Govern

powers of the clause, and, taking advantage of every lapse on the part of their tenants, prosecute them and treat them unfairly. That which belonged to the landlord was merely the land in its natural state. The buildings belonged to the tenant, and, under the powers of this Bill, he would have the right to sell them. If he allowed any dilapidations to occur it was to his own injury, and not to the injury of the landlord. The Government imagined a contingency which never would arise, for the parties who would ultimately get the land would be the tenant's heirs or his creditors; but certainly not the landlord.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, that by the law as it stood the tenant from year to year was bound not to commit voluntary waste. That was all they said the tenant in this case should not do. They did not oblige him to keep the premises in repair; but, in cataloguing his obligations, they made him responsible for the buildings on his holding just to the same extent as the ordinary tenant from year to year was at present.

MR. MARUM said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It must be borne in mind that the buildings on a farm did not belong to a tenant, although he was entitled under the Act to compensation for them. could wish to see some equity clause framed, whereby there would be some means of preventing the grievances that hon. Members imagined would arise.

He

MR. LEAMY said, that, as he understood the principle of the clause, it was not one of Common Law at all, but of feudal law, which gave everything at