then may, during the last twelve months of such declare what is then the fair rent of the holdterm, by writing under their hands, agree and ing; and such agreement and declaration on being filed in court in the prescribed manner, shall have the same effect and consequences in all respects as if the rent so agreed on were a judicial rent fixed by the court under the provisions of this Act." with regard to English-managed estates. | or if the tenancy is subject to a statutory term, By the Amendment made in the 1st clause, it was decided that free sale should not exist upon English-managed estates, and the Amendment which he was now about to propose would exempt such estates from application to the Court to fix a judicial rent. It was unnecessary to argue at length in favour of this exemption. For many years a great deal of money had been expended in bringing those estates up to the level of English estates, and unless this exception was made, such efforts would be THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY expressed approval of the Amendment. Amendment agreed to. LORD INCHIQUIN moved to insert, discouraged. He begged to move in in page 9, line 39, after the word page 9, line 14, to leave out ("may if it ("term,")— think fit") in order to insert ("shall if the landlord so requires.") ("Provided, that nothing in this section shall apply in the case of any tenancy in a holding the rent payable in respect of which amounts to or exceeds one hundred pounds.") LORD CARLINGFORD said, he would be willing to accept the Amendment if the noble Marquess would consent to THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE retain the words with regard to the im- said, the Amendment of the noble Lord provements that they should be "sub-was one of the greatest importance, and stantially maintained." he had looked forward to its being pressed in their Lordships' House. His interest in it was the greater because it was moved by a near Relative of his in THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that, practically, the improvements were maintained by the landlord; but if the tenant occasionally cleared out a ditch," another place," where it received a it might be alleged that the improvements were not substantially maintained by the landlord. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that the word "substantially " implied that the landlord in the main maintained the improvements. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL remarked, that in Scotland the tenant was under the obligation to maintain the improvements, subject to wear and tear. What he wanted to know was whether the word "substantial" was put in to give ease to the Court in its interpretation of the clause, or whether, on the contrary, it was intended to make it more rigid ? LORD LECONFIELD objected to the use of the word "substantial," on the ground that if it were employed the tenant might, under the clause, require the landlord to carry out any substantial repairs which were rendered necessary by the neglect of the former. Amendment agreed to. LORD CARLINGFORD moved, in page 9, after sub-section (5.) insert as a sepa rate sub-section ("6.) Subject to rules made under this Act, the landlord and tenant of any present tenancy to which this Act applies, may, at any time if such tenancy is not subject to a statutory term, large amount of independent support. The arguments brought forward in support of it appeared to him to be unanswerable. On the one hand, it affected only a very small number of tenants, and on the other it recognized a principle upon which, till now, they had always insisted-the principle that these large tenants were men perfectly able to protect their own interests and not requiring the protection of exceptional legislation. They could not, however, consider the proposal on its merits alone. When it was made in "another place" it encountered the strenuous opposition of the Prime Minister, who founded his opposition on the statement that if the Amendment were agreed to, and these 12,000 tenants excepted from the benefit of this clause, there would remain in Ireland a focus round which the discontent of the future would centre, and which would prevent the Bill from having the good effect which he anticipated for it. These words were, no doubt, weighed by the Prime Minister, and it them also. They must look forward to was their Lordships' duty to weigh the events with which they were likely to be brought face to face during the coming winter. He could see no reason for anticipating that this Bill would [First Night.] allay the agitation now prevalent in Ireland. Already there were sinister indications that that agitation was likely to be renewed in a shape not less dangerous than that which it had hitherto assumed. Under these circumstances, what would happen if this Amendment were insisted on? The agitation would continue, and they would be told that it was attributable to the alteration made in the Bill by their Lordships. They had already had some experience of the manner in which the House of Lords "mutilations" had been misrepresented, and they might depend upon it that in this case the agitation would be justified as a legitimate protest against their Lordships' action. There was another reason which induced him to think that this Amendment might be dispensed with. They had already inserted in the Bill provisions dealing specially with holdings which had been improved by the landlords, and in a later part of the measure an Amendment would be moved dealing with the question of leases. Both of these Amendments would principally affect the larger holders, whom the noble Lord wished to exclude. Under these circumstances, he ventured to ask his noble Friend whether the inconvenience which might arise from the acceptance of his Amendment might not outweigh any advantages to be derived from it by the landlords? THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD hoped his noble Friend would withdraw his Amendment. If the line were to be drawn anywhere it ought to be at £20; but it was the larger tenants whose number it was desirable to increase, and to agree to the Amendment would be to discourage men from taking or buying holdings of £100 in value. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he was disposed to join in the appeal made to the noble Lord. If the Amendment were inserted the tenants to whom it applied would think after the language of the Prime Minister that the vote of the House was specially levelled against them. The advantage to the landlords would be very slight, and would not compensate for the discontent and disaffection which it would excite. LORD CARLINGFORD heartily concurred in what had been said against the Amendment. The tenants against The Marquess of Lansdowne whom it was directed were the very men whom the Government wished to protect, for they were the tenants who were most ready to make their own improvements, and the effect of the Amendment would be to discourage them from laying out any of their capital on their holdings. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. LORD VENTRY moved, in page 9, line 39, after ("term") insert ("Provided that if the tenant has not before the expiration of the statutory term paid and satisfied the rent payable during the same a further statutory term shall not commence, and the tenant shall become a future tenant.”) LORD CARLINGFORD said, he could not accept the Amendment. THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow. WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION. 1000 POLICE SUPERANNUATION (GREAT BRITAIN). COLONEL ALEXANDER said, that although he had for the fourth time secured the first place for his Motion respecting Police Superannuation, he did not intend to bring it forward, and for two reasons-first, because he did not wish to stand in the way of the Government in their natural desire to obtain Supply, especially at this period of the year; and, secondly, on account of the unavoidable absence of the hon. Mem ber for West Essex (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson), who presided over the Select Committee which was appointed by the late Government, and who was anxious to take part in the discussion. He regretted this the more because he believed the Home Secretary intended to accept the principle of the Motion; but if next Session the Government did not deal with the subject of Police Superannuation, both in England and Scotland, he should be prepared to bring forward the Resolution of which he had already given Notice. QUESTIONS. 1600 BULGARIA—ARREST OF M. ZANKOFF. MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any confirmation of the statement in the public journals, that M. Zancoff, the President of the late Ministry in Bulgaria, has been arrested; and, whether, if so, he will instruct Her Majesty's Representative in that country, to urge that M. Zancoff be secured in every respect the Constitutional and legal rights assured to him by the Constitution which was adopted by Bulgaria in 1878 with the concurrence of all the Great Powers? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, according to the information received by Mr. Lascelles from the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Zankoff and Mr. Slaveikoff, after leaving Sistova, held meetings at various places in opposition to the new order of things; and on their arrival at Plevna, which is in a state of siege, the authorities placed them under arrest, and informed them MR. SCHREIBER asked the Postmaster General, Whether, before the Post Office Vote is taken, he will arrange to receive a deputation from the Metropolitan letter carriers, who desire to be heard by him in support of the statements contained in their Petitions of the 26th April? MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that he could only repeat what he had already stated on this subject. He had received numerous Memorials from the lettercarriers in various parts of the country, and those Memorials were now being carefully considered. As yet he had not found it necessary to supplement the statements contained in them by personal interview; and he was, therefore, unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member that he would receive a deputation. ARMY ORGANIZATION THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT-PURCHASE LIEUTENANTS AND CAPTAINS. SIR JOHN HAY asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why a purchase lieutenant, who may possibly have invested about £800 in the State, is not allowed some recompense on compulsory retirement for the retention of that sum, while a purchase captain with (say) £2,400 invested in the State is allowed £100 a-year for life for its use on being compulsorily retired? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Baronet, I have to say that the cases of the purchase captains and purchase lieutenants are altogether different. The former, who have not been promoted, were compensated by the Warrant of 1877 for the loss of their over-regulation money, and now will receive further compensation to the extent of £50 a-year, in consideration of their compulsory retirement at 42 instead of at 55. The purchase lieutenants who become non-purchase captains were liable, under the Warrant of 1877, to compulsory retirement at 40. They are benefited, not injured, by the Warrant of 1881, which enables non purchase captains to obtain half-pay ma- | The Bombay Government resolved, on jorities, and ultimately honorary lieuten- both occasions, stating no reason, "not ant-colonelcies. Of the £800 mentioned to interfere with the sentence appealed in the Question, only £100 was over- against." The Government of Bombay regulation money, and this, in 1877, was appear to have acted entirely within the considered to be fully met by the pro- limits of their authority, and, no doubt, motion given to the officer. Under on legal advice. There was no obligathese circumstances, it is manifest that tion on them to state the reasons for I should not be justified in disturbing their decision, and it would have been the settlement of 1877 to these unusual for them to have done so. As officers. at present advised, I do not see that there is on the face of these proceedings as INDIA-LAW AND JUSTICE-CASE OF any ground for calling for further expla JADHAVRAI HARISHANKAR. SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to the Petition of Jadhavrai Harishankar, now a prisoner in Tanna Gaol, praying for a new trial, or for the revision of his case by an independent judge; whether the principal witness against Jadhavrai has been subsequently tried and convicted, and, in the course of this subsequent trial, certain missing documents relied upon by Jadhavrai to prove his innocence, were actually produced; whether the Judge and Sessions Judge of Tanna reported to the Bombay Government in favour of a review of Jadhavrai's case by an independent judge; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the reasons assigned by the Bombay Government for refusing to grant the petition for a new trial or a revision of this case? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, my attention has not been previously directed to the Petition referred to. It appears, however, from the political proceedings of the Bombay Government that Jadhavrai Harishankar, a prisoner under sentence for forgery, has submitted to that Government two Petitions, in which he has alleged that fresh evidence has been discovered which went to establish his innocence, and he prayed to be released. It appears that Mr. Coghlan, the Sessions Judge of Tanna, did represent to Government as an official visitor of the gaol," that the case of the prisoner Jadhavrai Harishankar appeared to him to be one which deserved consideration. Several Reports have been made on the case by the two judicial officers, Mr. Candy, who had tried and sentenced the prisoner, and Mr. Aston, who had tried and sentenced one of the witnesses against the prisoner, and by the political officer at Kattiawar. Mr. Childers nation from the Government of Bombay. ARMY ORGANIZATION-THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT, SEC. 66. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case (as has been stated) that, by Article 66, of Section 1, Part 1, of the new Army Warrant, commanding officers of battalions of Infantry will be unable to exchange with other commanding officers (as hitherto allowed when such exchanges were approved by the Commander in Chief) without losing their position as commanding officers, and becoming subordinate officers under the command of the newly created second lieutenant colonels; and, whether he will alter the Warrant so as to rectify so great an injustice? MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; my hon. and gallant Friend has rightly interpreted the New Warrant; but I have no intention to amend it in the way he suggests. We deprecate, on the score of efficiency, exchanges between lieutenant colonels commanding_battalions of different regiments, and I have no wish to make such exchanges more easy. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - RE PORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF lowing Question on the Paper:- "To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will endeavour to arrange for the transmission, each month, as soon as published, of the Reports issued by the Agricultural Department of the United States at Washington; and, if he will place a Copy in the Library of the House of Commons, and send a Copy to the Central Chamber of Agriculture, with a view of securing the circulation of the information to all interested in agricul ture ?" said, that in consequence of a private communication received from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for which he thanked the hon. Gentleman, it would not be necessary for him to put the Question. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that instructions to the effect stated in the Question had now been despatched to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington. ARMY-BARRACK SERGEANTS. MR. R .H. PAGET asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will avail himself of the present opportunity, when the position of Non-Commissioned Officers in the Army is being generally improved, to review the conditions of service of Barrack Sergeants; and, whether in view of the onerous and highly responsible duties performed by Barrack Sergeants, when in sole charge of stations and stores, he will be good enough to consider the advisability of improving their position, as to pay and pension? MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I am not prepared, so long as barrack sergeants are chosen from pensioners, to increase their emoluments; but I am not quite satisfied that the present system is a good one, and that it would not be better to select barrack sergeants from men still in their Army engagements, which might possibly be extended. I will look into the question during the Autumn. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT. though Finn suffered occasionally from an attack of sunstroke, that was only occasional, and did not affect him to any very serious extent. POOR LAW (IRELAND)-UNION RATING. COLONEL COLTHURST asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the possibility of introducing next Session a Bill to Assimilate the Law of Union Rating in Ireland to that prevailing in England? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he considered that the argument was strongly in favour of the assimilation of the law of union rating in the two countries; but he was aware that there would be a good deal of opposition to such a measure in Ireland. He should be disposed, however, to consider very carefully the possibility of carrying it into effect; but he could not pledge himself that a Bill on the subject would be brought in next Session. MR. HEALY asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the opposition to the proposal came from the landlords? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he was not aware of that. He repeated that, in his own opinion, there were strong arguments in its favour. POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF. COLONEL COLTHURST asked the PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant MESSRS. M'DONOUGH AND FINN, of Ireland, If he will cause an inquiry to be made into the exclusion of certain non-able-bodied classes from outdoor relief in Ireland, the same classes being entitled to it in England? MR. D. O'CONOR asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has further considered the case of Messrs. M'Donough and Finn who have been arrested under the Coercion Act at Gurteen, county Sligo; and, whether it is not a fact that Finn is a man of weak intellect, and not likely to be the leader of any conspiracy against Law and order? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had carefully considered the case of the two men, and he did not believe it would be consistent with the peace of the county to release them at present. Their cases, however, should be carefully reconsidered at the end of three months, He understood that al MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he would certainly ascertain the precise position of this matter; but he was not quite sure that his hon. and gallant Friend was not under some misapprehension. The Boards of Guardians had considerable power in this case. Section 1 of the Poor Law (Ireland) Act provided— "That Guardians of the poor of every union in Ireland shall make provision for the due relief of all such destitute poor persons as are found to be disabled from labour by reason of old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect, and of such destitute poor persons as may be disabled from labour by reason of severe sickness or |