LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL pointed out that, in answer to a question by himself, the Prime Minister had stated that the clause would be brought up again in the same form. If words were omitted now, how could it be in Order to move that they stand part of the clause in a subsequent part of the Bill?

MR. TOTTENHAM urged that on so important a question the Committee should not come to a decision without understanding in what shape the subsection would be brought forward again. If the Question put from the Chair was negatived, would it be competent for the Government or any hon. Member to bring up the sub-section in the same

words?

MR. GLADSTONE: The question is one for the Committee; and, therefore, the noble Lord misunderstands the position. There is no privilege. The difficulty simply arises in this way. What is wanted is a transposition of a certain portion of the clause in order that it may be brought up as a matter of convenience in another part of the Bill. The power of the Committee apparently does not extend to postponing part of the clause. If we could do that it would be another matter; but we have no power to do that, and the only way is to strike out the words where they now stand, and then to re-propose them. Then I am asked if we will repropose them in the same form. We do not wish to bind ourselves absolutely on that point.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, it was perfectly clear from the remarks of the Prime Minister, and from the ruling of the Chair, that the course the Government proposed would not be in Order, because the Chairman had distinctly said that the Government intended to bring the clause up in another and a different sense; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) contended, therefore, that the proposed course would not be in Order.

MR. LITTON said, if the identical words could be brought up again the Committee would be called upon to restore to this clause the words which they had decided should not be in the same clause. If the Government brought up different words, and altered the language of the sub-section, what would

MR. MITCHELL HENRY asked whether it was not the rule that a clause if postponed could not be brought up again until the end of the Bill?

MR GORST said, if the.Chairman's ruling was correct, the Committee would have no power to transpose one part of the clause. It would have been decided that the words stand part of the clause in that place, and that decision could not be reversed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR thought the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down a great deal more clear than that of the Government; and he believed it was wholly impossible to re-introduce the same clause, or to introduce words which were substantially the same.

MR. GLADSTONE said, the only way to try the question was whether the words should stand part of the clauso. It did not signify whether it was a question of one word, or three words, or 30 words.

THE CHAIRMAN: I want to explain exactly what I understand to be the difficulty. If these words be now struck out, and brought in in another part of the clause, that will remove ambiguities which attach to them. There is nothing new in this proposal, for exactly the same thing was done in a previous part of the Bill by transposing a line, while the proposal transposes a section.

MR. HEALY asked whether all the Amendments put down would re-appear on the Paper?

| LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL understood that the Chairman ruled that the words should be left out here, be

cause they were ambiguous. It appeared to him that they would be ambiguous if stuck in after line 11. The question had nothing to do with the ambiguity or non-ambiguity of the words, but whether there was any precedent for such a proceeding.

MR. W. HOLMS suggested that his Amendment should be withdrawn in favour of the proposal of the Attorney General to transpose sub-section 3 to line 11.

divide his holding. He was not in favour of sub-letting except in excep tional cases; but he did not think the landlord should have the right to interfere with sub-division, further than to appear in Court and state his objections. 5, leave out "his landlord," and insert Amendment proposed, in page 5, line "the Court."-(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the

Clause."

MR. CHAPLIN wished for a distinct statement from the Government as to whether they would undertake to reintroduce the same words at the end of the sub-section. Many Members attached great importance to this sub-section.

MR. GLADSTONE replied, that the difficulty in giving a literal answer was that a double character was to be given to this enactment, and he wished to reserve a consideration of the section before bringing it up again.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS asked whether all the subjects at present mentioned in the sub-section would re-appear?

MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.

MR. BIGGAR thought the proposal of the Government unreasonable, pointing out the inconvenience of Amendments which were now in their proper place being postponed to a place where they would not fit into the sub-section. He suggested going on with the subsection as it stood, allowing the Amendments to be moved in their proper order.

MR. MACARTNEY suggested that the difficulty might be met by a declaration of the landlord's rights being introduced on Report at the beginning of Clause 4, and that the Committee should go on with Clause 4 as it stood now.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR moved to leave out the words "his landlord," in line 5, subsection 4, and insert the words "the Court." It was, he said, obviously undesirable that the landlord should have the right to come in, and to have the power of extorting a fine when the tenunt found it desirable to sub-let or sub

Lord Randolph Churchill

MR. HEALY pointed to the probability that a landlord might pretend to refuse to allow sub-division, although he would be glad to see sub-division if he was paid for it, and so he would practically impose a fine on the tenant. The decision should be in the hands of the Court and not the landlord.

MR. BIGGAR thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was wrong in saying that a decision had been come to on this point on a former part of the Bill. This was a new clause, and he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, had left that Amendment in his hands; but had said he did not feel he could move it, because the point had been aiready decided.

MR. MARUM asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the 9th section of the Land Act of 1870, which would, on assignment or bankruptcy, deprive the tenant of his right to compensation for disturbance?

MR. LEAMY referred to the same section of the Act of 1870, and mentioned that by that Bill a tenant could not recover compensation for disturbance if he sub-let or sub-divided without the consent of the landlord.

Amendment negatired.

MR. WARTON moved to insert the words "in writing" at the end of line 5, sub-section 4, and said, it seemed to him very important that the consent of

the landlord should be given in writing, I because disputes might arise and lead to long litigation. This proviso was inserted in many leases, and it would frequently prevent strife.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "in writing."-(Mr. Warton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. E. STANHOPE considered the Amendment very desirable, in order to prevent disputes as to the consent of the landlord having been given; and he should, therefore, support the Amend

ment.

MR. BIGGAR hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. It might be a plausible Amendment, but it should not be accepted, because, if the matter came to be one of evidence, and the Court was not satisfied with the evidence, then there would be room for controversy.

MR. BRODRICK pointed out that although the consent of the landlord might be given at the beginning of a 15. years' term, at the end of the term some dispute might arise upon which, with out this Amendment, there would be no documentary evidence. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

Question put.

The Committee divided:- Ayes 81; Noes 217: Majority 136.-(Div. List, No. 261.)

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

The House suspended its Sitting at

Seven of the clock,

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to Return "Piers and Harbours." No 244 of the present Session, Why none of the works to be executed by the Board of Works in Ireland, out of the sum of £45,000 voted by Parliament last Session, for the erection of Piers and Harbours under "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880," were commenced before the 27th of August last year, the majority of them not until the months of October, November, and December, and some of them not till the month of March this year, although the money so voted was intended to relieve the distress of last

year in scheduled districts by the employment of the people, such employment being most urgently required; and, if he will take steps to urge the Board of Works to expedite the completion of

those works?

House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

last year that the works referred to by the hon. Member should be put in hand with as little delay as possible. The task was not as easy a one as it might seem at first sight. In addition to the various provisions of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Act which cause delay,

liminary surveys and inquiries, a Report to the Treasury, the publication of notices, and security for the due maintenance of the pier when completed, there was the difficulty of selecting a limited number out of a very large number of applications for grants. That selection had to be made not simply on the ground of greatest benefit to the fisheries, but also for the purposes of relief of distress. Plans and estimates of the cost of the several works among which the choice had to be made had also to be prepared. For the purpose of diminishing, as far as possible, these obstacles to the immediate procedure, a Committee, consisting of Members of the Fishery Commissioners, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Public Works, was appointed. When I add that, after the various steps which I have mentioned had been completed, tenders had still to be obtained, I do not think that the delay complained of by the hon. Member is, in most cases, surprising, though I join with him in regretting it. In certain particular cases there have been additional causes of delay, some of which I stated in reply to a Question from the hon. Member a few days ago.

PRIVILEGE-THE

PARLIAMENT RIGHT OF PETITION - THE TELEGRAPH CLERKS.

MR. O'DONNELL rose to ask the opinion of Mr. Speaker as to a Motion he proposed to make on a point of Privilege arising out of a Minute containing a Report recently issued by the Treasury, affecting the telegraphists and postal clerks. He said the question affected one of the most important Privileges of the House, which had been violated by an eminent Member of the Government. The fundamental privilege of the House was its right to be freely approached by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects when petitioning for the redress of grievances; and so deeply was that principle involved in the Constitution that it was an established maxim that the redress of grievances must even precede Supply. In former times the House had even gone so far as to say that a petitioner arrested under formal process must be released from prison in order that he might attend the House and make his appeal. Such a case was reported in Hatsell as Lord Frederick Cavendish

occurring in 1624. In that year one Arnold, a feltmaker, came to the House to prepare a Bill affecting feltmakers, and it was ordered by the House that the feltmakers then imprisoned in the Fleet should be allowed the Privilege of the House in order that they should have full opportunity of stating their grievances. He hoped the matter of which he had to complain would be satisfactorily explained away by the Government, and that they would take the proper steps to deprive their act of the appearance of being a precedent which might in future prevent the free approach of all classes of petitioners to that House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me now to be going into the merits of the question which he desires to bring before the House. I have to inform the hon. Member that I have carefully examined the Treasury Minute to which he has called my attention. and to which his proposed Motion refers. Should the hon. Member think fit, upon Constitutional or other grounds, to bring that Minute under the notice of the House, it will be open to him to do so by Motion in the usual manner; but there are no grounds whatever for giving precedence to a Motion of that character as a question of Privilege. I, therefore, could not allow the hon. Member, without instructions from the House, to proceed to-day with such a Motion as a matter of Privilege.

MR. O'DONNELL: I, of course, accept your ruling, Sir. The point on which I was about to ask your formal decision was as to the Treasury Minute at page 9 of the Report, with special reference to the sentences

"In the first place, the Lords of the Treasury are not prepared to acquiesce in any organized agitation which openly seeks to bring any voting power to bear upon the House of Com

mons.

The next sentence of which I complain is

"My Lords, therefore, reserve to themselves the power of directing that the execution of the terms referred to may be suspended in any post office in which the members are known to be engaged in any extra-official agitation." My contention to you for permission to bring in a Motion is founded on those two sentences-that they constitute a threat to refuse redress of grievances to any member of the Post Office Depart