HC Deb 11 April 1870 vol 200 cc1687-701

, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, said, the Motion which he had to submit was one of some importance and delicacy, but it did not require from him any very lengthened observations. A Question had been put to him some time ago by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pemberton) in connection with the name of a Gentleman sitting in that House, which had appeared in the Report of an Election Commission, as having been connected with acts of bribery; and he believed more than one Member of the House to be in the same predicament, whether of established or presumable complicity. He would state briefly the grounds of the Motion he was about to make. It was a very natural thing to put on the Government, primâd facie,the responsibility of considering what should be done in cases of this class. They were very desirous to give to it careful consideration, and they had arrived at the conclusion that it was inexpedient, and would tend to confuse matters, which ought to be kept clear of collateral issues, for the Government to take upon itself directly the duty of advising the House what measures should be taken or abstained from in regard to presumable or alleged cases of connection with corruption, because, standing, as every Administration must, in a diversity of relations to Members with reference to the confidence which they did or did not receive from hon. Members, it was scarcely possible for any Government to discharge with efficiency functions of that kind, or escape the suspicion of being influenced by motives peculiar to themselves, and at variance with a due, impartial, and judicial consideration of the subject. On the other hand, they could not come to the conclusion that this was a matter that should be passed by, and it appeared to them, on the whole, that the proper course would be to advise the House to take the initiative itself, by the appointment of a Committee to consider the present state of the law, and its application to the particular cases that had arisen. With regard to these cases the points that would come chiefly into issue were these three—first, as regarded the institution of a prosecution against any Gentleman supposed to be connected with corrupt practices. In one of the eases at least, to which allusion was specially made, no such prosecution could be instituted by the Government. If a case fell within the limits of time specified by the Act it would be very much simplified, because it would be removed beyond the discretionary action of the Government. The statutory limitation of 12 months having expired in more than one, if not in all the cases, it might be held that a certificate of indemnity might be lawfully claimed. Another difficulty had arisen, that the evidence against the person or persons implicated might be said to consist mainly or entirely of their own evidence, which could not, on judicial grounds, be used against them. So I much as to the prosecution. Then there was the question of sitting in Parliament, with regard to which a nice question of law arose. The words of the Act of Parliament were— Any person other than a candidate, found guilty of bribery in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard, shall, during the seven years next after the time at which he is so found guilty, be incapable of being elected to, and sitting in Parliament. Here at once the natural and obvious question arose—what was the meaning of the words—"has had an opportunity of being heard?" A Gentleman, for instance, was summoned before the Commissioners to give evidence, and made a statement upon which the Report of the Commissioners was directly founded. Was that a sense in which it would be suggested that the person implicated had been heard? As far as the opportunity had been afforded to him of learning the opinions of legal authorities, circumstances like these would not satisfy the full legal meaning of the phrase used in the statute. The person would not have been heard in the sense in which a criminal upon his trial was said to be heard, when power was given him of cross-examining the hostile witnesses, of calling witnesses in his favour, and of speaking either by himself or by his advocate, in his own defence. The further question arose whether, in any case of this kind, there was or was not ground for resorting to the extreme power which the House held in its own hands of expelling anyone who was returned as a Member. The use of that power in cases of bribery had certainly been extremely rare, and a very long time had elapsed since it had been resorted to. It was also a question whether the House would be morally justified in resorting to the exercise of such, a power in any ease where the grounds of accusation were less definite and positive than those upon which a conviction in a criminal trial would be obtained, or at any rate where the grounds of accusation were limited to the Report of a Commission, before whom it could not be alleged that the person accused had, in a judicial sense, been heard in his own defence. Those were matters which, in connection not merely with individual cases, but with the general state of the law, it was very desirable to bring under the consideration of the House, after they had been sifted, in the first instance, by a small but carefully chosen. Committee of Members, who would bring to the consideration of the question all the advantages of experience, legal knowledge, discrimination, and the best qualities that the House could command. But he hoped that the subject would be kept detached from the larger and more general inquiries which it was proposed to add to his Motion by way of Amendment. The subject of his Motion was the personal responsibility of Members of the House, and the adaptation and adjustment of the provisions of the law, so as to make them adequate and applicable to that personal responsibility. But the Amendment of which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) had given notice raised much wider questions, the first of which was as to the operation of the whole of the existing law regarding the trial of Election Petitions. In principle he did not make the slightest objection to such an inquiry, and although, remembering how recently one of the Acts had been passed, he desired to reserve to himself some freedom of action, he would not go so far as to say even that the present time was unsuitable for such an inquiry. But such an inquiry, being in its nature political, and not merely judicial in its character, ought properly to be committed to a tribunal chosen in the ordinary manner, and could not suitably be undertaken by the Committee, high in authority, but limited in number, which he proposed. The hon. Member further desired to raise a question with regard to the allegations contained in. certain Petitions to the House, praying for an inquiry into the conduct of Commissioners appointed in accordance with the provisions of certain Acts. That, again, was a proposition of a grave and serious character, altogether distinct, both from the original Motion, and from the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. He would not say that such a proceeding, if adopted by the House, would be of a penal character; but it would certainly be one of a highly accusatory character, involving personal considerations of the highest order, and, in itself, quite sufficient to engage the attention of any Committee. Upon the subject of the Amendment it was unnecessary for him at present to offer any opinion; but he trusted the hon. Member would allow the House to confine its, attention to the proposal which he ventured to submit. He hoped the House would appreciate the motives which had led the Government to conclude that it was not desirable that they should assume to themselves directly the dealing with individual Members in cases of such delicacy; but that the House should be invited to take the subject into its own hands, and by appointing a carefully chosen and constituted Committee should conduct the whole matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Law affecting such persons as have been reported guilty of Corrupt Practices by any Commission issued in accordance with the Acts 15 & 16 Vic. c. 57, and 31 & 32 Vic. c. 125, and who are now Members of this House, and to recommend what proceedings, if any, should be taken by this House with respect to such Members, and what alteration, if any, should be made in the Law."—(Mr. Gladstone.)


said, that his proposal was not conceived in any spirit hostile to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman; and a glance at the Members respectively occupying seats at either side of the House made it additionally gratifying that he was not attempting to raise anything which could be converted into a party question. On whatever side of the House hon. Members might sit, they were equally interested in putting a stop to the plundering of candidates. In the view of the right hon. Gentleman, the Amendment was altogether distinct from the original Motion; but let them remember the exact nature of the Government proposal, It was for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law as affecting certain persons who were Members of that House, and who had been found guilty; by a tribunal of corrupt practices. To right and left of the First Minister were sitting the Law Officers of the Crown; if all he wanted to ascertain was the state of the law, why did they not give him the necessary information? There was not, he ventured to say, an attorney's clerk in the three kingdoms who did not know what the state of the law was. The right hon. Gentleman had read the 45th section of the Act of 1868, the first words of which—"Any person other than a candidate"—showed that the section was not in any way applicable to the Motion which he had proposed. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone two sections back, he would have found the marginal note—"Punishment of candidates guilty of bribery;" he would not weary the House by reading the clause at length, but he hoped the Attorney-General would do so, and he would find that it, and not the 45th, was the important section with reference to this matter. So much for the state of the law. As to the second part of the Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask what course did the Government propose that the House should be invited to take. Did the Prime Minister or anybody else contemplate that some ex post facto proceedings should be levelled against those who had just escaped from being brought within the provisions of the law, but had fallen under the censure of the Election Commissioners? Whatever the Report of the Committee might be, he ventured to think that the House would never follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman in this direction, he presumed of expulsion, or something of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of an alteration of the existing law; but it seemed to have escaped attention that the Act 31 & 32 Vic. c. 125, was only to exist for three years, "or till the end of the then next Session"—an alternative meant, as he supposed, to cover the contingency of a Dissolution of Parliament from unforeseen circumstances. From the concluding passages of the right hon. Gentleman's own statement it was evident that he considered some revision of the existing law to be necessary; and the Amendment pointed at the desirability of ascertaining what these changes should be. If it was proposed to alter the 43rd or the 45th section, any inquiry with this object in view must of necessity be a comprehensive and not merely a partial inquiry. In venturing to move this Amendment, he would remind the House that a wholly new state of matters had been called into existence by the statute passed in 1868. Of the effect of that statute they had now had a tolerably clear view, and it was not probable that knowledge or experience upon the working of these Acts would be obtained during the ensuing 12 months, though of course he was not prepared to say that the contingency might not arise. Still it was contrary to the spirit, though not to the letter, of the Act of 1868 that it should endure for a longer period than the next 12 months, and they must shortly, therefore, be prepared to look the difficulty in the face, and re-enact, remodel, or repeal the existing statute. The right hon. Gentleman would scarcely be prepared to say that either one of those courses should be adopted without previous inquiry, and without the appointment of a Select Committee whether large or small, and he would ask what time could be more opportune for such an inquiry than the present. The inquiry and the introduction of the new Act could scarcely be in the same year, and the present Session was still comparatively young. He did not for a moment desire to pit his private judgment against that of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman considered that he was accumulating too much work upon one body [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!], he would waive his Amendment, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it in substance and give it effect either by the appointment of one or two Committees as he might think best. He desired now to say a few words with regard to the latter portion of his Motion asking for an inquiry into the allegations contained in the Petitions presented to that House concerning the conduct of certain of the Election Commissioners. He was particularly desirous of avoiding personal references in this matter, and should leave it to those hon. Members whose acquaintance with local matters would enable them to dilate upon the particular phases that these Election Inquiries had assumed. But it was right that he should draw the attention of the House to the fact that Petitions had been presented in considerable numbers praying for an inquiry into the mode in which these affairs had been conducted. It might, perhaps, be said that this demand for inquiry was raised by those who were averse from the suppression of corrupt practices. It was, however, very strongly urged in 1868 that the only way of checking these practices was by calling into existence a healthy state of public opinion. But what was the effect that these, inquiries had produced on public opinion? Various proceedings had been instituted recently by the Law Officers of the Crown, and how had those proceedings been received by the public? They found that the failure of justice in one case, and the supposed abandonment of criminal proceedings in another, were hailed by torchlight processions, by bonfires, by illuminations, by the ringing of church bells, by enthusiastic applause on the part of crowds outside, and, he regretted to say, inside the Court. What did that mean? He was not going for one moment to assume that those demonstrations betokened any sympathy with corruption on the part of the inhabitants of those localities. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but in the case of Norwich the Commissioners themselves said that there was a sincere desire on the part of the great mass of the constituency to put down corruption. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Among some of the leading men.] He did not remember the word "some;" but he would accept the correction of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It should, however, be remembered that the corruption in the borough was of the most infinitesimal character—only 137 cases in the whole town. But these demonstrations were not in sympathy with corruption, they were merely the result of the popular feeling which always had been called into existence, and always would, he trusted, in this country when an impression existed in the minds of the people that any of Her Majesty's subjects had been made the victims of oppression, of injustice, or of wrong. These Petitions complained of the violent and injudicial demeanour of the Commissioners. They complained further that the inquiries, were conducted in a manner opposed to all the ordinary practice of Courts of Justice. They complained that, in many important and essential points, some of the principal features of the inquiry were entirely suppressed in the Minutes of the Evidence, and that a very vigorous use of the scissors had been made before the transmission of the Evidence to the printers—a charge which, he was sorry to say from inquiry, he had every reason to believe, was accurate. The Petitions complained that the conduct of the Commissioners was calculated to bring the administration of the law into contempt. It might, of course, be said that these were charges brought by corrupt agents, by frequenters of the public-houses where the visits of the Man in the Moon were paid; but he must draw their attention to some remarks which were made in a place where such feelings could have no influence, and by an authority whose weight could not be gainsaid. It was said by a person before whom this matter was the subject of inquiry— But I must say that having again and again looked over the questions and answers, the result has been to produce a most painful impression upon my mind as to the injustice with which he has been treated, and I do not remember ever in the course of my experience to have heard or read of such a cross-examination as that to which he was exposed. They commence by telling him to make his own statement; but from first to last he is never allowed an opportunity (I might almost say) of putting two sentences together. Seldom does it happen that a question is put which he is allowed to answer without interruption from one or other of the Commissioners. That was the opinion given by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in delivering the unanimous decision of the Court in Mr. Lovibond's case; and the Lord Chief Justice, after commenting upon an observation by one of the Commissioners that the witness gave evidence in a disgraceful manner, said — This was an animadversion entirely beyond the scope of the Commissioner's functions;" and he added, with much emphasis, "that though he would not say that the term 'disgraceful' was altogether inopportune, he did not think it was to the witness the remark ought to be applied. The operation of the Act had not, up to the present time, been satisfactory; and the question was, how should they proceed to investigate and to discover what alterations were necessary? The tribunal to which he was now especially referring was a tribunal which might be made a very effectual one, though he thought that the machinery prescribed by the Act scarcely admitted it. For, what was the nature of the tribunal? He did not wish to dwell particularly upon the questions to which he had just referred; but in one case a gentleman was selected whose capacity was not only unknown, but whose singular incapacity for the performance of that or any other delicate duty was patent to all the world. In saying that, he was merely expressing the opinion of every independent man throughout the country. But he would ask what, under the most favourable circumstances, was this tribunal? Why, it consisted of a trio of fifth-rate sessions barristers. These gentlemen were constituted summarily into a tribunal, with powers greater than those which belonged to any tribunal at any period of our history, not even excepting the Star Chamber. These gentlemen were intrusted with powers of this magnitude, uncontrolled by the authority of our ordinary Courts of Law, and employed those functions to damage at random the characters of any of Her Majesty's subjects; and he should, therefore, feel much surprise if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to afford a full and impartial inquiry into complaints which had been made from so many quarters, and the justice of which had received such high judicial recognition.

Amendment proposed, To leave out all the words after the words "inquire into the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "operation of the Acts 15 & 16 Vic. c. 57, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 125, and to recommend what alteration, if any, should be made in the Law; and, further, to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in Petitions which have been presented to this House during the present Session, praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of certain Commissioners appointed in accordance with the provisions of the above-recited Acts,"—(Mr. Lowther,)

—instead thereof.

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


said, he had heard with great satisfaction the assurance of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) that there was not the slightest difficulty about the law on this subject. He confessed that to him the law did appear somewhat obscure; it had so appeared to his hon. Friend the Solicitor General, and he believed he might say it had appeared doubtful to the Lord Chancellor; but it was very satisfactory to know that these doubts were all dispelled by the lucid intellect of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend said that this section could not possibly apply to any Member of that House, because it related to persons other than candidates. But he appeared to have forgotten how this question had arisen, which was in this way—that the Bridgwater Commissioners and the Beverley Commissioners had put into the Schedule persons who were not candidates, but who had since become Members of that House. The real difficulty had been mentioned by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and would be patent to any lawyer. Primâ facie, it might be said that the words— Any person other than a candidate found guilty of bribery in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard, meant the case of a person who had appeared before the Commissioners, having had notice of the charge, and having had an opportunity of giving his evidence. But then arose the further important and difficult question, whether, that being the construction according to the words, it was the construction according to the spirit of the Act, and whether the spirit of the Act would not require that a man should be heard, not merely giving his evidence, but cross-examining the witnesses against him, calling witnesses if he chooses on his own behalf, and speaking either personally or by an advocate in his own defence. That was a question of some difficulty which required solution, and he could not conceive a better tribunal for solving it than the Committee which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend. The credit of the House itself was affected. The Question put by the hon. Member for East Kent applied to certain Members of the House, and it was upon that ground—as a matter affecting the House—that his right hon. Friend proposed his Motion. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) would accept it. He understood it to be part of the conditions of his hon. Friend that the Government would allow a separate Committee to which the subjects to which his Amendment related might be referred. With respect to the first part of the Amendment—namely, a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, and to recommend what alteration, if any, should be made in the existing law—he understood there would be no opposition on the part of the Government. But when they came to the second part of the Amendment, which was to institute a Committee of that House to sit upon all these Commissions and to inquire into their conduct—in fact, to institute an inquisition upon their inquisitions—that appeared to him to be going a very long way indeed. The House would not put Commissioners whom itself had appointed upon their trial without very grave cause being made out. He would now say two or three words in defence of the Commissioners. He freely admitted that the Commissioners were unpopular in the boroughs to which they had been sent, and he would say if they had been popular it would have been perfectly clear that they had not discharged their duty. [Mr. STAVELEY HILL: No, no!] These Commissions had always been unpopular, and if his hon. and learned Friend in reply could show that they were popular he would achieve a greater triumph than he had ever effected in a Court of Law. They were unpopular, and their unpopularity had been increased by a very salutary Act, throwing their expenses on the borough. If they were unpopular before, they were detested now. These Commissions had the greatest difficulties to contend with, for the two or three parties that were in hostility before combined together and endeavoured to hoodwink them by every possible artifice; and when the Commissioners tried to see through all these practices, they were abused in the local papers and a general feeling of virtuous indignation was excited against them. He maintained, if hon. Members looked to the volumes containing a vast number of questions, amounting to some thousands, they would see that the Commissioners had done their duty. He did not dispute if they scrutinized all the questions, and all the observations that had been made, that some would not be open to objection; but they must take matters as a whole, and, notwithstanding all that had been said and all the complaints of persons who were reported guilty of bribery—and probably for very excellent reasons, he contended that the Commissioners had conducted their inquiries with ability, with much industry, with perfect good faith, and with an uncompromising determination to arrive at the truth. His hon. Friend had remarked on some observations which had fallen from, no doubt, a very high authority; but it was not immaterial to observe that this Mr. Lovibond was at the head, he might say, of the bribery of his party. Mr. Lovibond was one of those who endeavoured to induce the candidates to spend money and to break the virtuous resolution they had come to of conducting the Election purely. Of course, he must admit that some of the observations which fell from the Chief Justice were of a very severe character; but Mr. Justice Blackburn, though no doubt not differing from the rest of the Court, expressed the opinion that Mr. Lovibond did not answer many of the questions put to him in a satisfactory manner. The Solicitor General and himself had since had more experience of Mr. Lovibond. They had both been at Taunton, and Mr. Lovibond, in the presence of the Judge, had prevaricated just as he had done before the Commissioners, so much so that the learned Judge had allowed his hon. and learned Friend to cross-examine Mr. Lovibond, though he had been called by his hon. and learned Friend. Now, that was the sole case against these Commissioners. He ventured to say that no part of the conduct of the Commissioners at all warranted such a Resolution as that proposed by his hon. Friend. He was sceptical as to the feeling at Norwich being generally in favour of the purity of the borough. The Commissioners reported that though at the last Election there was an agreement between the candidates on both sides that no money should be spent, a vast number of the electors were waiting about the public-houses to be bribed, and were afterwards bribed. Some of them wanted a sovereign, but subsequently reduced their demand to half-a-sovereign, 5s., and even a pot of beer. The price was small only because the demand was not large. He did not think it would be becoming of him to enter into a discussion on the criminal proceedings he had directed to be instituted; and, therefore, he would conclude by expressing a hope that the course recommended by the First Minister of the Crown might be adopted by the House.


said, he did not think there was so much difficulty in interpreting the law as the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had represented. He said this, having regard to the evidence of Mr. Baron Martin, and the other Election Judges before the Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. It appeared to him (Mr. Hunt) that there would be more difficulty as to what Members would come within the law. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in thinking that the two inquiries proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) could scarcely be intrusted to the same Committee; and he would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend whether it would not be well for him to accept the offers of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The subject of the latter part of his Amendment he might bring forward on another occasion. If, however, it was arranged to divide the labour in that way between two Committees, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether the inquiry as to any alteration in the law should not have reference to such change, whether it affected Members of that House or other persons. With regard to the Commissioners, he was not there to go into particulars as to their mode of conducting their inquiries; but he desired to express his opinion that it was an evil to make Commissioners in such cases both the prosecutors and the judges, and he hoped that when any future inquiry of this nature was undertaken some one would be sent down charged with the duty of getting up evidence, so that the Commissioners might confine themselves to their proper functions as judges. No doubt it was difficult to get gentlemen of the highest position at the bar to undertake this employment; but as it was necessary that the Reports on these important questions should have the confidence of the public, it would be necessary to offer sufficient remuneration to attract men of eminence.


said, that two of the Commissions were headed by Queen's counsel and another by a serjeant.


said, he had no desire to discuss the position of the gentlemen whose conduct was complained of. He merely called attention to the fact that the gentlemen sent down sometimes did not occupy a leading position in their respective circuits. By the engagement of eminent men complaints would be avoided.


said, he thought the Government ought to be thanked for having taken a step in the right direction; because he could not but hold it to be a great scandal that Gentlemen convicted in the way referred to should sit in that House unchallenged, while persons in inferior positions—perhaps the agents of those Gentlemen—were suffering imprisonment. He could assure the House that when he first brought forward this subject he did so without any party feeling. He did so on reading the first Report that had come under his observation. He was not prepared to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther). The last part of it he regarded as foreign to the inquiry before the House; but he did not think the inquiry as to the law itself need be limited to its effect on Members of that House.


said, the inquiry was into the position in which some hon. Members were placed by the Reports that had been made. Those Reports naturally provoked the jealousy of the public, who wished to know the real position of such hon. Members, and whether they ought to continue in their capacity of legislators. That was a question which must depend upon the law, and hon. Members would be taking upon themselves the office of legislators, and not of administrators of the law if when they had passed an Act defining the way in which the guilt of bribery was to be brought home to a man in order to render him incapable of sitting in the House, they took upon themselves to say he should be disqualified, although those conditions had not been fulfilled. He hoped the House would take warning by the present difficulty, and amend the law relating to such cases, so as in future to prevent any reflection being cast on the character of the House. It would be going beyond the law if, when the charge had not been brought home to the persons affected, the House did not give them the benefit of the existing law, his own impression as to which was, that there should be an accusation or charge, a legal hearing of the accused, with a full opportunity of cross-examination and defence, and a conviction by a competent tribunal; none of which circumstances had occurred in these cases. The fact that various opinions existed among hon. Members who were conversant with the law showed that it was extremely desirable that the subject should be carefully examined.


said, he was of opinion that the persons implicated could not now be dealt with under any existing statute, and he concurred in thinking that they should not deal with this question by ex post factolegislation. He did not believe that Bribery Commissions were unpopular, he having been engaged in a most searching inquiry—that at Lancaster in 1867—and he had never found any unpopularity or odium attach to either of his two learned colleagues or himself. As regarded the city of Norwich, after asking 45,000 questions, the Commissioners found that [corrupt practices did not generally exist; in the city of Norwich, and that the whole sum spent in bribery was some-thing less than £50.


said, that before passing the Act which had been referred to the House always maintained a jurisdiction over its Members, and exercised it from time to time in the way it thought fit. Any power which was not taken away by that Act still remained in the House, and ought to be exercised fearlessly whenever occasion required it. There was very great doubt I as to the meaning of the section, and he could not share in the certainty to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) had so pleasantly arrived. Unless the Section referred to some such procedure as that before a Commission he; did not know to what it could allude, and therefore he was not able to give any positive opinion on the subject.


said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that it was not to be opposed, and that he was to be at liberty to move the first part of it as a substantive Resolution. He would call attention to the subject of the latter part later in the Session.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.