HC Deb 27 July 1891 vol 356 cc419-34
(3.50.) MR. ATKINSON (Boston)

Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I very respectfully claim freedom of speech in order to call your attention to the Journals put before the House to-day, which contain a statement with reference to me which, if it were true, would make me ashamed of myself and my conduct as a Member of Parliament for the remainder of my days. It is stated that I, on Friday night, frivolously called for Divisions. I beg to say that the matter I took in hand—namely, the timber trade advocacy—was not known to me until two days previously. There had been a large meeting of the timber trade, and I was moved by a well known firm to take the matter up. I represented to them that they should not pass by the three Members for Hull and their county Members and ask me to do it simply because I was a Hull man, but I was told by my friends that, as I had been 45 years in the business, I was the best fitted to take the matter up. Being pressed to undertake the duty, at length I consented, although there were other matters which I wished to attend to. I went through my duties the other night with extreme reluctance and great regret, and although I had given notice of nine Amendments to postpone for three months the Bills in question, when I found that the feeling of the House was against me, I let five of the Bills go without challenge. I then believed that an hon. Member had spoken in the sense in which I was speaking, and so I named him as a Teller with mo, but the hon. Member immediately got up and said that he did not go as far as I did, and thereupon the House laughed, and I let the Amendment go. Another hon. Member on the other side of the House, with whom I had never before acted and of whom I ought to have been wary, then came across to me and said, "I will tell with yon, and I will stick by you to the last." I said, "Very well," and in these circumstances I thought it to be my duty to take one more Division. I gave to the Speaker the name of that hon. Member as Teller, and the Speaker called upon him, and that gentleman, showing that he understood the agreement he had made with me, stood up at once. The Speaker told him to stand up again. I had never before that night been in the position of only having one hon. Member with me. I thought it my duty to take a Division once more, and I stood up again, but the hon. Member did not stand up. If I had known that that hon. Member would not have stood up, I should not have troubled the Speaker and the House to divide. I then sat down, and in my club at 9 o'clock the next morning I found, on receiving the papers, that I was to be pilloried before the House and the country as having frivolously attempted to divide the House. I protest against that, and I say that I would rather have a Committee of the House—even of my political enemies, if you like—to go into the whole matter and show exactly what happened, and it will then be seen that I was moved by the timber trade of the country, and had no personal interest in the matter. In fact, I am a large shareholder in six of the companies I was opposing. But there, I was entrapped, if I may use the word without being unparliamentary, or cajoled, and if that will not do I will say seduced, into accepting the co-operation of an hon. Gentleman opposite—a cooperation I never asked for in my life, and which I never will ask for or accept again should I live to the age of Methuselah. The Papers bear the signature of the Speaker, but I' presume that was formal, and I wrote to the clerk to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he had not already signed them, kindly not to sign them until I had explained the matter. That is the treatment I have received for a week past. I ask the House kindly to accept my Motion that these two entries be expunged from the Journals. If the House will not do that, I ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. If that be not granted, I will take the Chiltern Hundreds, and will go down to Boston and stand upon the question whether I did my duty in this matter or not. I will not be trampled upon by any one.


I must recall to the House the circumstances of which the hon. Member complains.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.) (Carnarvon,

May I ask a question? [Cries of "Order!"]


There were upon the Paper on the occasion in question several Amendments applicable to several Railway Bills. The first of those Bills after a time came to the stage of Third Reading, and when the hon. Gentleman challenged my decision I asked him whether he had any other hon. Member to act with him as Teller, and, no Teller coming forward, I said that the "Ayes" had it. The Great Western Railway Bill next came before the House, and on the Question that the Bill be now considered, the hon. Member moved to leave out "now" in order to insert the words "this day three months." That was put and negatived. Then came the Great Eastern Railway Bill, and the same thing happened as had occurred with reference to the two previous Bills. I put the Question, and that Bill passed without any demur. There was then the Great Northern Railway Bill, which was exactly of the same character as the other Bills. It was not challenged, but was read a third time and passed. Then came the London and South-Western Railway Bill. I put the Question that the Bill be now read a third time. The hon. Member challenged it, and I thought after what had taken place I might properly employ the Standing Order No. 30 and ask the minority to stand up. The hon. Member stood up alone in his place, and the House was saved the trouble of a Division. The hon. Member complains that in the Journals of the House an entry is made that he had frivolously and vexatiously attempted to divide the House.


It does not say so. [Cries of " Order!"]


Order, order! I thought it was vexatious, and I put the Standing Order into effect. I have something more to say, and I desire to say it in the hon. Member's presence.


Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]


The hon. Member, in the course of the remarks he has just made, referred to the treatment which he says he has received at my hands for a week past.


Hear, hear! [Cries of " Order!"]


I wish to say, in reply, that I will not notice any communication that comes from the hon. Member in his private capacity. I think that any complaints which he has to make against me should be made publicly in this House.


Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]


The House is aware that there is standing on the Paper in the hon. Member's name a notice of Motion charging me with an offence which I hope is new to me as regards any Member of this House—that of discourtesy. I have been on several occasions during my time in the Chair brought into relations that have been exceedingly unpleasant to me with several hon. Members of this House, but I am not aware that either on their part, and I can certainly say not on my own, have any private relations been established between us other than of a friendly kind. They have distinguished between the person and the office. Now, it is my duty, and a very painful one it is, to read to the House two communications which I have received during the last 48 hours from the hon. Member, and I think that the House will agree with me that a stop must be put to these communications between an hon. Member and the Speaker.


Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]


I was away on Saturday on business, and when I came back I found a letter from the hon. Gentleman following a former communication, which was, as I think, so discreditable to the hon. Member and so insulting to myself that I do not think it becoming to read it to the House.


Yes, do.


I shall take my stand upon the two communications, which I will now read. The hon. Member, as the House will observe, has objected to some public action which I took, and I found this letter on my return:—

"National Club, 1, Whitehall-gardens, S.W.,

July 25, 1891, before 9 a.m.

Sir,—To my utter amazement, I find that in the minutes of 24th inst., page 835, professing at page 840 to be signed by you, I am pilloried as 'frivolously' claiming a division, which, in fact, I claimed in fulfilment of my promise to one of the greatest trades in the United Kingdom.

As a matter of fact, I assume you have not signed the minutes, which are lengthy, and I believe are not yet fairly written out.

If you do sign them, I ask you (or the clerks) to tell me what is my proper course to impugn the veracity of the record.

I shall certainly do so, and I now protest in the strongest way possible against your persecution of me while a motion is pending which I tried to get on already by making it 'privilege,' and which was printed without that word in the paper.

My protest also refers to page 847.

It contains a false statement, and I will move that it be expunged from the Journals of the House, first proving, as I can do with the greatest ease, it is false.

I much regret the need for this letter, and I send a copy of it to the Press unless I hear satisfactorily before 1 o'clock to-day (addressed to me here).

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

HENRY JOHN ATKINSON, a duly-elected Member of Parliament, addressing you in that capacity only.

To the Eight Honourable A. Peel, M.P., as Speaker of the House of Commons."

I have not replied to that letter. I would not in any case reply to it. But there has been handed in to the Clerks at the Table this document, intended, of course, for me to see— Mr. Atkinson,—To ask the Clerks at the Table if they will consult together as to an impartial chairman to hear the complaints against the Speaker of the House and fix an early day for it. Now, with reference to the complaint against me which the hon. Gentleman has put down on the Paper, in which he complains that the word "privilege" is struck out, the House is very well aware that no privilege attaches to a complaint involving a question of order, and that it is put down in the ordinary way, the hon. Gentleman—every hon. Gentleman—taking his chance of it coming on. The other night I called upon the hon. Member when the time came round for the Motion to come on. I said, "Mr. Atkinson," when the hon. Member ran from behind my chair, and with a rudeness which is now in the recollection of those who were present at the time said, "What is it?" I replied, "The hon. Gentleman surely ought to know his own Resolution." I have made this statement before the House. It is intolerable that I should be subjected to treatment of this kind. I have foreborne during the whole of last week from taking any step, whether public or private, in the matter. I have asked the friends of the hon. Gentleman if they could in any way influence him for the purpose of avoiding what I felt to be a growing scandal. And now, having made that statement, I hope without any prejudice on my part, and without attempt to prejudge the question, I beg to leave it in the hands of the House.


I feel bound to claim freedom of speech again, as a duly elected Member of this House. I protest against any attempt to prevent my discharging my duty to my constituents. I say that I have been obstructed by the officials of this House for a week past and more, and if the House will give me a Committee I will prove that I have been so obstructed. I have given notice during that time of Motions which impugned the conduct of the Clerks at the Table, and I have to ask why they were not printed. I have the courage of my opinions, and when anybody tries to prevent me doing my duty he will not find, wherever he sits, on this side of the House or the other, that I will submit to it. I therefore ask the House, even now, to appoint a Committee on the subject, or to listen while I give the other side of the matter which the Speaker has put before the House. Just now, when the right hon. Gentleman was giving an account of the last Division, he did not mention the fact that Dr. Tanner [Cries of "Order!"] did stand up and was called upon. After Dr. Tanner ["Order, order!"]—I beg pardon for infringing the Rules; I mean the hon. Member for Cork—had sat down, I went to him and said, "You volunteered in this matter. You have put me in a very unpleasant position "; and I then left the House. Having done all that I could in the performance of my duty, I thought it was very hard that my conduct should have been impugned. As to the other matter, I assure the Speaker that I had no intention of speaking rudely to him. If I spoke quickly it must be remembered that it was 12 o'clock at night, and I had had a great many other matters to attend to. I beg to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, because never in my life have I intended to be rude, either to the right hon. Gentleman or to the clerks at the Table. But, at the same time, I have been spoken to by the clerks at the Table as if they were Members of Parliament, and I was a clerk. One of them the other day, when I showed him a notice of Motion, said, "Oh, oh." I said, "Do not say 'Oh, oh,' to me; I am responsible; toll me whether it is in order or not, and if it is I will go on with it." He was a clerk at the Table, and clerks are not Members of Parliament. I am proud of being a Member of Parliament, and I have never done anything to make my constituents ashamed of me. I will go before them if any one else concerned in the dispute will go before his constituents, and we will see what the result is. I shall come back here elected by a larger majority than before, and then I will no more be browbeaten than I will now. I ask the House to appoint a Committee, and I will prove everything I have said; or I ask the House to name a day to discuss my Resolution, and I will prove that every word I have written or spoken is true. I beg to move that a Select Committee sit to consider the question, or that the Journal of the House be altered immediately in accordance with what I have asked.


I doubt whether a more painful case than this has been before the House, I may say, during the whole of our Parliamentary history. If there is one office the dignity of which is valued by this House and by the country generally, it is that of the Speaker. I am only expressing the feelings which obtain universally in every part of the House when I say that you, Sir, have shown courtesy and impartiality to all sides of the House and to every Member of the House. You, Sir, have been obliged to appeal to the House against a Member of this House [Mr. ATKINSON: Oh, oh!] and you have said it is intolerable that during the whole of last week you have had to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member. I venture to think it will be the universal feeling of the House that the protection which you have asked at our hands must be accorded to you, Sir, unanimously. Without wishing to bear hardly on the hon. Member, without wishing in any way to show towards him any animosity, I still think the House will be of opinion that what you have said, Sir, must be marked, and must be marked in such a manner that it may be known that you have the support of the House. Therefore I feel it to be my duty to move— That the hon. Member for Boston be suspended for the rest of the Session, and be excluded from the precincts of the House.


I protest against that from a Liberal. He is not my leader.


I make no doubt that, after the painful scenes we have witnessed, not only today, but I may say for many days past, the House will feel that it was not even necessary that you, Sir, should make the statement which you have felt it your duty to make in order to convince the House that the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston has been a scandal to the House of Commons.


Order order! It is not true.


That being so, and feeling that it is our duty to vindicate your office, and to vindicate the character of the House of Commons, I think that all of us who have been witnesses of what has been taking place for many days past in the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston have no option but to support the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


Not true.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the hon. Member for Boston be suspended for the rest of the Session, and be excluded from the precincts of the House."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer).


May I not speak upon it?




I wish simply to say it is a very convenient way of settling the Motion which stands in my name, but the moment I come back I will move it. I am not going to be silenced by anything of the sort.


I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.


Is that in order? Oh, then, I will withdraw, but I will come back and prove my case to be what I have said it is.


then withdrew.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I feel it to be my duty to say that I do not concur in the Motion. I admit without reserve that Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances in which he found himself, had no other course open to him but that which he has taken; the House will unanimously sympathise with him in the position in which he found himself, and will feel that the conduct of the hon. Member has been in a high degree reprehensible. I think, however, that the Members of the House who have observed the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston will feel that his faults and errors are due rather to lack of self-repose and to incapacity for perfect self-control than to any disposition to be disrespectful to the Chair. The errors of the hon. Member are due to impulse and not to malice. In the scenes in which the hon. Member has borne a prominent and regrettable part he seems to have been moved by a feeling which he sincerely believed to be quite justifiable; he was intrusted, in some degree, with the care of an important interest, and that feeling, in his mind, operated perhaps to an extent which many of us cannot justly estimate. It has led him into acts and words with regard to the Chair which cannot be justified, and which the hon. Member himself in cooler moments will most deeply regret. As an Irish Member and one who has had to go through painful experiences in trying times, I wish to say that Mr. Speaker has been sometimes placed in difficult relations. But I feel bound to say that, however much we may have felt at the moment aggrieved by any action he took, we never doubted that his kindness of heart and dignity of disposition made him superior to anything like unfair or discourteous treatment of any Member. That unqualified testimony will, I hope, remove any doubt as to the feeling which animates me in the course I feel bound to take now. I think the Resolution is harsh, and that it is in excess of the necessities of the case. Any one who has observed the hon. Member for Boston will feel that he is rather to be compassionated than blamed. I think the justice of the case will be met by suspending the hon. Member for this Sitting, and that the lesson taught by that suspension would be sufficient. I therefore hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to mitigate the severity of his Motion.


I wish to say one or two words, because I also on one or two occasions have been brought in unfortunate conflict with the Chair. I concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), but for different reasons. I fear that such a dangerous precedent as this might be used in this way in the future. An hon. Member or some hon. Members might have a very important measure to bring forward touching the condition of the democracy, and it might possibly happen that the general feeling of the country was opposed to it. Then it might happen that that Member or group of Members, while observing the courtesy due to the Chair, would protest vigorously and at great length, and thereupon this precedent might be used to silence them. Without wishing to extenuate the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston, I beg to join in the protest so ably made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

As I am closely connected with the constituency of the hon. Member, and as a large number of his constituents, through the dual operation of the franchise, vote in the Parliamentary Division which I represent, I venture to say a few words, although that reason in itself is not sufficient warrant for my intervention in this painful matter. I have been brought into close personal relationship with the hon. Member. We live in the same town, and I can assure the Speaker and the House that the conduct of which complaint is made is exactly that suffered by everyone who has been brought into association with the hon. Member for Boston. If the matter were not so serious it would be ludicrous, but I hope the House will see it is simply the habitual conduct of an impulsive man, which considerably detracts from the personal offence towards the Speaker in his official capacity. If there is any possible way in which the consituents of the hon. Member, as well as the dignity of the Chair, can be protected, it will be a happy escape from this unpleasant affair

MR. MACLEAN (Oldham)

I think it only right that some Member on this side of the House should make response to the generous sentiment to which expression has been given by hon. Members opposite. Everybody who knows the hon. Member for Boston must respect him for his honesty and independence of character; and no one can help having a vary kindly feeling towards him. We know the hon. Member has not great powers of self-command, but it is certain that in his conduct towards the Speaker he never has had the slightest intention of showing any personal rudeness or discourtesy. I am quite sure the hon. Member did not intend to use the words "false charge" in his letter to suggest that a deliberate mis-statement had been made against him by the Clerks on the Minutes. His only object was to say that the statement that he had "frivolously" pressed a Division was erroneous. With the greatest possible respect for the Chair, I think it is open to question whether the hon. Member acted frivolously in calling for a Division. Speaking with some years' acquaintance of the hon. Member, in which I have known his many good qualities, I am aware that the hon. Member is frequently given to making remarks which he certainly does not intend to be taken as discourteous. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will be satisfied with passing a censure upon the hon. Member's conduct, and will not proceed to the extremity of suspending him.


I am quite willing to bear witness that the Speaker has always treated every Member with the greatest possible courtesy, even at times when relations have been somewhat strained. The conduct of the hon. Member for Boston justifies its being reported to the House, but I must strongly object to the form of the Motion, which is an enormous innovation and of grave political significance. It is quite unusual in my experience to suspend an hon. Member for a first offence for the remainder of the Session, and that course might work in a most important manner. The precedent will be entered on the Journals, and may be taken to justify a suspension at the beginning of the Session in the future. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to withdraw his Motion or to so modify it as to limit the suspension to a single sitting, or at least to one week. Personally, I think a mere Vote of Censure would meet the case.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have nothing but the kindest feeling towards the hon. Member for Boston, but we must not look at the matter as a personal question. We must look at what has occurred in the House. I go no further back than this evening. The hon. Member said the Chair had persecuted him for a week past on account of the Resolution he had put down in regard to the Chair. It is perfectly impossible that any representative Assembly respecting its Chairman can sit quiet and allow such words to pass without punishment of the peccant Member, and, if ever there was a case in which suspension should follow, this is the one. Members are suspended by the Rules of this House, and when an hon. Gentleman addresses the Speaker in such words as has been used this evening, he ought to be suspended. I will, however, suggest that it would meet the views of many hon. Members on this side of the House if some specific period of suspension were named in the Resolution. It is rather vague to say it shall last till the end of the Session. Of course, we hope the end is near, but we do not know.


With reference to the remarks which have been made, I feel very strongly some of the observations which have dropped from hon. Members opposite—that the hon. Member for Boston lacks, to a certain extent, the power of self-control, and that much of that which seems to be most offensive may be the result of sudden impulse on his part. I venture very respectfully to submit that the Motion I have made is not only a punishment—and I do not wish it should be regarded simply as a punishment of the hon. Member—but that it is a continued protection to the Speaker during the time the hon. Member may remain in the same state of mind as he is now. His particular friend (the hon. Member for Spalding) has told us that if we knew the ordinary ways of the hon. Member for Boston with his friends we should look in a more indulgent way on what has happened. But what we have to do is not to act in any spirit of resentment—though we should be bound to feel resentment at any insult offered to the Chair—we have to look to the maintenance of the dignity of the House, and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it requires that we should persist in the substance of the Motion I have made. In view, however, of the suggestions which have been made, I will substitute a fortnight for "the end of the Session" if that would in any way meet the view of hon. Members opposite; but I distinctly wish that those who give their votes should not give them thinking this is a harsh punishment, but that it is a protection to the Speaker. I would move that the hon. Member should be suspended for the remainder of the Session or for a fortnight, whichever should first terminate. [Cries of "No!"] Then I would move it be a fortnight if that would secure the unanimity which is so desirable on the present occasion. I attach the greatest importance that it should not seem as if we were a divided House of Commons in this matter, and I will substitute this Motion, hoping that that substitution will do away with any belief that we are actuated by a spirit of anger, and show that our only desire is to protect the Speaker. I trust the Motion will be accepted unanimously.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

There is another view in which the Motion should be considered, namely, that of sympathy with the hon. Member for Boston. Although differences of opinion have been expressed as to the details of the course to be pursued, there is no one who is not thoroughly earnest and loyal in supporting the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not impute malice to the hon. Member for Boston. He imputes nothing but a temporary lack of self-control, and, when we consider the great gravity of suspending a Representative of the people for any considerable time, I think the Resolution might be amended. Had the hon. Member been allowed 24 hours for consideration the result might have been that he would have come and amply apologised for his temporary offence. I should have very much preferred suspension for this Sitting only, and I certainly think suspension for a fortnight is too severe a punishment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reduce the term to one week, in view of the fact that no one imputes malice or any desire to be disorderly on the part of the hon. Member.

LORD HENRY BRUCE (Wilts, Chippenham)

I think that the House is acting very harshly towards the hon. Member, who, whatever his mistakes, has tried to do his duty as a private Member.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I approve of the course taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and think, if the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston had been judged simply from the speeches delivered from the two Front Benches, the impression conveyed would have been that the hon. Member had been actuated by malice. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I deplore the conduct of the hon. Member during the past week, but everyone must have noticed that the hon. Member has been suffering from an abnormal amount of excitement, which has absolutely destroyed all his self-control. If the Resolution had been carried simply on the speeches from the two Front Benches it would have been grossly unfair to the hon. Member and to his constituents.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me, and hope that there will be unanimity on the part of the House with regard to this Motion. I hope so for the sake of the hon. Member for Boston himself, for I am afraid that if we are not unanimous the hon. Gentleman will believe there is a minority which will support him when he comes back to the House, and that might encourage him to persist in the course which he has pursued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended the Motion to an extent which I think Members on this side of the House may fairly accept.


There is a feeling on this side of the House that it is desirable to have, if possible, a unanimous vote. Naturally, as far as the Speaker is concerned, we should feel pained if we were to give a vote which might be mis- understood. We wish to avoid that, but some of us feel that we must do so upon the present Resolution. May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the object he has in view—namely, the securing of the period of exclusion to the end of the Session—will be practically gained by suspension for a week instead of a fortnight? A Motion limiting the suspension to a week would be more in accordance with the Standing Order.

*SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

Having known the hon. Member for Boston all his life, and having been associated with him in Parliamentary and municipal matters for many years, I should like to say a word in favour of a modification of the Motion, which should be at once unanimous and considerate. I have had opportunities of forming some estimate of the influences acting on the hon. Member throughout the last few days; and when I use the word "considerate," I think it is the one which is most applicable to the case. My private knowledge of the associations of the hon. Member leads me to take the view that one week's exclusion will be sufficient to attain the object in view.

MR. H. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)

I desire to add a few words in the spirit of the observations which have been just addressed to the House. I do not think the hon. Member was actuated by a desire to outrage the House or the Chair, but his conduct is rather an expression of waywardness in circumstances with which many hon. Gentlemen sympathise, and such a punishment as a suspension for a fortnight would afford a grave precedent. I hope, therefore, that the House will, under the circumstances, accept the suggestion of the Member for West Belfast.

MR. R. T. REID&c.) (Dumfries,

I wish to ask whether the Leader of the House will say that in his judgment it is necessary that the period should be a fortnight in order to protect the Speaker from further insult? If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I will support the Motion.

MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)

If unanimity is desired the shorter the right hon. Gentleman makes the period of suspension the better. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot secure unanimity if the suspension for a fortnight is pressed.


It may perhaps relieve the House of some embarrassment if I may be allowed to interpose an expression of my own feelings in the matter in favour of the least period of suspension which is compatible with the feelings of the House. I need not say that I have no vindictive feeling towards the hon. Gentleman; the matter has passed beyond any personal feeling altogether. I respectfully suggest to the House that the hon. Gentleman is at this moment somewhat wanting in self-control, and that a short period of rest will be beneficial to himself and will save the House from any repetition of the cause of complaint. If that be the view of the House, I submit that a week may be substituted for a fortnight.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, That Mr. Atkinson be suspended from the service of the House, and be excluded from the precincts for one week,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)

—put, and agreed to. (4.50.)