§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
My Lords, I regret to have to trouble your Lordships with a word of personal explanation, but a statement has appeared in the Press, in connection with the murder of Sir Henry Wilson (whose loss the whole nation is regretting to-day), which bears so serious an aspersion on those with whom I have acted in Ireland, that I cannot allow it to pass. The paragraph which I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice was in the Morning Post of Saturday, under the heading: "South Ireland and the Murder: Secret Satisfaction." It is as follows:—As far as horror of this murder as a murder is concerned, as far as the realisation of the added shame that it heaps upon the already infamous Irish race is concerned, the vast bulk of Southern Irishmen, from the Midletonian anti-Partitionists to the Rory O'Connor Republicans, are going about their business to-day as if the Empire's greatest soldier had been a blind beggar run over by a cab. The foul deed has not punctured their monumental satisfaction with themselves, for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist.Your Lordships will see that the suggestion which is made in connection with one of the greatest crimes ever committed is perfectly clear—namely, that, amongst others, those who are associated with me regard killing as no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a loyalist. I do not think that it is necessary for one who has taken part in the discussions of your Lordships' House, and whom you have so frequently been good enough to hear on Ireland, to repudiate the suggestion. My friends and I have worked to the best 1150 of our ability for peace in Ireland, and we will continue to do so, but we have never faltered, either in this House or out of it, in protesting against crime, and in making it perfectly clear that in our opinion no peace can be set up on the foundation of murder and outrage.
Calumnious as I consider this statement, I would not have troubled your Lordships even as briefly as I do, if it were not that I have used the best efforts I could with those responsible for this paragraph to induce them to withdraw it, or to apologise for the imputation. My noble friend, Lord Desart, and I called on Lady Bathurst, who is, I believe, solely responsible as proprietor of this journal, and also on the editor of the Morning Post, and used our best endeavours to induce them to withdraw this calumny, which they were unable to justify. I regret to say that we were not successful, and I am afraid I must add that in the interview expressions were used by Lady Bathurst which appeared to us as an attempt to justify an innuendo which we repudiated as a malicious libel.
I sent notice to the noble Earl that I should bring this question forward to-day. I deeply regret that it should be necessary to do so in order to relieve my friends and myself from an imputation which we deeply resent, which is foreign to the whole tenour of our public conduct, and which we regard as quite unworthy of a responsible journal.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, I ask your permission to add only one or two words to what the noble Earl has said. I think I am bound to do so, for a special reason. This message was sent from Dublin on Friday; it is dated Friday, and I was in Dublin on that day. I was there for reasons totally unconnected with politics; but it naturally happened that I saw a very large number of people, many of them not of the same opinions. I have no hesitation in saying that this horrible murder was the one subject, if I may use a familiar phrase, in the mouth of the man in the street. It was the one subject of discussion and it met with universal condemnation. After all, the opinion of the man in the street is the only opinion that a correspondent of a newspaper can repeat, and it is fair, in connection with this message from Dublin, to quote another message from Dublin which came only a few hours before and 1151 was published in The Times. With all respect to the anonymity of newspaper correspondents we all know the corresspondent of The Times in Dublin, and we respect him. I will read only one sentence from his message. He says:The news of the murder of Sir Henry Wilson has been received in Dublin with feelings of dismay, horror, and, indeed, almost of despair.I think we may set that message against the message quoted as having been sent by the correspondent of the Morning Post, and believe that the latter's description of things is as untrue of Dublin as it would have been if it had been said about things in London.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD)
My Lords, I ask leave to say a few words on the astonishing paragraph to which the noble Earl has called attention. Even in these days of unlicensed journalism it must be counted an extreme case. My attention was only called to the article to-day. The noble Earl read it a little hurriedly, and it deserves, I think, more careful consideration than the hurried reading conveyed. It says:But let the British people understand this, and understand it thoroughly. As far as horror of this murder as a murder is concerned, as far as the realisation of the added shame that it heaps upon the already infamous Irish race is concerned, the vast bulk of Southern Irishmen, from the Midletonian anti-Partitionists to the Rory O'Connor Republicans, are going about their business to-day as if the Empire's greatest soldier had been a blind beggar run over by a cab.I pause there to call attention to the insulting and vile association of the name of the noble Earl with that of Rory O'Connor, whose insulting message in relation to the tragic death of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson is still ringing in the ears of all of us.
The article continues:The foul deed has not punctured their monumental satisfaction with themselves, for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist.There, Rory O'Connor and de Valera and their Four Courts friends are linked together with Lord Midleton and his friends on the other side—for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist.During the fifteen years I have been a member of one House or the other I have 1152 witnessed a constant growth of licence in the Press, but I say plainly that never in the whole course of those fifteen years have I been brought face to face with an outrage so gross as is contained in the passage to which I have called attention.
The noble Earl is well known in this House; he is well known to his countrymen. He has filled high offices of State for twenty years, and whether one has agreed or disagreed with his policy, it has at least been known that there has not been a moment in the whole course of his career in which his every effort has not been devoted to the service of this country and Empire. He may have been right, or he may have been wrong. His friends may have been right, or they may have been wrong, in any advocacy at any particular moment of any particular step in Irish politics. Irish politics have been bitterly debatable for the last twenty years. We stand to-day at a moment when the greatest soldier in the Empire has fallen before a murderous assault, and there is not one in this House and very few in this country whose heads are not bowed in mourning when an Irishman who was next in distinction and succession to Roberts and Kitchener has fallen before the bullet of the assassin. At each moment when Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was struggling for this Empire the noble Earl did his best to second the efforts of the Field-Marshal; and he and his friends are to be accused by the Morning Post of sympathising with Rory O'Connor and being utterly indifferent to the fate which has befallen Sir Henry Wilson. I see a noble Lord shake his head. Let me draw his attention to the words used, so that there can be no dispute—from the Midletonian anti-Partitionists to the Rory O'Connor Republicans, are going about their business to-day as if the Empire's greatest soldier had been a blind beggar run over by a cab.They are both put in the same class. There is no dispute about that. Let me give him the next sentence again:—The foul deed has not punctured their monumental satisfaction with themselves, for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist.I do not recall, in my experience of public life, a case in which so foul a charge has been made against a member of this House and a statesman who is widely respected in this country.
1153 I recommend the noble Earl, if he thinks it worth while, to take advice as to whether he has not a remedy which would punish libels of this class in the only form in which I understand punishment is understood. I venture to hope that the noble Earl will at least take advice as to the prospects of action in that sense, and that, if he does not think it worth while to do so, he will, at least, demand the satisfaction not always accorded to us in the ease of these newspaper attacks. The noble Earl who, I understand, accepts responsibility in this matter, is in his place in this House, and I hope the noble Earl will demand either a justification—which, I should think is, unlikely; I greatly hope he will not attempt to justify it—but if he does not attempt to justify that which has appeared in this paper, let me tell him, so far as I am concerned, that the only attitude of one who accepts any degree of responsibility at all is an attitude of sackcloth and ashes for a vile insult to a respected member of this House.
§ EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I am afraid I am a very weak speaker, and not worthy to defend an accusation which has been so deliberately made against the Morning Post. I feel, however, that I am bound to defend it to the utmost of my ability, even against such a stout champion as the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack. I am not surprised that he takes a very serious view of anything that appears in the Morning Post, which has not, as a rule, been very complimentary to the noble and learned Viscount. I am not surprised, therefore, that he makes this very bitter attack against that journal. I think I may begin by saying that your Lordships will admit that the Morning Post has only one object before it and that is to serve this country, to serve His Majesty loyally, and to serve His Majesty's subjects. That will not be denied by anybody. Whether the method is approved of by various sections of thought, is another matter, but we honestly try to follow that policy which we believe is really the best for this country.
With regard to the noble Earl's speech, I regret that I received his telegram only at half-past two this afternoon. I had an engagement, and was not here at the beginning of his speech, but I came in about four minutes afterwards. I had no idea that this would come on as the first subject for debate this afternoon.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
May I tell the noble Earl that I distinctly informed Lady Bathurst at 12 o'clock on Saturday—
§ EARL BATHURST
The telegram said 4.15 p.m., and, as the House began at 4.15 p.m., I naturally thought that the matter would not come on at the very beginning. I arrived at about eighteen minutes past four, when the noble Earl had begun his speech. I am really very sorry that the noble Earl should have taken the line which he has taken on this subject. I shall try to show your Lordships, later, that the line he took was not quite the line that he ought to have taken, and that his behaviour was not quite the behaviour to which your Lordships are accustomed among those who sit in your Lordships' House.
If he will allow me to tell the story, at about eleven o'clock he telephoned to Lady Bathurst to ask whether he could come and see her. She had no idea what it was about, but she asked him to come. At a quarter past eleven he arrived. He did not ask for me, although I was in the house all the time. The two noble Earls, Lord Midleton and Lord Desart, went up to the drawing-room and sat down with her ladyship. The noble Earl was trembling with excitement. He began, as I am told, by shaking his hand in the air, and saying to Lady Bathurst: "I have often been abused by the Morning Post, but I cannot stand this." He demanded an instant apology. Lady Bathurst's view, was that, as she did not. know anything about it, she must defend her staff. She said: "I cannot apologise until I have made inquiries; I will make inquiries, and, if there is any reason to suppose that this correspondent has made tins assertion without due grounds, then I will apologise, but if I find that those grounds are perfectly justified, then I cannot apologise. That is perfectly clear." The noble Earl then went on threatening her, and saying that he would bring this matter up on Monday in your Lordships' House; that he would attack the Morning Post; that he would say all sorts of things about her, and against me. I can hardly believe it—it is almost 1155 a joke—but he told her that, if it had been in former days, he would have shot me.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I said that, if the circumstances were those of a century ago, I should have called the noble Earl out and shot him.
§ EARL BATHURST
It does not matter very much. I mention this only to show what a state of excitement, almost hysterical excitement, the noble Earl was in. Is that the way the noble Earl ought to come into a lady's drawing-room and threaten her? I do not think your Lordships will so regard it. I must not bother your Lordships with the other part of the conversation, although I made some notes of it from what Lady Bathurst told me immediately after the interview, but I will only add that, when Lord Midleton went away, he had evidently had as much as he wanted. As he went down the stairs, he kept on saying: "I am sorry I came." I think he had the worst of it. Lady Bathurst told him he ought not to have come to her; she was not responsible. Does the noble Earl think that Lady Bathurst sits at the editor's desk with a blue pencil scratching out the reports as they come in? That seems ridiculous. The noble Earl had no business at all to come and attack her in that way, as if she were responsible for a telegram which was put in her paper. He ought to have gone to the editor of the Morning Post, who was responsible. If he did not want to go to the editor, why did he not come to me, if be was in such a state that he threatened to shoot me? I do not think that your Lordships will find any excuse for such behaviour.
Then he went to see the editor of the Morning Post. I have seen the editor since, and he told me that the noble Earl was in a most excited, hysterical state, and the editor said that he (Lord Midleton) had had such things said to him that, if I had said them, he would have knocked me down. Is that the state of mind in which to go and make an accusation? I am not in the least afraid of the noble Earl shooting me, unless he takes a pot shot at me from behind the 1156 Woolsack, nor am I afraid that he will knock me down, but it only shows what a state he was in, and I can only attribute that to the effect of his conscience pricking him. It was evidently in such a tender state that he could not bear the slightest mention of his name in such a connection.
The noble Viscount on the Woolsack has challenged me about the words of the report—As far as the realisation of the added shame that it heaps upon the infamous Irish race is concerned, the vast bulk of Southern Irishmen, from the Midletonian anti-Partitionists to the Rory O'Connor Republicans, are going about their business …That does not accuse either the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, or Lord Desart, or Lord Donoughmore, of rejoicing in or not condemning the perpetration of this terrible tragedy.
§ EARL BATHURST
It does not refer to either of the noble Earls. They may have been as sorry about it as any other noble Lord in this House.
§ EARL BATHURST
Are. I think that is rather a quibbling with words. I contend that it does not accuse them of condoning, whatever some of the noble Earl's followers in Ireland may be thinking. There is no doubt that Mr. Gwynne said exactly the same thing as Lady Bathurst; he promised to make complete inquiry; and find out exactly what the state of mind of those local Irish was. He telegraphed at once, because Lord Midleton said: "I must know at once."
§ EARL BATHURST
The majority of those included. Unfortunately, there was a storm, and the wires were broken, and he could not hear in time last night. I have had this telegram handed to me this morning. I did not get it myself until I had received Lord Midleton's telegram. The telegram, which I will read, is as follows:Justification my statement quoted your telegram would involve giving names representatives Southern Unionists Midletonians whose 1157 demeanour and comments called it forth. This obviously impossible, but see to-night's message. De Valera and other public statements and local papers comments sufficiently justify my criticism, otherwise it is not an exaggeration. Letter follows.I think, in those circumstances, it will be clear to your Lordships that we have tried to clear up this business. Both Lady Bathurst and the editor have offered, clearly, that they would put an apology in the paper if it could be proved that this statement was not true, whereas, on the other hand, if full grounds were found for having made this statement no apology would be forthcoming. The noble Earl was in such a hurry that he would not wait until we had got this telegram. If he had had a little patience nobody would have noticed that thing very much. If he had waited until perhaps to-morrow, or the next day, the whole thing might have been cleared up; he would have avoided coming and making this extraordinarily bitter attack, and would have avoided the attack made by the Lord Chancellor, upon a paper which is at heart perfectly sound and only wishes to do the right thing.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If the noble Earl will look at the second paragraph he will see that it says—"the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist." Does "the whole race" include the Midletonians mentioned in the earlier paragraph, or does it not?
§ EARL BATHURST
As I understand the Midletonians are Irishmen, I suppose they are included among "the whole race" of Irish. This, however, does not really mean that every man approves of murder, but only that a great many of them do.
§ EARL BATHURST
No, not a great many Midletonians, but a great many of the Irish, including some of the Midletonians.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
May I correct one statement. I am sorry to intrude upon your Lordships again. Of course, I accept the noble Earl's suggestion that it might have been better if we had 1158 gone, in the first instance, to the editor, but I will tell your Lordships why I did not do so. Three or four months ago there appeared a whole column in the Morning Post of an interview between me and the Provisional Government, on a number of subjects on which I have never seen them, referring to an interview which never took place, and to a time when I had not been in touch with them for several months. I wrote to the editor asking him to withdraw it. He put it my letter, but he neither withdrew nor apologised. I therefore thought it useless to go to him again.
Lord Bathurst has truly told your Lordships that I was seized with great indignation, and I will tell you why it was. After I had read this statement to Lady Bathurst, which was the first thing I did—namely—"The foul deed has not punctured their Monumental satisfaction with themselves, for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder," and so on—Lady Bathurst commented: "Is not that true?" My noble friend who was with me then spoke more heatedly than I ever heard him speak, to the effect that at his age, and with his experience, to have such an insinuation made against him was a thing that he could never have believed; and when I had found it impossible to persuade Lady Bathurst of what the had said, I did say, in order to bring it home to her, that if I had been dealing with Lord Bathurst, and he had made the statement, and if it had been a hundred years ago, I should have thought it my duty to call him out and endeavour to shoot, him for saying that I was a party to, or in sympathy with, such an outrage as the killing of Sir Henry Wilson.
THE EARL OF DESART
My only reason for intervening is that the noble Earl in his observations has made certain statements with regard to what took place, especially on Saturday, of which I was a witness, and I was the only member of your Lordships' body who was present. It is said that when Lord Midleton arrived at the house in Belgrave Square he was in an almost hysterical state of excitement. I had read the paragraph, and naturally felt very strongly. I had only seen him for a few moments, and we drove there together. What happened—I do not think even Lord Bathurst will doubt anything I say—was that he had asked to see Lady Bathurst, both for the reason he has given 1159 and that he knew her well, and thought that the whole thing might be made clear in a friendly way. As for Lord Bathurst's complaint that we did not ask for him when we got to the house, it is quite true that we were not shown straight in to see Lady Bathurst. We were shown into a room. Both our names were given to the servant. I think there must have been some idea in Lady Bathurst's mind that our visit had to do with something connected with the Morning Post.
THE EARL OF DESART
I accept that at once. At any rate, Lord Bathurst was in the house and the servant could have communicated with him and could have told him, but we did not anticipate what took place. Just think of it, my Lords. This paragraph was read to her, beginning "The foul deed"—that is, the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson, a personal friend of many of us, a personal friend of mine, and a man honoured and respected by Englishmen and good Irishmen, and beloved perhaps more than any man in his position in this Kingdom—The foul deed has not punctured their monumental satisfaction with themselves, for the whole race is steeped to-day in the infamous doctrine that killing is no murder when the victim is an Orangeman or a Loyalist.I do not know whether Sir Henry Wilson was an Orangeman; of course, I know he was a loyalist. The infamous doctrine that we were alleged to hold is that the killing of Sir Henry Wilson was no murder. What was Lady Bathurst's reply? "Don't you think so?" I do not doubt that the conversation was heated. I do not think it was heated, as far as I can judge, beyond what was justified. And I do not see that the observation, to which Lord Bathurst took such objection, about what would have happened if it had been a hundred years ago, was an unnatural one.
At any rate, the feeling left in Lady Bathurst's mind was not that we had done anything to her, but that she had given us as much as we wanted, and that we were sorry we had come. I think it will be obvious that Lord Midleton and I were sorry we had come—an interview of that sort was no pleasure. And if any charge of discourtesy is made against us, beyond the proper and justifiable course of asserting the position in which we found ourselves, 1160 I speak in the presence of many old friends, I and I ask them whether they think it likely that either Lord Midleton or myself would be discourteous to any woman in any circumstances?
You have heard the insult; you have I heard Lord Bathurst's reply and explanation of it. I was thinking of dealing with it seriatim, but is it worth while? I noted down some few things, but I do not think I need refer to them because of one thing he said at the end, which seemed to me to sum it up—that they would put in an apology if their statements were not true. They have not put in an apology. They have waited to see whether the statement that Lord Midleton and his friends were indifferent to assassination was or was not true. I do not think I need say any more.
If I have shown more heat then or now than I should have done, it was because I felt this accusation very deeply. However, I am not going into any political question. We may have been wrong, we may have been right; I can only say that we have been actuated by the desire to keep Ireland loyal, to keep the connection with this country, and, if it might be, to prevent bloodshed. Our methods may have been wrong; we may have been mistaken, but we feel most bitterly the suggestion that we were indifferent to the killing of an Orangeman. There have been differences in the past between us and our old friends in Ulster, and in the clash of opinion things may have been justifiably said from their point of view. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, and I had many friendly relations together for years. I think he esteemed me, and I have esteemed him. I never felt towards him, and I do not think he has ever felt towards me, any personal bitterness whatever. I am sure he has attributed to me, as I have attributed to him, the single desire to do what is right. But to suggest that we have such a feeling towards Orangemen is a calumny. Lord Carson, I know, sympathises with our troubles—and they are troubles indeed—as we sympathise with their troubles. I have said more than I meant to say when I got up, but this is an allegation that deeply moves us, and if I have been moved too deeply I apologise.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had it not been that I am intimately acquainted both with the 1161 proprietors and the editor of the Morning Post, and I have the greatest admiration for them and the paper they control, and I know something about this matter. I think it is absolutely absurd to suggest that there is any aspersion whatever on the character of the noble Earl, Lord Alidleton, Lord Desart or anybody else. All that the paragraph complained of said was that the political followers of Lord Midleton in Ireland adopted a certain attitude towards the murder of a famous Englishman.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
A famous Irishman. How can that be an aspersion? Lord Donoughmore has said that what this correspondent wrote is inaccurate and untrue. I believe it probably is. I believe it is a gross exaggeration to say that all these Irishmen regard the murder in that way. But what has that got to do with it? We are here to discuss whether this is an aspersion on the character of Lord Midleton. For the life of me I cannot see that it is.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says he has noticed a constantly increasing licence in the Press, and that this is the worst newspaper outrage that he has known. I can tell him a very much worse outrage, and that is the systematic corruption of the Government. Press by the sale of honours, which has resulted in the truth about Ireland being scrupulously concealed from the British public during the last two years. The noble and learned Viscount adopted an attitude towards Lord Bathurst which resembleed that of a counsel trying to browbeat a witness. He said that Lord Bathurst ought to be sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In view of what is happening to-day, the only people who ought to be sitting in sackcloth and ashes in this country are the members of His Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE
My Lords, I cannot help saying that in an experience of this House which is now very long I cannot remember a more painful occasion than that of this afternoon. The noble Duke who has just sat down says that he is unable to see that the paragraph complained of conveys any imputation against the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and his friends. I am altogether unable to share that view. 1162 To a plain reader those paragraphs not merely convey the imputation, but go as near as possible to making the actual statement, that Lord Midleton and his friends—because when you speak of a Midletonian you must, I take it, be supposed to include Lord Midleton himself regard this horrible outrage with indifference. Then, in the second paragraph, a general imputation is made against a great number of Irishmen, that they regard the murder of an Orangeman or a loyalist as being no crime. I really think that the noble Duke must be almost alone in this House—except, of course, for the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst—in thinking that these words do not convey the most grievous offence to the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, also to the noble Earl, Lord Desart, and to many other noble Lords representing Ireland in this House.
And I confess that I am altogether at a loss to understand the attitude the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has taken in this matter. He, no doubt, did his best with the materials that were supplied to him; but I cannot help feeling, and I cannot help saying, that if the noble Earl had simply come down to the House and had said that one of the correspondents of the Morning Post, for whose actual words he and Lady Bathurst could not be held to be responsible because they had not seen them before they were published, had committed a most grievous offence in thus calumniating men of the highest honour—if the noble Earl had come down to the House and simply made that statement in terms of apology, he would have earned the respect of your Lordships' House in a very much greater degree than, I am afraid, he has this afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE
One understands the loyalty which the proprietor of a great newspaper feels for the members of the staff. That is a sentiment which we should all respect if we were in that situation. But a sentiment of that kind can be carried too far, and it cannot be taken to absolve those upon whom the ultimate responsibility must be held to rest from making an apology where an apology is necessary. The noble Earl did not help his case by what I think he termed the inquiry which was being made into the truth of the allegations contained in this telegram. As the noble Earl, Lord Desart, 1163 pointed out, to say that you are making inquiries as to whether a charge of sympathising with murder is true or not can only redouble the original offence contained in the accusation, and I must say that I am very sorry indeed that the noble Earl did not think it right to take a different line this evening.
In a sense, I feel that I have no right to engage in this controversy. We Home Rulers of long standing have not, I am glad to say, been tarred with the same brush as the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and his friends. Nobody has accused us, so far as I am aware, of feeling anything but the utmost horror and indignation at this monstrous crime, the murder of one of the most distinguished soldiers, an Irishman and a man of the greatest personal geniality and attraction. But in spite of all that, I have felt it right from this Bench to state my views plainly regarding the attitude taken up by the noble Earl this afternoon.
§ LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (THE EARL of DONOUGHMORE)
My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name on the Paper in regard to these Bills.
§ Moved, That the Order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 15th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.