§ On the gallery being opened,
§ Lord Mahon
was addressing the House, I rise, he said, for the purpose of putting it to the noble Lord opposite, whether the late division has not been the result of a misunderstanding on both sides of the House. I think it could not have been the intention of either party to come to a division at this period of the evening, before any hon. Gentleman had spoken; and not doubting but that both parties desire to act fairly, I would ask the noble Lord what course it would be better to adopt under the circumstances.
§ Lord J. Russell
the noble Lord appeals to me. All that I feel myself called on to say in reply to the noble Lord is, that I am quite ready to concur with him in his opinion that there was no intention on either side of the House to act with any unfairness on this occasion. With respect to any course to be pursued, I beg to say, I have nothing to do with it.
§ Lord Mahon
I would ask the House whether it be not competent to any Member—whether it would be inconsistent with the rules of the House—to introduce the motion again with a verbal alteration. The circumstances of the present case are very peculiar. It is evident hon. Gentlemen have been taken by surprise. The motion was a very important one; it involved the foreign policy of the Government, and particularly the conduct of the noble Lord as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Now, that noble Lord was not in his place when the division occurred; and inasmuch as it is not usual to attack any Gentleman in his absence, I think it would not be showing the proper courtesy to the noble Lord to allow this question to be finally disposed of by such a decision as the House had come to.
§ Sir G. De Lacy Evans
the noble Lord, I think, makes a considerable mistake in the description he gives of the nature of this question; I am also of opinion that the delicacy he would observe towards the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign 1387 Affairs is much misplaced. The attack was directed, not against him, but against me. On my own account I regret most particularly that the debate has thus terminated. I intended to speak on the subject, if the discussion had continued, and I had communicated my intention to some of my hon. Friends, but I was unwilling to be the first to rise this evening, because, after the powerful speech which was made last night by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, I naturally expected that one of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would attempt a reply. As it is, I have only to say, that I think the motion was ridiculous in its commencement, and it has had a very suitable termination.
§ Lord F. Egerton
conceived, that he was perfectly in order. He begged to say, that for his part he was totally unaware that the question had been put, as he believed was also the noble Lord opposite. The hon. and gallant Officer was in error, in supposing that the motion was directed against him personally. It certainly was intended to question the propriety of some of the proceedings with which he was connected, but it was intended to attack the policy of the noble Lord. He considered it from the first a party attack, if they pleased so to call it; he should say it was a Parliamentary attack on the Government of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had felt inclined to address the House on the question, and he was still disposed to do so if he had the opportunity; but his observations would have been directed to the speeches of the three Gentlemen connected with the Government, who last night addressed the House with all that ability which was known to distinguish them. [Cries of "Order," and "Question."]
§ The Speaker
said, the House having gone through the Orders of the Day, the hon. Member for Worcester had risen for the purpose of moving the first of the motions, which was, that Sir Eardley 1388 Wilmot be discharged from attendance on the Highway Act Committee, and Mr. Pakington be placed on the Committee. The hon. Member, however, was prevented from making his motion, by the noble Lord, the Member for Hertford, having risen to address the House.
§ Lord John Russell
said, if there were a motion before the House he could have no objection to proceeding with it; but, if not, he should move, that the House do now adjourn.
§ Lord Mahon
wished, with the permission of the House, and he hoped, with the concurrence of the noble Lord, to give the House an opportunity, and those hon. Gentlemen who had not yet come down to it, of deciding more fully that question on which they had divided. He put it to the House, whether it were not desirable, on a question of this importance, that there should not be a decision taken by surprise. If, then, it were not inconsistent with the rules of the House, he would move, as an amendment on the question, that the House do now adjourn, the identical motion which was previously moved by his noble Friend.
§ Lord Mahon
said: Then with the permission of the House, he would make a slight alteration in the motion. He and his hon. Friends had been taken by surprise.
An hon. Member
said, it would be most unfair to proceed with the debate: many hon. Members had gone away, thinking that it was at an end.
§ Mr. Hawes
said, when the noble Lord opposite talked of having been taken by surprise, he must reply, that if any party had been taken by surprise, it was the Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House. They were taken entirely by surprise. ["No!"] He spoke for himself and the Members who were sitting around him. They were greatly perplexed when they found that the division was about to take place; he, for one, was in doubt how he should vote, and there were many near him who did not know how to act. This was certain, that the division was forced on the House by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["No, no!"] He contended that the Members on his side of the House had 1389 no right to expect that the next speaker would not rise from the Opposition benches. The debate being terminated last night with the brilliant speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, they had a right to suppose that some one would attempt to answer it on the other side of the House, and they were perfectly astonished by the hon. Gentlemen opposite forcing them to a division by saying, when the Speaker had declared what he believed to be the sense of the House, that the "ayes" had it. He imputed no improper intentions to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, in regard to the course they took; it might have been accidental; but he was certain of this, that if there existed any fault it was on the Opposition side.
§ Mr. Goulburn
said, the Speaker having declared that "the noes have it," he felt that lie had no choice but to consent to the rejection of the measure or to assert, as he certainly had asserted, "the ayes have it." He, however, did not say, "the ayes have it," until the moment came when if he had abstained from saying so the motion must have been lost. The fact was, that the hon. Gentleman on his side who was to have renewed the debate had absented himself from his place, and some accident had prevented his returning to it in time. It was an accident, it was not; that the Gentlemen on his side of the House had pressed on a division.
§ Lord John Russell
thinking it very advisable to avoid anger on a point on which it was not at all called for, rose for the purpose of again stating that he did not believe there was the least intention on either side to take an unfair advantage. It was naturally expected by himself, and those with whom he acted, that after the brilliant speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary last night, some hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House would open the debate this evening. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, stated the reason why that course had not been pursued. The whole, then, appeared to be unintentional and no party was to blame for what had occurred.
§ The Speaker
put it to the House, whether he did not give every opportunity in his power for the resumption of the debate? So far as depended on him, he was extremely desirous to assist the House. Whatever the inconvenience of protracted debates might be to him, he was not conscious of having allowed at any time mere 1390 personal consideration to interfere with the progress of the public business.
§ Mr. Goulburn
, after the appeal made to the House by the Speaker, begged to say, that he, for one, had not the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman. Undoubtedly he put the question fairly. [Cries of "twice, twice!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "twice!" but he did not hear it the second time. The fact was, that those hon. Gentlemen who intended to speak did not come down to the House in time, having concluded that other questions would have occupied the House for a longer period.
§ Lord Eliot
had certainly intended, by his motion, to cast censure upon the Government with respect to their policy towards Spain, and if possible to elicit such an expression of the feeling of the House as might induce them to change it. It was impossible that a question of such gravity could be got rid of in such a manner; and he trusted that the debate would be allowed to go on upon the question of adjournment, or that the same motion, with some verbal amendment, might be allowed to be put.
§ Colonel Davies
said, the question had been entirely disposed of, and he remembered a case of a similar nature which occurred when the question of Parliamentary Reform was before the House. Besides, the House had decided the question upon two different occasions last Session. The question had been fairly put and fairly decided, and if the noble Lord wanted a trial of strength between the two parties, let him give a new notice of motion.
§ Mr. Milnes
observed, that the question before the House was this, that if her Majesty's Ministers, and especially the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, felt that the vote which had been come to was sufficient to justify him and them, then they on the Opposition side must bring the course pursued by her Majesty's Ministers to a more definite judgment.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell
observed, that there was another question to be considered, and it was this, that if they took a course which was likely to revive a debate after the House had already divided upon the matter sought to be debated, whether they would not be setting a precedent which might afterwards be followed, and that would be attended with inconvenience if not with danger. He knew of many Members who had left the House, thinking 1391 that with the division the debate had been concluded. He was told, too, by hon. Members near him, that many Members had gone away, upon being told on their coming down to the House that the division had taken place. Precluded, as he was, at that hour from voting, by having paired off, he should still be anxious, if the debate were continued, to have the opportunity of recording his vote. He did not think, that upon such a subject hon. Members ought to be taken by surprise.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that if there had been surprise on the present occasion, he had been as much taken by surprise as any Gentleman in the House. He believed that the general impression on both sides of the House was, that the sudden termination of the debate was accidental; and that there was no intention in any quarter to take an unfair advantage by an unexpected division. He had come down to the House in expectation of a long debate; for an hon. Gentleman then present had called upon him at two o'clock, and told him that it was his intention to commence the debate of the evening at five, and he had come down in consequence at half-past five; when, to his great astonishment, he was informed that a division had taken place, and that the House had adjourned. He thought that, as the division which had taken place had not been expected at that hour by either side of the House, the best course for all parties to adopt was, to come to some amicable understanding on the subject. The question, it was quite evident, could not remain in its present position. He thought that the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, and more especially his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would insist upon the House coming to a more definite decision upon this question than could be inferred from a chance division upon an incomplete discussion. If the noble Lord would consent to such an arrangement, the House might proceed at once to take the discussion that night; but if the noble Lord objected to it, another course must be adopted—for instance, the noble Lord might permit the debate to be continued on Friday, of Monday, or upon some other early day, that might be most convenient. For his own part, he was ready to adopt either alternative, though he would certainly prefer proceeding with the discussion at once, as in all probability it would be finished that night. If, how- 1392 ever, technical objections were to prevail, and they must begin with the question de novo after a regular notice had been given, they would have a fresh discussion, which would last for three or four nights.
§ Mr. C. Buller
felt it necessary to offer one or two observations to the House, in consequence of what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. If this question had been a question of practical importance—if it had been a question on which the future policy of this country had depended—it might have been desirable for the Government to have obtained a definite opinion upon it from the majority of the House: but he could not understand the question as one having any practical bearing or importance whatsoever. It was a mere party question, brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite with no view to any useful practical object. The only practical object which it could have in view was doubtless very honourable to the gentlemen opposite—for it was that of turning out the present Ministry and installing themselves in the places so vacated. It was nothing more than a mere empty vote of censure on her Majesty's Government. It being, then, a mere party question ["No, no,"]—it was all very well for his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) to cheer that assertion, as he was probably the hon. Member to whom the right hon. Gentleman near him (Sir R. Peel) had just paid so very extraordinary a compliment. [Mr. Milnes, No.] He was glad to have extracted this disclaimer from his hon. Friend, for even before it was uttered he was inclined to believe, that the right hon. Baronet had too much good taste to pass such a compliment upon any person of such talent and ability as his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. ["Question,"] Gentlemen might call "question," but he must say, that the right hon. Baronet had an odd way of encouraging his friends, when he informed the House that one of them had called upon him at 2 o'clock to tell him that he intended to commence the debate by a speech at 5 o'clock and that, in consequence, he had not come down till half an hour after that time. If it were not an ill-bred question, he would ask the right hon. Baronet who that hon. Member was whose speech he had so purposely avoided. ["Question"] Well, then, he would advert more particularly to the question, and would observe, that the 1393 public business ought not to be impeded by the surprise which had occurred that evening, nor ought the regular course of their proceedings to be interrupted because hon. Gentlemen had been absent from either neglect or inadvertence. Whose fault, he would ask, was it, that the question had been so summarily disposed of? Clearly that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. If hon. Gentlemen, who brought forward a question which had no other practical object than the expulsion of Ministers from office, were not present when that question came to a division, they were not entitled to call upon the House to relieve them from the effects of their own carelessness and blundering. He did not know whether he was peculiar in his notions, but this he must express to be his opinion—namely, that all these debates on the foreign policy of the country were perfectly nugatory and useless; and for his own part he had no wish to hear anything further on the subject of Spain at all. He should certainly blame the noble Lord at the head of the Government if he gave way in the slightest degree that night to the insinuations and solicitations of the noble Lord on the opposite benches.
§ Lord John Russell
observed, that certainly it was unfortunate that the hon. gentleman who had promised to open the debate of that evening with a speech had not arrived in the House at five o'clock, and that the right hon. Gentleman to whom he had communicated his intention had not arrived till half an hour after that time. With respect to the question itself, he partly agreed with, and partly disagreed from, the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard. It might be said with regard to one part of that motion, that the question was not of sufficient practical importance to justify the re-opening of the debate, as it had been stated last night very distinctly that the renewal of the order in Council was not now in the contemplation of Government. But with regard to the other part of it, which involved a vote of censure on the Government for its past policy towards Spain, he must say, that that was a question which could not be considered as a question merely affecting party, for the result of it, if carried, would be of considerable importance both for England and for Spain, and even for Europe at large. Therefore it was, that he could not assent to the assertion of his hon. Friend the 1394 Member for Liskeard, that the motion of the noble Member for East Cornwall was one of no practical bearing or importance. With regard to the resumption of the debate, he must say, that it appeared to him that the House would be establishing a dangerous precedent if it once permitted an old debate to be renewed by bringing it forward the second time in a different shape. He knew that many hon. Members who had been present at the division had left the House under the impression that the question had been decided, and it would be difficult to say who those Members were, where they were to be found, and whether they would be able to return to the House that evening. He mentioned these circumstances as well worthy their attention in considering what their proceedings ought to be with regard to the renewal of this debate. There was, however, one consideration in favour of that proposition, which he confessed was with him paramount to all others, and that was, that the noble Lord who had brought forward the motion had brought it forward a vote of censure on her Majesty's Government; and for his own part he did not like to appear to shrink from the discussion of it—no, not even for a single minute. He was quite ready to meet the question, if the House was disposed to discuss it. He entertained no more fear of the result of the debate upon it in the present Parliament than he had entertained respecting it in the last Parliament, of which the noble Lord had not been a Member. If it could be done conformably with the rules and orders of the House—if the question, having once been decided, could be put again, and could be debated again, and settled that night, he should have no objection to such an arrangement. Such a course would be most conformable to the wishes of her Majesty's Ministers, and would be most consistent with their characters. He thought, that he had a right to ask the House this, that if no injurious precedent were set, they would allow a question affecting so seriously the character and policy of the Ministers to be deliberately decided upon that evening.
had met a dozen Members at least, as he came down to the House, who had left it for the night under the impression that the question had been decided. A fresh division, under such circumstances, would be no adequate test of the judgment of the House.
1395 An hon. Member accused the Opposition of having hurried this question to a division, under the notion that there was a majority of their party in the House. If that were not so, how came it to pass, that with so many practised speakers on their side present, not one could be found to say a word in support of the motion of the noble Lord? They had often spoken against time on former occasions; how happened it that there was not one of them able to speak against time now? He was convinced that, if they had not fancied that they had a majority present, they would never have gone to a division on this question at such an early hour.
§ Lord Mahon
would persist in his amendment. He went along with the noble Lord in thinking that this was a question of great practical importance to Spain, to England, and to Europe, and he would state to the House the course which he in consequence intended to pursue. He would move an amendment identical in substance with the motion of the noble Lord, but different in its mode of expression. He then moved, that "An humble Address be presented to her Majesty, expressing to her Majesty the opinion of this House that the employment of her Majesty's subjects in the service of her Catholic Majesty, in consequence of the suspension by order in council of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, has not been of advantage either to the interests of this country or to those of Spain," and so on to the end of Lord Eliot's motion.
§ Lord J. Russell
wished to mention a circumstance which was peculiar to the present case, and on which there ought to be a distinct understanding before the question was put. He understood, that many Gentlemen had paired on the motion on which the House had just divided. Now, it ought to be understood, before they went to a vote, whether those pairs were to hold good for the new motion, or were to be considered as entirely off.
§ The question was formally put.
§ Mr. Barron
asked, whether it were in order that such a motion as the noble Member for Hertford had just proposed, should be then put? He asked, whether it could be put consistently with the rules which had been laid down at the commencement of the Session for the due consideration of notices of motions and orders of the day?
§ The Speaker
This is neither a motion nor a notice of motion. It is an amendment, and therefore can be regularly put.
§ Mr. Hawes
supposed, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House wanted a fair decision on the motion of the noble Lord. He supposed, that they did not wish to take the House by surprise or to obtain any undue advantage over their political opponents. He was ready to concede this much to the hon. Gentlemen opposite; but if they insisted in forcing on a fresh discussion upon that motion, after hearing the declaration of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that he himself had met at least a dozen Members who had left the House under the impression that it was decided, he should be inclined to retract the opinion which he had just expressed, and to unite their desire to force on a new discussion with that extraordinary surprise with which the House had been recently visited. He appealed to the Speaker, whether it were desirable that such a precedent as that now attempted, should be established for the future? If it were once set, there was not a single question on which a minority, after the main question was settled, might not again raise a discussion upon, by means of an amendment, identical in substance, but only different in expression. He felt as confident as the noble Lord below him (Lord J. Russell), that this motion, if re-opened, would lead to the same result as before. But even should his confidence be erroneous, he was sure that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him, that if the affirming of their resolution was to be of any worth to them, it must derive its value from the debate being conducted fairly, and from the decision being taken without surprise. He asked the Speaker, whether, in point of precedent, it would not be dangerous, after a question had been once decided, to re-open the main debate on the question of adjournment. If such a rule were established, it might afford a minority an opportunity of opening a new system of Parliamentary warfare, of which the hon. Gentlemen opposite might be the first to feel the effects.
§ Sir R. Peel
was not to be deterred by the threats of the hon. Member for Lambeth from seeking to renew the discussion, which had come to such an unexpected termination. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard, 1397 who was the professed wag of the House, he had only to reply that he had been in his place in the House that afternoon before either the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or any other of her Majesty's Ministers. His Friend had told him that he should open the debate that evening at five o'clock, and he had come down to the House to reap the benefit of his observations. He did not expect that his hon. Friend would commence at five o'clock to the minute, nor did he anticipate, that private business would be terminated so precisely to the hour as it appeared to have terminated that afternoon. He had, nevertheless, reached the House at half past five o'clock, and, to his great surprise, found that the question had been decided. He was only anxious to do that which was right, and, therefore, if only two three Gentlemen could be named who had left the House for the night, in consequence of the proceedings which had taken place, and of the mistake which had occurred on "our" side of it, he should say, regretting deeply the occurrence, that it was a decided objection to proceeding at present with the amendment of the noble Lord. But could not this debate be adjourned to Friday next? Could it not be taken to-morrow, and could not the slavery question be fixed for Monday? He did not think that the discussion on this amendment would last more than one night, if it were taken while the recent debate was fresh in all their memories. As it had been interrupted, it would lead to a great saving of time if it were resumed upon an early day. If the slavery question came on tomorrow, it would in all probability not take up more than one night's debate. The House was placed in a new and rather peculiar situation by the occurrence of that evening, and he thought that the most equitable course would be to resume the debate on Friday next. If the debate on slavery were not finished to-morrow it might be postponed till Monday next.
§ Mr. French
objected to the course just proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He could not assent to this debate being adjourned to an Order Day. He had been waiting for three weeks for the second reading of a bill, which he had at length got fixed for the first Order Day. He had no objection to the discussion on this motion being renewed, but then it must not be in the way now proposed.
§ Mr. Bernal
admitted, that nothing could 1398 be fairer than the proposition which the right hon. Baronet had just made to the House, but still he could not agree to it, as he was afraid that their assent to it would open a door to every species of irregularity. He therefore called upon the hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider this question as settled. [Laughter.] What did the hon. Member mean by his laughter? Had he said anything that was absurd, or proposed anything that was unjust? He was old enough to remember that on one occasion, when the question of reform was brought forward in that House by the Earl of Durham, then plain Mr. Lambton, the debate was adjourned, and that on the next evening at an early hour, a division was unexpectedly taken upon it, from which his Lordship and several other distinguished Gentlemen who took a great interest in the success of the motion, were unfortunately absent. Great disappointment was evinced by the absentees from the division, but no attempt was made by them to bring it forward again on the same evening. If the House yielded to the application now made to it he foresaw that, whenever any question went off rather by mishap, or by accident, or by the carelessness of those who brought it forward, there would be a constant succession of efforts made to renew the discussion upon it, and the time of the House would thus be wasted in debates which could lead to no useful, practical result. He was surprised at, and he was certainly not convinced by, the arguments which his noble Friend at the head of the Government in that House, had employed to persuade the House to permit this discussion to be renewed. Occupying the position which the noble Lord occupied, he would have evinced an unmanly spirit if he had not said what he had done, and if he had exhibited the slightest appearance of shrinking from the censure attempted to be passed upon himself and his colleagues in the Administration. But the rules of the House generally tended to good and beneficial results; and if they departed from them for reasons such as had been urged that evening, they would be laying a trap to catch all kinds of contingencies. He felt, that his advice, though it might be sneered at, was not absurd, and he knew that it would stand the test of experience. Influenced by these views, he should oppose any attempt to renew this discussion.
An hon. Member
said, that as he had been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Rochester, he felt it necessary to say a few words in his own vindication. He hoped that all who knew him, would admit, that he was one of the last men in the world to connive at anything that had the appearance of a party or a paltry trick. He assured the hon. Member for Rochester, that he meant him no discourtesy by the laughter on which he had remarked. He had laughed because the hon. Member had gravely called upon the Members of the Conservative party to consider the question of Spain as fairly settled by the decision of that afternoon. If they were not permitted to renew the discussion on that question, it would not be considered, either by the House or the country, as fairly settled. It was an important question—it had that evening been decided by surprise, and after the course taken by the noble Lord opposite (Russell) he thought that it would be most unfair to the Government if the discussion upon it was not immediately renewed.
§ Lord John Russell
only rose for the purpose of declaring, that it was his wish, if the debate were to be resumed at all, that it should be proceeded with forthwith. The right hon. Baronet had proposed that this question should come on again on Friday or Monday next. But he did not think that that would be convenient to the House. There were also reasons of public importance why the slavery question should be taken to-morrow, and decided, if possible, before Monday. He therefore could not agree to the adjournment of this question either to Friday or Monday. They must, therefore, either go on with the discussion now, or give a regular notice of motion on the subject. For himself, he would say, that his wish was, that the debate be proceeded with forthwith, no matter what inconvenience or injury Ministers might suffer from many Members having left the House without any intention to return.
§ Sir R. Inglis
hoped, that his noble Friend, the Member for Hertford, would consent to withdraw his amendment. It was true that the House had been taken by surprise, and that its decision would not be so satisfactory as if it had been taken after the discussion had come to a regular termination. He felt, however, so strongly the arguments of his hon. Friend, the Member for Rochester, and also the 1400 argument which the hon. Member for Waterford had rested on the forms of the House, that he was extremely desirous that his noble Friend should not place the House in the difficulty in which it would be placed if he pressed his motion to a division. The motion of Lord Eliot, though not settled satisfactorily, had, he must admit, been settled practically by the division of that day. It was open to any Member who was dissatisfied with that decision, to bring forward the motion again on a regular notice.
said, that if the debate on Lord Eliot's motion were renewed, having voted on the question, he did not intend to give a second vote on it that evening.
remarked, that he had met not less than from thirty to forty Members going from the House, and under such circumstances, it would not be fair to proceed with the debate.
§ Sir R. Peel
remarked, that though the noble Lord was burning with anxiety to have a discussion, yet he did not agree to the proposition which had been made: and although the noble Lord agreed that the question could not remain as it was, yet he considered, for the advantage of the public service, it could not be proceeded with on Friday or on Monday, and then, on the other hand, the supporters of the Government generally were prepared to cast on his side of the House the imputation of bad faith if it were proceeded with that night. On the whole, then, he believed, where there was the chance of incurring the evil of such an imputation, and, above all, considering that in the contention of parties, good faith ought, above all things, to be preserved, then, he said, if hon. Gentlemen considered that it would be inconsistent with good faith to go on that night, and as they had it from the noble Lord that they must proceed with the slavery question to-morrow, his opinion was, that the debate ought not to be proceeded with that night, and he saw no alternative before them but a long interval occurring before the question could be decided. It appeared to him, then, that upon the whole the wisest course to be pursued was, to withdraw the amendment, and that a regular notice should be given for a future day.
§ Amendment withdrawn.