Commons Sitting of 30 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Debtors and Creditors; Transfer of Property.
Reported. — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Woods and Forests Accounts; Grand Canal (Ireland); Clerks to Attorneys; Spirits (Ireland); Piccadilly Improvement; Merchant Seamen.
3o. and passed:—Protection to Purchasers, etc. (Ireland); Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Courts of Common Law Process; Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland); Militia Pay; Privy Council.
Private.—1o. Hough's Divorce; Morton's Estate.
2o. Gervis's Estate; Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate.
Reported.—Lady Le Despencer's Estate; Harris's Estate; Passingham's Estate; Wilson's Estate; Ladbroke's Estate; Bishop of London's Estate; Bowyer's Estate; Werrington, etc. Curacies; Devayne's Estate.
3o. and passed:—Chcape's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. W. B. Baring, from Calcutta, for Inquiry respecting China.—By Mr. Brotherton, from J. Hindle, and by Mr. M. Philips, from Wm. Carr, for Alteration of Law of Blasphemy.—By Mr. Wyse, from Society of Ancient Art, and Institute of Fine Arts, Dublin, for Encouragement of the Fine Arts.—By Mr. C. Russell, from D. Tupper, complaining of Power of Royal Court, Guernsey. — By Mr. Clive, from Montgomery, and Pool, against Repeal of Local Acts (Poor Law).—By Colonel Damer, from Portarlington, for Extending Small Debts Bill to Ireland.

TIDAL HARBOURS—MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN.
Colonel D. Damerappeared at the Bar with a Message from Her Most Gracious Majesty, which was brought up and read as follows:—
"I have received your Address relating to the several Tidal Harbours, Ports, and Creeks of the United Kingdom.
"My Consideration shall be given to the subject to which your Address refers."

COOPERS' TRADE.
Mr. Humein calling the attention of the House to the present distressed state of the Coopers' Trade throughout Great Britain, begged to be permitted to say a few words respecting the causes in which that depression of so useful and important a branch of artisanship had originated. Before the alteration of the Tariff, the trade was comparatively prosperous; but the changes introduced into the imports of West-India produce by that measure, had thrown the trade in casks and cooperage into the United States, where no duties were laid upon staves, and where, in consequence, the coopers worked at an advantage of 33 per cent. above those who

1561
had formerly supplied the planters with casks. The fisheries were affected in like manner, for the South Sea whalers, which formerly took their supplies of casks from coopers in this country, now had recourse to the cheapest markets, and the difference was so enormous as to render it a matter of no wonder to any person conversant with the fact, that this branch of trade was altogether declining, and that the fisheries themselves were slipping out of the hands of the English seamen. All that the British coopers sought for was, to be placed upon the same footing with respect to the price of the raw material with their foreign competitors, and to be suffered to procure oak staves, the staple of their occupation, at the same relative duties. The hon. Member moved that this House will early in the next Session of Parliament, "take the Petitions of the coopers into consideration, with a view of relieving them from their present distress."
Mr. Gladstonethought the class of persons whose case the hon. Gentleman advocated charged their distress upon causes to which it was not fairly attributable. They appeared to entertain the impression that their misfortunes were to be traced to the alterations in the Tariff effected in 1842. He (Mr. Gladstone) was prepared to contend, on the contrary, that that change in the law had materially improved their condition. He certainly inferred, at the time that change was proposed, that the parties interested in this branch of trade were perfectly satisfied with the contemplated alteration, for they made no remonstrance against it. The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to suppose that a prohibitive duty had been imposed on the importation of American staves into the West Indies previously to 1842; but, so far from that being the case, the duty imposed on the importation of American staves into those colonies before 1842 was very moderate—not more than 10 or 12 per cent. on the value of the staves. He believed that the depression which had taken place in this branch of trade was attributable, in a great degree, to the falling-off in the exports from this country to the West Indies. There had also, he might observe, been a material reduction in the exports from the United States to our West-India Colonies. This trade, he might remind the House, so far as those colonies were concerned, depended in a great measure upon the whale fishery,
1562
which within the last ten or twelve years had been much less successful than formerly. Another cause of the depression in this trade might be that, during the years 1842 and 1843, a very high price had ruled for Baltic staves, in consequence of an extremely restricted supply. But there had also been changes in branches of trade in this country which had had considerable effect upon the coopers' trade. In London that trade was dependent in a great measure upon the demand of brewers; and he understood that the brewers had lately adopted a new system of gathering in their casks from the public-houses. The consequence was, that the quantity of empty casks in the vaults of public-houses was considerably reduced, and a temporary slackness was imparted to the trade. This circumstance, he believed, had had a material effect upon the coopers' trade in London. But another circumstance which had undoubtedly affected the London trade was this:—that much of the brewing trade had been transferred from London to Burton-upon-Trent, and there had consequently been a reduced demand for casks in London. He believed, however, that the condition of the trade at the present moment was not so bad as the hon. Member for Montrose supposed, for he found that, during the first six months of the present year, there had been a considerable increase as compared with the first six months of the last year. He believed, therefore, that the distress under which the coopers were now labouring could not be ascribed to the changes of 1842; that distress had been considerably alleviated, and he had reason to hope that the trade was gradually improving.
Mr. Huttbelieved that the coopers, one of the most industrious classes in this country, were in a state of great distress; but he did not consider this a proper time to enter into a discussion of this subject, and he was, therefore, content to leave the matter for the present in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. But unless this [question was fairly taken up in the next Session of Parliament, he would co-operate with any one, either in that House or out of it, to force upon the Government the importance of placing this matter on a more satisfactory footing.
Motion negatived.

EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.
The Earl or Lincolnrose, to move for leave

1563
to introduce a Bill to empower Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods to form a terrace and embankment, with convenient landing-places for the public, on the Middlesex shore of the River Thames, between Westminster and Blackfriars bridges. It was not his intention to press this Bill during the present Session of Parliament. He merely moved for leave to bring in the Bill, in order that parties whose interests it affected, and hon. Members of that House, especially the metropolitan Members, might have ample time to consider its details, and to form an opinion as to its merits, before the commencement of an-other Session of Parliament. It was therefore, unnecessary for him to waste the time of the House by urging the necessity of such a measure, to meet the evils complained of in connexion with the navigation of that important river on which the metropolis was situated. He would only remind the House, that the year before last a Commission was appointed by Her Majesty to take into consideration any improvements that might be suggested; and the Members of that Commission were deeply impressed with the importance of effecting an improvement in the navigation of the river Thames. That Commission drew up a Report, which he (Lord Lincoln) laid on the Table some three or four months ago; but, as that Report was extremely voluminous, and accompanied by numerous plans, he thought it would not be right to call upon the House to consider this subject during the present Session of Parliament. He conceived the better course would be, to consider that Report in connexion with the present Bill. It had been suggested that the expense of the proposed improvements should be defrayed by a tax upon coals imported into the City of London; but (as we understood the noble Lord) he had not introduced any Clause into the present Bill to enable the imposition of such a tax, though he thought, if an impost of this nature could be justified, it would be with the view of effecting the improvements contemplated by this measure. He would not now, however, enter into any discussion as to the propriety or impropriety of such a tax; but he hoped, under the circumstances, the House would permit the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Huttthought it right to say that, if any tax upon coals were proposed, he, and those hon. Members whose duty it
1564
was to protect the interests of the inhabitants of the northern districts of this kingdom, would feel it their duty to give their strenuous opposition to the Bill; and he hoped they would be supported by all those who believed there was either wisdom or common sense in the principles of political economy.
Mr. Hume: If the noble Lord had 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. to spare, he would oppose his plan. The increase of the tax upon coals would be attended by most mischievous consequences. The embankment, instead of being an improvement, would be the greatest possible impediment to the navigation, but he would say no more on the subject, as the Bill was to be postponed until next Session—"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
Sir F. Trenchadvocated the erection of a new bridge on the other side of the House of Parliament, and proposed that old Westminster-bridge should be continued until the new Houses of Parliament were completed. Instead of putting a tax on coals, he would suggest, that the Government should erect a railroad on the site of the embankment. This railroad would not only pay its own expense, but the expense of the embankment, and would at the same time greatly add to the embellishment of the river.
Leave given.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. Mackinnonrose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Improvement in the Health of Towns in 1842, which states:
"That the practice of interment within the precincts of large towns, is injurious to the health of the Inhabitants thereof, and frequently offensive to public decency."
Also, to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, as follows:
"The practice of burial in the Church or Chapel, appears to us in many respects injurious, in some instances by weakening or deteriorating the fabric of the Church, and in others by its tendency to affect the lives or health of the inhabitants; we are of opinion that this practice should in future be discontinued."
The hon. Member said, it is not my desire to make any lengthened statement or to expatiate on a nuisance that is felt by every member of the community. It is a singular fact that the practice of mixing

1565
the dead with the living, has been for centuries exploded by all parts of the world where the slightest symptom of a civilized state of society was to be found, that two thousand years ago it was not tolerated any where, and yet, that in the nineteenth century such an abomination should not only be practised, but be general in all populous districts in Great Britain and Ireland; in this Island comprising a population the most civilized, the most wealthy, and the most enlightened of any portion of the globe. In this instance, the proverb that "extremes meet," is verified, we witness the greatest possible degree of luxury and refinement, and wealth in this metropolis, mixed up with the grossest barbarism, brutality, and indecency in those places, and in the manner in which the remains of the departed are deposited. Let any ordinary person, high or low, rich or pool, be asked, in the streets of this town, his sentiments as to the various burial places, and as to the manner in which the remains of the dead are desecrated? and he will answer you, that it is quite an abomination and a disgrace, both to the Legislature and to the nation, that it should so continue; let any one who is sceptical on the subject, go, at this moment, to the several grave-yards within the precincts of this metropolis, I will not name a single one—I will take any that first comes to mind: let any one, I say, go to such places, the noisome smell, the pernicious and deadly miasma that emanates from them will be quite disgusting, and, if the party values his health, his enjoyment, or his life, he will escape as soon as he possibly can from such pestilence. Sir, I have heard it asserted by medical men of the highest reputation—by men well known and justly estimated in this town, for their moral worth and their high medical information; I have, I say, heard it affirmed by them, that if the abomination, now so prevalent in London, of placing the remains of the dead in the midst of the habitations of the living, was not done away at some period or another, either at some short distance, or at any rate within a certain period, some dreadful epidemic would break out in this immense population that might be most destructive in its effects. Either this system of interment is good, or it is the reverse; if the latter, of which no reasonable person in this House, this town, or
1566
this country, entertains the least doubt, why not take steps to abolish the nuisance. Look at the Report of your Committee on the health of towns, of which I had the honour of being Chairman,—look at the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission—look at the Report of the last Commission on the subject; here you have one Committee of this House, and two Commissions, all unanimous on the question, that all interments under churches or in large towns ought to be abolished. All these parties who have made the report are totally unconnected; each have examined witnesses and elicited facts from various quarters, and all agree as to the result. Of what use can it be to put the country to the expence of a Committee of this House, and two Commissions, if you do not act on their report and their recommendation. Whence can it arise that an acknowledged evil—one of great magnitude—one that ought to be suppressed—is still allowed to exist. Every one thinks it ought to be remedied, and yet no one attempts the remedy. There can be no doubt that the difficulty of legislation on the subject is great, there are a variety of conflicting interests to be taken into consideration, but great as the difficulty may be, sure it may be overcome. Now, Sir, I will, and I trust I may be allowed to do so, address a few words to the right hon. Gentleman, at the Home Department, his labours are soon to cease, he will shortly be at ease, enjoying all the dignity, all the emolument, all the glory of the Home Office, he will be released from being in his place from noon to midnight, he will gain twelve hours in the twenty-four, he will no longer be worried by questions from the hon. Members for Finsbury, or Montrose, no more Poor Law from the hon. Members for Lincoln, Evesham, and Biidport—in one word, he will pass from a bed of thorns to one of roses. In the fulness of his enjoyment, why should he not direct his energies and his time to the present subject—why not, early next Session, produce an elegant little Bill, prohibiting the shocking and disgusting practice of interments under churches, or in large towns. Sir, I am unwilling to detain the House on this subject, but really I cannot but repeat the opinion I have before given in this place, that a law to this effect ought to emanate from the Government. Such an alteration is desirable, not only for the health of the community,

1567
but even for the sake of religion. When the church is entered—when that sacred edifice is consecrated for the purposes of worship, no sentiments ought to be entertained by the individual entering it but those of awe and devotion and thoughts of a future state; no impure, or noisome smell, no shudder of horror or disgust, or of apprehension for health arising from putrid carcases underneath, ought to mix with the goodly sentiments before mentioned. The same may be said of the sentiments that ought to arise in the human breast, in entering a field of tombs consecrated to the deceased; no disgusting sights such as are to be seen in every grave-yard in this town—no desecration of coffins, or of mortal remains. Let any one enter into the cemetery of Pére la Chaise, at Paris, or in any other receptacle of the same description, and compare his feelings with those created in his breast, by Portugal-street grave-yard, or by various others, not necessary to enumerate, surrounding various churches in this great metropolis. I need not dwell on the great difference in feelings, both of mental abstraction and of religious feeling, in one case and in the other. Let us hope that these abominations will no longer be permitted to exist, and that the good feeling and good sense of the community will sooner or later force the Legislature to check this lamentable and increasing evil, which can only be done by sound and just, and at the same time, strong Legislative enactments. I beg, therefore, to suggest that the Government will take this subject under their consideration.
Sir J. Grahamwould readily answer the question which the hon. Member had put to him. He must, however, in the first place complain, that the hon. Member had brought forward this question without giving proper notice of his Motion. He (Sir J. Graham) did not consider it expedient to discuss such a subject, without having before them something like a substantive Motion. He, therefore, should confine himself to simply replying to the question which the hon. Member had put to him. The subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. A more difficult and important question could not be brought under the notice of the Legislature. It was not his intention to bring forth any measure on the subject, unless his own judgment convinced
1568
him that it would lead to satisfactory results.

SPAIN—DON CARLOS.
Mr. Borthwickrose to move
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence which has passed between Don Carlos (or on behalf of his Royal Highness) and Her Majesty's Government, relating to certain propositions which have been made by that Prince, having for their object the tranquillization of Spain: as also, Copies of all Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Spain respectively relative to the same propositions."
He should occupy the time of the House very briefly. At an early period of the Session a noble Lord directed the attention of the House to the state of Spain with reference to the position of Don Carlos. Shortly after that discussion, he (Mr. Borthwick) had put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on the subject of certain propositions which had been submitted to the Government on the part of Don Carlos, with respect to the pacification of Spain. In reply, it was stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that certain propositions had been submitted to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; that those propositions had not been distinctly comprehended; but notwithstanding this, they had been laid before the Courts of Madrid and France. Subsequently to this a noble Lord in another place had thought proper to make the interests of a mighty people, and the captivity of Don Carlos the subject of merriment.
The Speaker: The hon. Member must make no allusion to the other House of Parliament.
Mr. Borthwickdid not allude to the other House of Parliament, but to some "other place," to which the forms of the House would not allow him more particularly to refer. He maintained that he was perfectly in order. In another place, in a speech made by Lord Clarendon,—
The Speaker: The hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. Borthwick: Well, he saw by the public journals that a noble Lord had asserted that this question was only taken up by a party in the House of Commons—by a party which had very strange notions of regenerating society at home, and

1569
whose foreign policy was confined to the promotion of the cause of Don Carlos in Spain. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say, that the propositions which had been submitted to the Government on the part of Don Carlos were non-official and informal; and, although the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government did not clearly understand the nature of those propositions, he had nevertheless submitted them to the Courts of France and Madrid, for their opinion. The right hon. Baronet had not pressed upon the Court of Madrid for a specific answer to the proposition, but had left that court to decide as to what they thought best for the interest of Spain. An objection had been taken on the ground of the informality of the propositions. Now, the meaning of this he apprehended to be that they were submitted to Her Majesty's Government by a subject of this country, and not by a Spanish ambassador; but he could not think that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was the man to take advantage of a technical difficulty, when that, difficulty arose from the circumstances. Don Carlos could not send an ambassador to this court, inasmuch as since the recognition of Isabella, the Foreign Secretary could not have received him. Don Carlos being a prisoner—unjustly a prisoner, as he thought—propositions sent for the pacification of his country by the only means which he had at his disposal, and he could not think that the right hon. Baronet would so far forget himself or the high station he occupied as to refuse to consider a message from a person so situated with any less attention than if that message came from a monarch on his throne. So much for the manner in which the proposition had been conveyed. The right hon. Baronet said on a former occasion that the propositions were not distinctly made out, but that as far as he understood them he took it that Don Carlos did not waive his personal claims, but simply insisted on the marriage of his son with Isabella. He contended that that was not the proposition of Don Carlos, but directly the reverse of that proposition; and he did ask, first on grounds of general policy, and next on grounds of individual justice, for the production of the propositions mentioned in his notice of Motion, that the House might see and the people might know what were the propositions
1570
submitted by Don Carlos to Her Majesty's Government, and what were the grounds on which those propositions had been treated so cavalierly. The right hon. Baronet now said that. Isabella was the representative of constitutional liberty, and Don Carlos the representative of despotic rule. As matters stood in Spain, constitutional liberty seemed to him (Mr. Borthwick) to mean that one-fourth of that country should always be in a state of siege. From the 1st of February to the 1st of June in this year, 127 persons, many of them of high distinction, had been mercilessly butchered, without a trial, under the name of constitutional liberty, of which the Foreign Secretary of this country said the people of Spain were so fond, that they cared not whether Isabella or Don Carlos were on the throne, but liberty they must have. Where did Don Carlos refuse constitutional liberty to Spain, either by word or act? let them show him (Mr. Borthwick; this, and he would be satisfied. It was said the people of Spain loved constitutional liberty. Was there ever a better representative of constitutional liberty than Espartero? Could a more straightforward man be found? yet the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) admitted to the House that never did public man sink from his place as Espartero had done with so little sympathy from the people. He (Mr. Borthwick) asked the right hon. Baronet, as a Minister of the British Crown, that he should not do the injustice to a captive prince of making his propositions appear to be what they were not, and that he would not shelter himself under a mere matter of form from producing on the Table those papers which would have the effect of presenting Don Carlos before Europe in the true light, when international law and the precepts of justice alike called for their production.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered the Motion rather calculated to express his hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick's) own opinions than made with any view of obtaining the papers. After the allusions which had been made to what fell from his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on a former night, and from the noble Earl in another place, in reference to this subject, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could explain nothing to his hon. Friend but what had been already slated as to the course the Government meant to take. His right hon. Friend

1571
had stated, on the former occasion, that the representation which had been received from Don Carlos was indistinct in character, but that nevertheless he had thought it right to submit it to the Spanish Government, not expressing any opinion himself, but leaving the matter to their unbiassed consideration; that he had submitted the papers to the Government of France also; and that he objected to the production of the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had deprecated taking a technical advantage, but no technical advantage was taken with respect to that part of the papers that was sent to the Spanish and French Governments. In the House of Commons, however, it was the practice in some degree to adhere to official forms, and he thought that there could not be a worse precedent than that unofficial authorized documents of this kind should be laid on the Table. He believed that the correspondence referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick) was in part the correspondence of a noble Lord, who, having spent some time in Spain as an adherent of Don Carlos, addressed some letters to the Foreign Office; but it would be impossible for the House to order the production of all such letters as every gentleman who travelled in foreign countries might think fit to address to the Foreign Office. The House were in possession already of all the facts of the case; they had been stated by his right hon. Friend on the former occasion. No information had been received since. Under these circumstances, he thought it was not necessary for him to say more, or give further reasons for disagreeing from the Motion.
The Marquess of Granby, having been in Spain, felt an interest in the question, and wished to say that, in his opinion, the proposition of a marriage between the two parties who had been named seemed to afford the best chance of settling the disputes in that country; and he should regret that any papers which might conduce to that desirable object should be refused by the Government.
Mr. Borthwickbriefly replied.
The House divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 33: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

TELLERS.

Bernal, Capt.

Borthwick, P.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Manners, Lord J.

1572

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gibson, T. M.

Archbold, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Boldero, H. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bowring, Dr.

Greene, T.

Bright, J.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Humphery, Ald.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jones, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Masterman, J.

Darby, G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Eliot, Lord

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.

Escott, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M. C.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Trotter, J.

Forman, T. S.

Wyse, T.

Forster, M.

TELLERS.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Young, J.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Pringle, A.

ART UNIONS.
Mr. Wyserose to present petitions from artists and friends to art, in London and Dublin, praying the establishment of galleries for the reception of casts, or the best works in sculpture, from the earliest period to the present, and to draw the attention of the House to the same. He was induced to espouse their cause from a strong conviction that a compliance with the prayer of the petitioners would be highly serviceable to the arts and to artists, as well as conduce to the improvement of society in general. It was proposed that exhibitions of art should be opened to the public in the different great towns by day, and confined to the use of students alone in the evening, the expense of the casts to be furnished by or through the means of the Government School of Design. He was happy to say that a most laudable desire to secure to the Irish people the benefits of these highly intellectual associations prevailed in all the well-informed circles of society there. Whatever might be their disputes upon subjects connected with religion and politics, the Government might depend upon it the germ of social improvement was comprised within this anxiety to promote the progress of the arts, and it would become the right hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government to lend these parties his powerful assistance to carry out their praiseworthy object.
Petitions to lie on the Table.
The hon. Member then moved—
"That a dutiful Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to take into Her favourable consideration the prayer of the Petitions of Members of the Institute of the Fine

1573
Arts, and the President and Secretary of the Society of Ancient Art in Dublin, praying for the establishment of Galleries for the reception of Casts of Sculpture and Architecture, Ancient and Christian."
Colonel Rawdonwarmly supported the Motion, and observed that the exhibition of works of fine art tended much to humanise and improve the minds of the people.
Dr. Bowringbore testimony to the unwearied efforts of his right hon. Friend in promoting the cause of the fine Arts, and observed that there was no man in the country to whom the artists could more properly entrust their cause.
Mr. Escottwished to know whether the decision of the Commission which had been appointed by the Crown to consider the best means of promoting the interest of the Fine Arts, in decorating the New Palace at Westminster, was a decision which must be considered final as regarded the merits of the competing artists whose works were at this time before the public in the exhibition at Westminster Hall.
Mr. Wysereplied, that, the Commission had not bound themselves respecting the works of any artist whatever. They were now as free as they had ever been, and they had not committed themselves or the Government respecting any artist.
Sir T. Freemantleobserved, that the Motion was one of great public interest, but it was one which he could not expect the House to pronounce an opinion on at that period of the Session or in the present state of the Benches. He thought that the House had some right to com plain, that when they expected nothing but the presentation of a petition, the hon. Gentleman should take them by surprise and make a Motion for an Address of which he had not given notice.
Motion withdrawn. House counted out, and adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.