Lords Sitting of 8 August 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Stamp Duties * (295); Stamp Duties Management* (296); Inland Revenue Acts Repeal * (297); Greenwich Hospital * (244); Pensions Commutation Act (1869) Amendment* (274); Oaths of Allegiance on Naturalization* (299); Expiring Laws* (306); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)* (309); Joint Stock Companies' Arrangement* (302); Truck Commission* (304) Sanitary Act (Dublin) Amendment* (303).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation)* (305).
Committee — Report—Third Reading—Foreign Enlistment (298).
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (229).
Third Reading—Real Actions Abolition (Ireland)* (271); Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland)* (301); Census (Scotland) * (307), Beerhouses * (285); Glebe Loans (Ireland) (280); Post Office* (281); Census (Ireland)* (286); Meeting of Parliament* (283); Canada (Guarantee of Loan)* (284); Constabulary Force (Ireland) * (291); Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (272); Norfolk Boundary * (275), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion of Earl GRANVILLE, it was Ordered, That for the remainder of the Session the Bills which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the day shall have the same precedence which Bills have on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise in pursuance of the pledge which I gave the other day, that I would make a statement to your Lordships in reference to the important subject of the neutrality of Belgium. I should have very much preferred laying the Papers on the Table first and subsequently making the statement; but the end of the Session is so very near, and I understand that many of your Lordships are intending to leave London to-morrow. I think it is fairer, therefore, that I should make my statement at the earliest opportunity; and I may add that it is a statement which it would have been impossible for me to make at the last Sitting of the House. With regard to the Papers, I can only say that I shall take all the requisite steps for their being laid on the Table, in order that they may be distributed to your Lordships as soon as it can be done with propriety. It is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that not only the outbreak of the present hostilities, but also certain incidents accompanying them have excited a great deal of anxiety not only in Belgium and in other neutral States of Europe, but also in this country, and that a position of things existed which made it impossible for Her Majesty's Government to remain in a perfectly quiescent state, relying merely on the obligations they had contracted in former times. There were several courses
  1672
  which might have been taken. There was one thing which we from the first were determined not to do. We were quite determined not to make useless complaints—not to deal in vague threats or indefinite menaces. We might have taken an exactly opposite course. We might have explained to the country and to foreign nations that we did not think this country was bound either morally or internationally, or that its interests were concerned in the maintenance of the neutrality of Belgium. Though this course might have had some conveniences—though it might have been easy to adhere to it—though it might have saved us from some immediate danger—it is a course which Her Majesty's Government thought it impossible to adopt in the name of the country, with any due regard to the country's honour and to the country's interests. Another course would have been that, maintaining our obligations such as they are described in the Treaty of 1839, we might have simply made a declaration of the determination of this country to resist any interference with the neutrality of Belgium by force of arms. Now, in the first place, such a declaration would have been a direct menace to the Powers who are now engaged in hostilities; in the second place, it would have given an appearance of isolation to our policy; and, in the third place, I do not believe it was the course best calculated to prevent that particular event which we wish to avoid. Your Lordships may ask why, if we rejected this expedient, we did not propose to all the neutral States—at all events to all those who are connected in the same Treaty as ourselves—to make a joint declaration to the belligerents to the same effect. Your Lordships, however, have already had painful experience of the fact that time is a very important element in matters of this kind. It would have been impossible to calculate the time which would have been required for negotiating with those several States, even if they were quite ready to meet our wishes. The exact terms of such an arrangement, how far it was to go, and in what manner it was to be carried out, would have occupied time which it was impossible to calculate. We took a different course. I was authorized by a Cabinet Council held on Saturday week, the 30th of July, to write to both of the belligerents to this effect. I wrote to

  1673
  France and to the Court of Berlin in the same terms mutatis mutandis. We said Her Majesty's Government had already expressed their satisfaction with the assurance we had received from Trance, that the Emperor intended to respect the neutrality of Belgium. We said we had received the same assurance from the other belligerent. We added that we thought there could not be a doubt of the duty of both those countries to maintain the obligations of the Treaty which they had severally entered into in common with ourselves and with other countries; but we had observed that in the declaration of both that the promise was conditional on the other belligerent not violating it, and we could not help gathering from that, that, in the opinion of each, such an assurance was not one of a complete character. We, therefore, proposed to each that if they wished to give a more patent proof to the world of their intention, or wished for a clearer assurance from us that we meant to maintain the independence of Belgium, we were ready either to enter into a Treaty or in some solemn instrument to record our common determination. We communicated the proposal to the representatives of Austria and Russia in this country; and, at the same time, we sent it to our representatives at the Courts of both the belligerents and to the neutrals who are parties to this Treaty. I confess I regret that we had not been able to obtain their previous consent; but time was so precious, and our proposal is so much in accordance with the policy which we believe they wish to pursue, that we had no doubt of their concurring in what we had done. I can only add that we have had no direct answer except telegraphic messages from those Courts, but as far as they go Her Majesty's Government think the assurances are of a satisfactory character. With regard to France, she accepted the principle of the new Treaty we proposed; but she desired to make some modifications in its wording, in order, it was stated, to avoid misunderstanding. Her Majesty's Government were not able to accede to any alteration in the draft Treaty itself, but we willingly gave those explanations which we believed in our own mind expressed the simple and clear meaning of the Treaty; and we have every reason to believe that those explanations will remove all objections on the part of
  1674
  France to signing it. We are in hourly expectation of an answer from that Government. With regard to Prussia, I heard nothing till Friday, the 5th of August; but on the morning of that day Count Bernstorff told me he had received a message from Count Bismarck, who had left Berlin in order to be present at the head-quarters of the King. Count Bismarck, he told mo, had stated that he had not up to that time received any proposal from Lord Augustus Loftus; but he added that he should be ready to concur in any measure which would strengthen the neutrality of Belgium, though he could only give a general assent until he was acquainted with the document itself. Later in the same day Count Bismarck telegraphed that he had received from Count Bernstorff a summary of the draft Treaty, that he had submitted it to the King, and that His Majesty had authorized him to agree to it. Still later on the same day another telegram reached London, saying that the proposal itself had arrived, with the draft Treaty, and that he authorized Count Bernstorff to sign it as soon as the full powers which were being sent to him reached this country. The heads of the Treaty are these—It reserves all the obligations of the Treaty of 1839; it provides that if the armies of either belligerent violate the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain will co-operate with the other in defending that neutrality, but docs not engage to take part in the general operations of the present war between them; and a corresponding co-operation is pledged by the other parties. The Treaty is to held good for 12 months after the ratification of a Treaty of peace between the two belligerents. I do not wish to enter into any argument on this question; but, perhaps, your Lordships will allow me to state one or two of the objects which we have proposed to ourselves in taking this course. We believe it would be impossible to give a clearer announcement of our determination on this matter; and yet, while we give it positively and clearly, your Lordships will agree that we do so without menace, or without anything offensive to the two belligerents, with whom we are still in friendly alliance. We think, moreover, that it is calculated to prevent, both politically and strategically, that event which we particularly wished, to avoid, and we trust that it is calculated to increase con-

  1675
  fidence and calm the alarm which has certainly been felt for some days past with regard to a question to which England attaches the greatest possible importance. I am aware that objections may be raised to the course which we have taken, as there might have been to any possible course which we could have selected. There is one objection which I believe is entirely without foundation—namely, that the very fact of this Treaty which we propose being entered into will in the slightest degree impair the obligations of the Treaty of 1839. Those obligations we have expressly reserved in the words of this Treaty. I may remind your Lordships, too, that within the last 20 years a most important Treaty was entered into by some of the greatest Powers of Europe, and that only a fortnight after, without any intervening event whatever, three of them entered into an obligation to defend by arms the guarantee which they had previously given by a Treaty more numerously signed. I have not thought it right to trouble your Lordships with any argument in the matter. I hope I have said enough to show that Her Majesty's Government have not been indifferent, and that they have not been idle in trying to maintain the position which this country ought to held with regard to this great and important question.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I am sure the House must fully appreciate the motives which have actuated my noble Friend in making the statement, to which your Lordships have just listened, before the Papers have been laid on the Table, and your Lordships have had an opportunity of perusing them. It is satisfactory to find that Her Majesty's Government are determined to maintain the honour of this country—to maintain, as they say, the neutrality of Belgium — and to maintain inviolate Treaties which are now in existence. It would not be convenient — nor, indeed, would it be possible—to enter now into any discussion on the subject, for, however interesting the statement made by my noble Friend, it is obviously impossible to form any decided opinion on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government until we have seen the Papers and thoroughly mastered all the details of the matter. I think, however, I should be wanting in my duty if I did not rise to thank him for making this statement be-
  1676
  fore laying the documents before us, believing as he did that this would meet the wishes of your Lordships. I trust the course which has been taken by the Government on this occasion will be that matters, so far as this country is concerned, will remain as they are, and that we shall be enabled to remain in a state of perfect neutrality, at the same time maintaining inviolate the honour of this country.

  FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL—(No. 298.)
  (The Lord Privy Seal.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD HOUGHTONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they believe they have power under the Customs Consolidation Act to prohibit the export of munitions of war, and whether they are prepared to exercise that power in the interest of the neutrality of this country between the contending Powers on the Continent? This question had been considered by the Neutrality Commission, of which he was a member, and though the majority of the Commissioners made no distinct recommendation upon it, such a prohibition was advocated by some of the most distinguished and experienced members. He believed that a power of prohibiting the exportation of munitions of war to belligerent Powers was already vested in the Government; but there would be an advantage in making such export absolutely illegal—so as to relieve the Government from the responsibility of stopping that export when the emergency actually arose. Public opinion seriously demanded this step. While conscious how inconvenient it would be to certain branches of trade, how difficult to enforce it in a country where such interferences were rare, and how possible it would be for some munitions of war to escape the vigilance of the public officers, public opinion believed that the measure would be a just and politic one. He trusted to hear that the Government intended to take this course. He regretted that the Report of the Neutrality Commissioners should have been on the Table two years, and should only have been acted upon in this hurried manner, without the possibility of explanation and due consideration. He

  1677
  would further ask whether Her Majesty's Government were justified in the present condition of foreign affairs in proroguing Parliament at all? A short adjournment would answer all the purposes of a Prorogation, and he believed would be more consonant with the feelings of the people. There was a Bill before their Lordships' House which would enable Parliament to be summoned more quickly than heretofore; but the summoning of Parliament at an unusual season always agitated the country and unsettled commerce. He must say he thought it unworthy of the subject and hardly respectful to the Commissioners, to pass the second reading of this Bill without a word of explanation or discussion.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought it best simply to answer his noble Friend's Question, without entering into the expediency of proroguing Parliament or into other general questions of policy. There was no doubt the Government had the power of prohibiting the export of munitions of war, or of any articles tending to increase the naval or military force of any other country; but it could only be exercised by a complete and out ire prohibition, affecting all other countries indiscriminately—and this had never that he was aware of been exercised, nor did the Goverment think it expedient that the export of munitions of war to belligerents should be absolutely prohibited.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Viscount's answer would tend to dispel a good deal of confusion which prevailed in the public mind on this subject. It could not be too clearly understood that although the Crown could by Order in Council prohibit the export of munitions of war and warlike stores, that power was only intended to be exercised, and could only be exercised, for the purpose of keeping such munitions and stores in this country for the benefit of this country. Moreover it was not a power to prevent exportation to particular places and to particular belligerents. If exercised at all, it must apply to all countries and places whatever — the prohibition must be entire and complete. The consequence was it could not be applied to the present emergency to prevent the supply of munitions to the belligerent Powers. Whether it was expedient now to give the Crown power to prohibit the export of munitions of war to either of
  1678
  the belligerents was a different question, on both sides of which much might be said; but it could hardly be discussed at this period of the Session. It would be easy to empower the Government to prohibit the export of munitions of war which by universal consent were contraband of war; but difficulties arose with respect to coal, and articles which, according to jurists, might or might not be ancipitis usûs; in which case the question whether they were contraband of war could only be determined by the Prize Court of the capturing Power. Nothing would be more at variance with International Law than for a neutral Power to take upon itself to decide whether in particular cases articles which were ancipitis usûs were or were not contraband of war. On the whole, the Government had acted wisely in not inserting in this Bill such a power.
  House in Committee.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he had refrained from entering into any explanation of the object and provisions of the Bill on occasion of the second reading, on account of the small attendance which could be expected at a Saturday Sitting; but he would now do so very shortly. The Bill repealed the existing law, re-enacting it with such improvements as experience had shown to be desirable. It prohibited subjects of Her Majesty, without licence from the Crown, from taking any part in hostilities between two countries with which Her Majesty was on friendly terms. He need not adduce arguments to show how unjustifiable and monstrous it would be for British subjects to take part in hostilities, when the avowed policy of the Government was that of perfect neutrality; but it was a question not of International but of Municipal Law—not between this country and foreign countries, but between the Crown and the subjects of the Crown. A similar law existed in the United States; while on the Continent Governments were able to prevent their subjects from violating neutrality. The principal objects of the Bill were to prohibit any subject from enlisting or inducing others to enlist in the service of a belligerent Power, and from fitting out, equipping, or arming any vessel for such service. During the American War the powers of the Government in this matter were found to be insufficient. In

  1679
  the case of the Alabama, that vessel left this country before the order of the Government, issued as soon as they had sufficient evidence before them, reached the port, she left our port as an unarmed ship, and only received her armament at sea, beyond our jurisdiction; so that no blame could attach to the Government; and in the case of the Alexandra and of the rams, proceedings before legal tribunals resulted in a proof that the Government had not sufficient power in the matter. They were, therefore, glad to buy the rams in order to avoid any difficulty. This defect would be removed by the present Bill, which was based on the Report of a Commission presided over by the late Lord Cranworth, and composed of other distinguished men. It was no disrespect to them that the Report had not been sooner carried out, for matters of great importance had occupied the attention of Parliament during the past two years; but the pressure of circumstances had now necessitated the passing of a Bill with unusual rapidity. The measure gave power to the Secretary of State to detain a suspected ship; as also to local officers at the ports, who would report to the Secretary of State, so as to cast on him full responsibility. It embodied all the recommendations of the Report, with the exception of that relating to the reception of vessels into British ports, and this object could be accomplished by Orders in Council.
  LORD HOUGHTONasked for a more categorical answer to his Question.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he could only repeat his statement that the Government did possess the power to prohibit the exportation of munitions of war; but the prohibition must be universal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that there was no doubt on the point, and that the object of the power in question was to retain in this country all matériel of war. The export could not be forbidden merely to belligerent Powers.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthen moved that Standing Orders, Nos. 37 & 38, be considered, in order to being dispensed with.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he felt it to be useless to oppose the Motion, though it precluded the consideration of additional powers which might advanta-
  1680
  geously be included in this Bill. He rejoiced that the King of the Belgians, in spite of the large interests of his subjects in the manufacture of arms, had prohibited their exportation to the belligerents; thus setting an example which it believed this country to follow.
  LORD REDESDALEthought the late introduction of this Bill was excusable, as the exigency which called for it had only just arisen. He was not at all disposed, moreover, to blame the Government for getting Parliament to separate as soon as possible
  Motion agreed to.
  Standing Orders dispensed with.
  Amendments reported.
  Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Dufferin.)

  (NO. 280.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Dufferin.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not see that any security was taken in the Bill to prevent the alienation of the property upon which money was to be advanced. He thought the Bill required much consideration, and he suggested that it would be better to postpone the Bill for another year, rather than hurrying it through Parliament without due consideration. If the matter were of importance, the Bill ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, there had been no undue haste in passing the Bill, for it had been opposed at almost every stage in the other House. It would occasion great disappointment in Ireland if the passing of the Bill were delayed, for it had been received with favour by all denominations in that country. It secured an object which was originally contemplated at the time of the passing of the Act to disestablish the Irish Church; and, practically, there was not the slightest danger of that alienation which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees thought it necessary to provide against; for it was not likely that persons would, from religious motives,

  1681
  become responsible for the repayment of the sums to be advanced if there was any probability that the property would be alienated to other uses.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, it was to be regretted that so important a measure should have been introduced at so late a period of the Session; but, at the same time, to refuse to pass it would occasion great disappointment to some religious parties in Ireland who were anxious to avail themselves of the powers of the Bill. He should approve of airy properly framed Bill to effect this object; but he saw in this Bill very great peculiarities, indicative of the great haste with which it had been prepared, and which he feared would lead to great inconvenience in the working of it. There was no provision to prevent the alienation of glebe houses or glebe lands from the purpose to which the advance implied that it was to be devoted; but in the Irish Land Bill the Government thought it necessary to take security for 35 years in respect of land purchased by a tenant. A strange phrase had been used in the Bill, utterly at variance with the present state of things in Ireland, for it spoke of a clergyman "having the spiritual charge of a parish or district"—a charge which, in the disestablished condition of the Church, no clergyman could have.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought there was something in the last objection taken by the noble and learned Lord, and proposed to meet it by substituting the phrase used in the Charitable Bequests Act—namely, "officiating in any parish, &c." In relation to the main object of the Bill, it was desirable that it should come into operation while the friends of the disestablished Church were full of zeal to establish ministers in their work and vocation. It was not necessary to make any provision in respect of the particular contingency which noble Lords apprehended, for it was most unlikely to occur. There was no analogy between the Land Act and the Church Act. If those who had established a minister wished to sell the globe, that must arise from the body being broken up in the district; and, in such a case, there could be no reasonable objection to their being allowed to dispose of the property.
  LORD CAIRNSthought the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord would make the matter worse.
  LORD REDESDALE moved to insert the following clause:—
  "Every house built, enlarged, or improved, and every glebe or house purchased under this Act, shall be thenceforth held and occupied for that purpose only for which the same was originally provided, and shall not be alienated from that purpose without proof having been given to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners that the same is no longer required for that purpose."
  LORD DUFFERINfeared it was impossible to accept the clause, for reasons which he had already stated.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Lord had not advanced any valid reason for objecting to the clause; and, as to the reason given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if it was not likely that alienations would occur, there could be the less difficulty in accepting a provision which prohibited them. Therefore he moved the insertion of the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYreminded the noble Lord that the Bill had been several days before the House, and no Notice had been given of this Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Bill had been introduced on the 4th of August, and had therefore gone through all its stages here in four days, including Sunday. He could see no objection to the Amendment. If money was only wanted for the purchase of glebe houses, why not say so?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the clause were inserted it must go down to be discussed in the other House, where it had been discussed at considerable length already. There was great inconvenience in discussing Amendments that were proposed without Notice, because it was impossible to discover all the objections that might arise to a clause when they had to consider it in a hurry. It might be thought necessary to remove a residence from one part of a parish to another, and to do so it might be necessary to dispose of that already occupied; but if the clause were agreed to it could not be done.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill was brought into the other House on the 18th of July, it was read a second time on the 26th, was considered on the 1st August, and read a third time on the

  1683
  3rd. Every stage of the Bill, except the second reading, had been taken after midnight. Such treatment at this period of the Session was really monstrous.
  On Question?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 30: Majority 17.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for considering the Commons' Amendments, read.
  LORD CAIRNSexpressed his surprise at the course that had been taken with regard to this measure. When the Bill was first introduced considerable objection was taken to it by several noble Lords. Some objected to the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act altogether; others, like a noble Earl (Earl Russell), did not object to the repeal, but objected to the wording of the Bill. For his own part, recognizing, as he did, that the Government were under an obligation to propose some measure of this kind, he was anxious to make it acceptable to both sides of the House. He accordingly proposed certain Amendments, with which he understood the Government were satisfied, and the consequence was that a great number of Boers had left town under the impression that the Bill was beyond the risk of alteration. In the other House of Parliament he was aware that the same thing had taken place. But the Home Secretary had taken an objection to the Bill as altered, in which he must have been misreported; for he could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman could fall into such a mistake as he was represented to have made. He did not promise to go into the general question at a time when so many of their Lordships who had taken part in the former discussions were absent; and he thought the only course now was to withdraw the Bill till next Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he believed there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the words, even among those who were mainly affected by them. It was believed, when
  1684
  the Bill was originally brought in, that it would give general satisfaction; but he was aware that there were several of those affected who preferred the words of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns). There had been some misapprehension on the subject in the other House. He regretted this, as the Government were under a promise to introduce a Bill on this subject in the present year. He did not say that the Bill of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) was free from all objections; but he could say confidently that it was free from some objections to which the words of his noble and learned Friend were exposed. It was of course impossible to satisfy all parties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government would not ask their Lordships to agree to the Commons' Amendments, but would withdraw the Bill for the present.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that in the words of a noble Relation of his, the Bill of 1851 was "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." He wished that the Amendments repealing the Act could have been agreed to. No one had been prosecuted under it—it was a mere insult to the Roman Catholics, as had been remarked by a noble Member of the House of Howard, as to the Preamble of the Bill. The Bill ought to have been a real repeal of the original Act.
  Order of the Day discharged.

SOUTHWARK PARK, THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, AND THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.—PETITION.
LORD REDESDALE presented a Petition from the Vestry of Bermondsey, praying that no part of the land purchased for Southwark Park be let for building purposes: Also to ask whether it is intended to obtain powers next Session to purchase the remaining part of the west side of Parliament Street and the corresponding part of King Street; and whether the architect for the new offices has been desired to prepare plans for completing the Council Office buildings by connecting them with the new offices to be built on the other side of Downing Street, or otherwise, whereby the two blocks of building may be brought in unison: To ask in what

1685
manner it is intended to occupy the vacant spaces acquired within the new embankment, and whether it is intended to apply for powers to purchase the buildings below Graven and Northumberland Streets down to the new embankment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that the Government had not recently directed its attention to the proposed acquisition of the west side of Parliament Street and the corresponding portion of King Street, nor had the architect prepared plans for connecting the Council Office buildings with the new buildings referred to. With regard to the vacant spaces on the now Embankment, he must refer the noble Lord to the recent discussion on the subject in the House of Commons and its result. He had to add that the Government had no intention of buying the buildings below Craven Street and Northumberland Street down to the Embankment.
LORD REDESDALEexpressed extreme regret at the manner in which these matters were dealt with; there seemed to be no forethought of any land exercised upon such subjects. The manner in which the communications between the Embankment and the Strand were to be made was of the utmost importance. If the land were not bought as he suggested a great loss would result to the country, because the value of the property was increasing daily.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.