Vehatrs nut( 4,1rmthing5 u hrliamnd.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, July 29.—Appropriation of Seats (Sudbury and St Albans) Bill—Committee—Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill; second- reading—East India Civil Service Bill ; third reading—Irremovable Poor Bill ; third reading—Removal of Irish Poor Bill; second-reading. Tuesday, July 30.—Consolidation of Criminal Law Bills; second reading—Muni- cipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill—committee. Thursday, August I.—Lace Factories Bill; second reading—Consolidation of the 8tatute Bills; Committee. Friday, August 2.—Revision of the Statute Law; the Lord Chancellor's BilL HOUSE OF COMMONS, Saturday, July 27.—Supply; National Gallery; Govern- ment Aid to Volunteers; Ways and Means; Mr. Gladstone's Statement Monday, July 29.—Galway Contract; Mr. Gregory's question—Consolidation Fund (Appropriation) Bill ; second reading—Wills and Domicile of British Subjects Abroad Bill; Committee—Wills of Personalty of British Subjects Bill; Committee —Officers of the Reserve (Royal Navy Bill) second reading. Tuesday, July 30.—Mr. Dunlop's Despatches; Mr. Griffith's Motion—Statute Law Revision Bill; committee. Wednesday, July 31'—Thames Embankment; Mr. Cowper's answer to Sir John Shelley—Lunacy Regulation Bill; Committee—Appropriation Bill; third reading-- Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill; Consideration of the Lords reason for in- sisting on certain of their amendments. Thursday, August 1.-0111ears of the Reserve (Royal Navy) Bill; third reading. Friday. August 2.—Spanish Possessions in Morocco; Mr. Griffith's Question— Present Condition of the Two-Sicilies• Sir G. Bowyer's Complaint—Government interference in the Builders' Strike; Mr. Ayrton's Petition.

House of Commons: SATURDAY, JULY 27TH.

NATIONAL GALLERY.—On the motion for receiving the report of the Supply voted last evening,

Lord R. LENNox (Chichester) hoped that the Chief Commissioners of Works would give a pledge that nothing should be done during the recess towards the erection of a gallery for the reception of 'Turner's pictures, which ought, under the terms of the will, to be provided for by the 16th of December. Mr. COWPER replied that it was not the intention of Government to lay out any money for the accommodation of Turner's pictures without the sanction of Parliament. At the same time, he could not give a positive pledge to that effect. If the National Gallery took ere, for example, it would be a very foolish thing not to _repair if -during the recess.

Lord H. LENNOX withdrew the expression "prurient," which he had applied to some of Turner's works on a previous occasion.

GOVERNMENT Al]) To VOLUNTEERS.—On the report of the vote of 30,000/. for Government aid to the volunteer forces, Mr. SELWYN (Cambridge University) complained of the parsimony of Government in granting- aid to volunteers. The employment by Government of more drill instructors for volunteers would tend to retain in the army a very valuable body of men, and at the same time reward them for long-distinguished services. There was also great difficulty in obtain- ing rifle ranges, especially for the metropolitan corps. He trusted that the new Secretary at War would se o that the ttblunteer corps

were not hindered by any of the public departments in obtaining ranges, which were absolutely indispensable to their efficiency. He trusted that next session this niggardly vote for drillinstructors would be increased.

Mr. T. S. Rutrnu stated that the total amount of grants to volunteers this year was 190,000/. Next year the vote would certainly exceed 200,000/. Earl de Grey, who had succeeded him at the War Office, mio-ht be safely trusted with the interests of the volunteers. WAYS AND lizmis.—On the report of the Committee of Ways and Means was brought up, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY (Evesham) wished to know whether the esti- mated surplus of the budget had not been greatly decreased in conse- quence of additional expenditure, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied that the Ways and Means were still sufficient for the year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply, said he entirely con- curred in the opinion that supplementary estimates were very mccur venient. The votes now alluded to by the honourable Baronet might be accounted for on special grounds, and he would enter into a few details with respect to them. The principal vote, relating to iron ships, was one connected with a great exceptional operation, which he would not call the reconstruction of the navy, but a great transition in the mode of building ships of war; and the other votes partook of the same special character. The effect of the changes made in the votes was that the Estimate for the Army, including the vote for the Volunteers had, upon the whole, been increased by a sum of about 17,0001. The vote for the Navy had been increased by .a sum of about 247,0001., which very nearly corresponded with the amount voted for the iron ships. A vote of -30,000/. taken for the dowry of a member of the royal family belonged to the head of Civil Services, and required no explanation. The charge for the Civil Services had been increased by about 133,0001., the reason of this being that, while a vote of 155,000/. was asked form order to pay the amount agreed on in respect to the Stade Dues, there had been some small set-off on the other side,. which reduced the increase to 133,000/. The general result of these changes was that, whereas the Budget Estimate exhibited a surplus. of 408,0001., there remained now the almost nominal surplus of 47,000/. In the absence of any extraordinary unforeseen circum- stances, he felt the utmost confidence in the sufficiency of the Ways. and Means for the year.

Several bills were forwarded a stage, and the House adjourned.

House of Lords.

MONDAY, JULY 29TH.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND Sr. ALBANS) BILIr—Efifi GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this bill. Lord STRATHEDEN said, that though a supporter of Government, he considered himself perfectly free to oppose this bill, as it had been ma- terially altered since its introduction, and that in spite of the exertions. and arguments of Government. Before the House was justified in passing such a bill three points ought to be considered—viz., how far it was expedient to transfer privileges which had belonged to the southern to the northern portion of the kingdom ; how far it was expedient to transfer to counties vacancies which arose from the dis- franchisement of boroughs ; and how far it was expedient to convert seats which were really open to all public men into seats which would be exclusively available for those who had property connected with. them. The bill as it at present stood, would excite more discontent than gratitude. It had neither the sanction of Government or the approval of the public. He moved the bill be referred to a Select Committee.

The Earl of DERBY said be never recollected a bill for which there ap- peared less reason to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee. The facts were clear and undisputed, and there were no very complicated details. He approved of the principle of the measure, though it wanted some slight alterations, firstly to make it English, and secondly to make it sense. He supposed from Lord Sohn _Russell's choosing the present time for his elevation to the peerage that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any extensive Parliamentary Reform, and he deprecated the system of bills on the subject being per- petually introduced, and perpetually rejected, and the name of the sovereign inconsiderately pledged by Government to the introduction of measures which they did not feel quite confident of being able to carry. Earl GRANVILLE concurred with Lord Derby that after the ex- perience they had on the subject, it would be extremely improper for any Government to lightly introduae a Reform Bill without a reason- able hope of being able to carry it through Parliament. The bill was then passed through Committee With some verbal amendments.

Municipal, CORPORATION Aci AMENDMENT BILL.—Lord STANLEY of Alderley_ moved the second reading of this bill. Lords WENEILETDALE and CHELMSFORD objected to several provisions. of the bill, and suggested its postponement, especially to the clause providing that mayors should preside at all meetings of magistrates.

Lord DERBY said he should not oppose the second reading, but would not pledge himself to support all the clauses when in com-

mittee. . . . On a division, there appeared for the second reading, 44; against it, 27. Majority for the second reading, 17. EAST INDIA CIVIL SERVICE Bru.—This bill was read a third time and passed, a clause moved by Lord MONTEAGLE, opening the civil service to natives, being rejected without a division.

The IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL was read a third time and passed. REMOVAL OF TRISH POOR BILL.—Earl Sr. GERMANS explained that

this bill did not seek to alter the mode of settlement, but simply regu- lated the removal of Irish paupers to their own country. This was a favourable moment for the change proposed, for whereas in 1850 some seventy-seven thousand persons landed in Liverpool, apparentlY paupers, there were last year only twenty-one such persons.

Lord REDESDALE said he should have liked time for the further con- sideration of thus measure.

The bill was read a second time. House of Commons.

CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION BILL).—On the motion that this bill be read a second time Lord ROBERT NIONTAGUE (Huntingdonshire) said he should oppose the .second reading until the bill was printed and in the hands of members. Year by year this bill was allowed to go through its stages without being printed, and the House was, consequently, not aware whether or not it was in a correct form, and contained the usual re- strictions. (Hear, hear.) In the first session of 1857, the Appropria- tion Bill contained the appropriation clause, but the Appropriation Bill of the second session of that year, did not contain it and even repealed the appropriation clause of the preceding act. The conse- quence was that the sums voted by Parliament for the army and navy were exceeded, and money was spent without the sanction of Parlia- ment. (Hear, hear.) He, therefore, moved that the bill be not read a second time -until it was printed and placed in the hands of members. The CHANCELLOR of the-Exertzquza said Lord R. Montague's pro- posal would lengthen the session by nearly a week. He believed that, in point of law, the appropriation clause was mere surplusage.

After a long discussion.

Lord Perowaiteron said: There can be no greater aggravation of an injury than to accompany it with mockery, and there can be no greater injustice than for those who have inflicted an injury to make that injury a subject of reproach to those who have suffered by it. The honourable gentleman reproaches the Government with not bringing on the votes in Supply at an early day, and finishing them sooner than at present. That reproach comes from independent members, whose interposition ofpreliminary motions every night upon which we go into Supply—(Hear, hear)—raises the interminable dis- cussions which are the real cause of our -finishing, Supply so late. I must say that is a reproach which I think upon reflection, my honourable friend will find applies to other pat:ties than the Govern- ment. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member also found fault with us for saying that a vote in Supply is an authority to issue the money. No one doubts that the moment a vote in committee is passed the Government is empowered to spend the money. It is quite true that for the purposes of audit the preliminary sanction of the three branches of the IRgislatufe is necessary, and that is what the Appropriation Act gives- but that act does not alter a single vote. Mr. HENLEY (Oxfordshire) denied that the Appropriation Bill was a mere form. It was the privilege of any member of the House to triollpose to strike out a money vote on any stage of the Appropriation Lord PALMERSTON explained that what he meant was, that it had never been customary to rescind previous votes of the House by altera- tions in the Appropriation Bill.

The amendment was then put and negatived, and the bill read a second time.

Lew OF Domtette.—The ArronrrEr-GENERAL, on moving the second reading of the Wills and Domicile of British Subjects Abroad Bill, explained its object, which was, by means of conventions with foreign states, to obtain a definition of what constituted a domicile in the case of British subjects making wills when abroad. By this bill it was proposed that no British subject resident at the time of his death in a foreign country should be deemed under any circumstances to have acquired a domicile in that country unless he should have been a per- manent resident there for one year previous to his death, and unless also he should have made and lodged in the proper quarter a solemn declaration in writing of his intention of domiciling himself in that foreign country. There would be a corresponding provision in the case of foreigners dying in this country. The bill which stood next on the _paper was the Wills of Personalty of British Subjects Abroad Bill, which had come down from the Lords. That bill would, he thought, introduce mischief and danger greater than that which it was intended to remedy. It provided that a will made abroad was to be good if it were valid according to the law of any part of the United Kingdom. Thus, a London merchant who had never set his foot across the border, .going to Paris or Naples, and making his will there, might make his will either according to the law of England or Scotland. He hoped that Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who had charge of the .bill, would con- sent to postpone it to another session.

Sir F. Kar.r,r (Ipswich) defended the last-mentioned bill. He did not, however, object to going into Committee on that of the late Attorney-General.

Sir G. BOWYER (Dundalk) moved that the House go into Committee on the bill that day three months. The bill tended to perpetuate the greatest defect in our law—that the validity of a will depended upon the law of domicile. The true rule with regard to wills, as with regard to marriages, was Lex loci regit aetum. He defied any one to show him

that the bill was founded on any principle whatever that was

intelli-

gible to a legalmind. Lord Kingsdown's bill, on the other hand, was based on the soundest principles of public law and practical utility, but he did not see how it was practicable to place the two together on the statute book.

After some considerable discussion both bills were passed through committee, on the understanding that the expediency of proceeding with the second bill should be considered on the report.

Several other orders were then disposed of including that for the committal of the Landed Estates (Ireland) Act (1858) Amendment Bill. An amendment to which, indemnifying Colonel Keogh for a loss of 1879/. 6s. 7c1., which he had sustained through the neglect of an officer of theEncumbered Estates Court, being rejected by 33 to 25.

OFFICERS OF RESERVE (ROYAL NAVY) BILL.—Lord ULARENCE PAGET moved the second reading of this bill, which after some oppo- sition from Admiral Weinorr (Christchurch), Admiral DUNCOMBE (Yorkshire), and Mr. H. SMITH (Truro), was agreed to, and after for- warding other bills a stage, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, JULY 30.

House V Lords.

Earl RUSSELL was introduced by Earls GRANVILLE and STRAFFORD, and took the oaths and his seat. CONSOLIDATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW,—The series p bills to this effect, were all read a second time. Murabirei. CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—The House went into Committee on this bill. Lord WENSLEYDALE moved the omission of clause 2, which gives precedence to mayors at meetings of borough magistrates, and of clause 4, which relates to the licensing power of magistrates.

The clauses, however, were retained by 26 to 25, and 26 to 23 re- spectively. A great number of bills were passed or forwarded a stage, and the House adjourned. House of Commons.

Mr. Garffern (Devizes) moved for copies of the despatches of Mr. Dunlop from Pesth, when stationed there as diplomatic agent of the Government in that locality. The publication of these dispatches was necessary to enlighten the House as to the disputes between the Aus- trian Government and Hungary. He accused Lord Palmerston of Austrian tendencies, and said the only obstacle there epuld be to the publication of the despatches was that Mr. Dunlop might express more liberal views towards the Hungarians than Government were prepared to adopt.

Lord PALMERSTON could not assent to the motion. Mr. Dunlop was stationed at Pesth in order to give confidential information to Government on a variety of matters of that character that it would be quite wrong to make them public, inasmuch as that would entirely prevent any one else similarly employed from giving the same charac- ter of information. It is obvious that a person in a position like that of Mr. Dunlop writes without reserve a confidential despatch to his employers; he enters into many details respecting men and things

i

which it s very useful for the Government to know, but which no man would write if he expected his despatches to be made public, and the parties with regard to whom he expressed opinions would know what those opinions were. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot agree to the production of these papers. With regard to the general obser- vations made by the hon. gentleman, I have to state that we are quite sensible, as he is, of the flreat importance of the events now passing between Austria and Kungary. We attach due importance to the maintenance of the Austrian empire as a great Power in the centre of Europe, holding, I may say, a sort of balance between opposite and conflicting interests, and we should consider it a great misfortune to Europe if that empire were to be dissolved by any internal convulsion which could possibly be prevented. It has not, on the other hand, been deemed-by the Government right or fitting, or their duty, to take any part in the dissensions now prevailing between the Austrian Go- vernment and the people of Hungary. These are matters in whit* really we see it would do no good to interfere. We do not feel called on even to express any opinion as to which party is in the right and which in the wrong. We confine ourselves to the expression of a fer- vent hope that these differences will be settled amicably, and in such a manner as shall leave Austria a great, powerful, and prosperous State in the centre of Europe. When the honourable gentleman says he wishes to know whether we take part with liberty against authority or with authority against liberty, my answer is, that we leave liberty and authority to settle their own disputes. (A laugh.) It was the intention of Government to hold the same course with regard to the dissensions in Hungary that they did with regard to those in America, namely, a position of entire neutrality.

After a few words from Mr. Wiirrn (Brighton), the motion was withdrawn.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.—In Committee On this bill, MT. HENNESSY (King's County) said, as the bill was intended to repeal useless and obsolete laws, he thought the Ecclesiastical Titles Act might well be included among them. (Hear, hear.) That act was passed at a tune of panic, but had never had any force, and he should. therefore move that it be included in the schedule of this bill.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said no one could call the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill obsolete. Mr. Hennessy's motion must be meant as a practical joke. Mr. HENNESSY referred to the evidence of Dr. WHale given before a Committee of that House, in which he described himself as Arch- bishop of Tuani. Sir C. G. LEWIS thought the prohibition in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act applied to bishops and archbishop s taking the title of any see in the Anglican Church. There was no Protestant Archbishop of Tuam. Mr. HENNESSY said the right honourable Baronet had made two mistakes. (Laughter.) There was a Protestant Bishop of Tuam, and next the act prohibited the assumption of titles for any place within the United Kingdom. The act also referred to deans, archdeacons, and minor dignitaries of the Church.

On a division, Mr. Hennessy's motion -was negatived by 69 to 4.

BANKRUPTCYAND INSOLVENCY Bn.L.-1 message was received from the Lords, announcing their Lordships had insisted on their amend- ments relative to the Chief Judge, and assigning reasons. On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, it was ordered that the message be taken into consideration on the following day.

The House then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31ST.

House of Commons.

THAMES EMBANEMENT.—SiT JOHN SHELLEY (Westminster,) asked if Government intended Ito adopt the recommendations of the 'flames- Embankment Commissioners, and to whom they proposed to intrust -the carrying out of the work ? Mr. COWPER replied that the Government were prepared to carry into effect the scheme alvocated by the Royal Commission, who had considered the subject, but not to adopt their recommendation that a- special commission should be appointed to execute the work. Consider- ingthat the coal duty was a local charge, he thought it -would be satisfactory to those who paid it, that the expenditure should be in the hands of the local representatives. The Metropolitan Board of Works were appointed by the statute for the discharge of duties similiar to those required in the present instance, and in the bill which he should introduce next session to the engineering scheme recommended by the Royal Commission, he should propose that the direction of the work and the expenditure of the money proceeding from the coal duty, should be intittsted to the Metropolitan Board of 'Works. The Lunacy TtegUlation Bill passed -through committee, and the

Lords' amendment to the East India (High Courts of Judicature) Bill considered and agreed to.

The subject of the Thames Embankment was again reverted to by Sir JOHN SHELLEY, who expressed his surprise and regret at the an- nouncement that the Metropolitan Board of Works were to be em- ployed merely in the mechanical construction of the embankment, without giving them the choice of a design. He doubted if any one would have selected the persons comprising the Royal Commision as being the best qualified to prepare the plan for so important a work. No one had seen their plan—no one knew whether it would be econo- mical or the reverse. The embankment of the Thames was to be paid for by the inhabitants of the metropolis, and he protested against the treatment which the Metropolitan Board of Works was about to re- ceive from the Goverment. He hoped Government would give that body the option of deciding upon the plan to be adopted, and not bind them to that chosen by the Commission.

After some further conversation,

Mr. COWPER said he had little to add to the statement he had pre- viously made. The House had agreed to place the coal duties in the hands of the Commissioners of the Treasury, in order to await the passing of a bill authorizing the money to be expended in the embank- ment of the Thames. Next Session the whole matter must come under the notice of the House in the form of a bill, and no doubt it would then be fully discussed. The Royal Commissioners had reported that in the first instance the embankment should be executed on the north side of the river, but he was himself strongly of opinion that the work would not be complete until it included the Surrey side also. (Hear, hear.) Certain notices with respect to the purchase of property must

be given in November next, unless another year was to be wasted ; and as the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of passing a measure with reference to the coal duties, and of appoint. ing a body of commissioners to consider the various plans which had been suggested for the embankment of the river, they would be depart-

ing from their duty if they did not take the necessary steps for enabling Parliament to deal with the subject next Session. His desire was that another year should not be wasted; but that, on the contrary, they should have an opportunity next Session of applying the coal duties to the embankment of the Thames. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DEEDES (Kent) regretted that the Metropolitan Board of Works were going to have anything to do with the embankment. If placed in their hands, he feared that the plan recommended by the Commis- sioners would never be carried out. It was not correct to say that the metropolis was to pay for the embankment. The expense would be borne by the consumers of coal. (Hear.)

M. Ancrox(Tower Hamlets) defended the Metropolitan Board, and pointed to their management of the drainage question, by which, he contended, they had saved more than 8,000,0001., being the difference between the cost of their scheme and that proposed by Government. On the consideration of the Lords' reasons for insisting on their amendment relative to the appointment by this bill of a Chief Judge in Bmikruptcy,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the House do not insist in their disagreement to the Lords' amendment. If the House were to persist in the view they had taken when the bill was last before them, the consequence would naturally be that the bill would be lost; and, under those circumstances, it had become the duty of the Govern- ment to consider what course they should advise the House to pursue ; and, although her Majesty's Government retained the opinion ex- pressed by its members in the discussions on the various stages of the bill in favour of the appointment of the Chief Judge, for the reasons adopted by that House and transmitted to the other House of Parlia- ment, and although they still considered that the provisions of the bill were greatly impaired, and its chances of working well at the outset were very much diminished indeed—(hear)—by the omission of that portion relating to the Chief Judge, they considered that even without that part of the bill there was an amount of good in it which was capable of working, although defectively, which ought to induce the Government to take the bill mutilated and shorn, as he admitted it to be, rather than not have the measure at all. Under these circumstances the Government had come to the conclusion to advise the House—of course it was for the House to consider whether they should adopt that advice—not to insist further in their disagreement to the amend- ments made by the Lords, but practically to accept the bill as amended by the other House." (Hear, hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD before taking leave for the present of a subject which he was sure would soon again occupy their attention, wished to state that, representing as he did a constituency which had taken a deep interest in the question, he was disposed to concur in the course which the Government recommended the House to pursue. He be- lieved the Lord Chancellor would find great practical difficulty in the working of this bill without the Chief Judge; but the responsibility rested, not on the Lord Chancellor, but on those who had, as the Attorney-General said, mutilated the bill. If it were found that the bill could not be fairly carried into effect without the Chief Judge, another application would, no doubt, be made to Parliament, and they would then know what course to take.

The House then adjourned.

, THURSDAY, AUGUST 1ST.

House of Lords. At half-past four, a Royal Commission, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Newcastle, and the Duke of Argyll, gave the rola' assent to a great number of bills.

UONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES.—The various bills for the Con- solidation of the statutes passed through committee unaltered.

The Appropriation Bill was read a first time, and the House ad- journed. House qf Commons. After questions and answers on a variety of subjects,

Lord CLARENCE PAGET moved the third reading of the Officers of Jteserve (Royal Navy) Bill. - Mr. LINDSAY (Sunderland) thought it a valuable measure, but one which depended greatly on the regulations by which it would be car- ried into effect. He did not think his noble friend had been sufficiently explicit, and it would not be agreeable to the merchant captains to

serve under junior officers of the navy. That difficulty might perhaps be met in this way: The officers of reserve could only be called out on emergencies. On such occasions there would, no doubt, be a great number of smal gun and despatch boats employed, and the Admiralty might place those officers as lieutenants in command of them. He asked if no steps could be taken for an arrangement with the French to limit the marines of the two countries.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET assured Mr. Lindsay that it was the desire of the Admiralty to place all the officers of the reserve in an ho- nourable position.

After some remarks from Mr. WRITE (Brighton),

Lord PALMERSTON showed that all increased preparations in our dockyards had been subsequent to, and in consequence of, increased

preparations in the French dockyards, and that the reverse could not possibly be said to have been the case. Now, as to the other ques- tion—one of great importance—whether the British Government could not enter into communication with any foregn Government—for it must not be confined to France—but with any foreign Government, with a view to impose a limit upon the respective naval forces of the two countries, that is a more important question, of great difficulty,

and open to much criticism. (Hear, hear.) I think that, although at the first blush it appears to be a practicable thing--I think that

any British Government would long pause and hesitate—(hear,

hear)—before it entered into any agreement with foreign. countries limiting the amount of force, naval or military, which this country ought to maintain. (Hear, hear.) We should judge of that amount

according to the circumstances of the moment. Any agreement must be with several foreign Powers, because it is not France alone that is a naval Power. There is Russia, the United States, Spain, which is growing in importance, and other States which have navies, and therefore any limitation of our own force must be made with a view

not only to the naval power of France, but to any possible combina- tion of other Powers. Such an arrangement would, I think, lead to interminable doubts and disputes. (Hear.) We must have officers watching them, and they must have officers watching us; there would be doubts and suspicions of bad faith—(hear)—and, instead of laying the foundations of peace, we should, I fear, be sowing the seeds of future interminable dissensions. (Hear.)

The bill was then read a third time and passed, and the House ad- journed shortly afterwards.