Star. — London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

Jon, e ngaged ;nth* Wool Trade , agrkirt the imposition of a Tax on Foreign Wool. 'The petitioners expressed their willingness to, bear their full proportion of the burdens OrS.ntiyi but they submitted that the impos kiwi. pf -such tax would, prove ruinous to the mawa4artoeing.and commorcial.inverests of the.country. t ., fore :eirinegsttl eifteited his Majesty's Go nliY sanction horn the injurious veriet i impeongn ,wif birch it PS*, THOMPSON supported the prayer of . t nt-trieirV . - 'At- resent we were-unable to carry , on O W. 0 .6 4" In . ths Oontipeittal markets, with Silesia an d with. the Neiherland:;:.bot the effect of such a tax m a l t proposed would-bee . to destroy the competition n an c hire' hid hirtletto • kept up, and to transfer our in f eigu . w4lepjfide into the hands of Continental Ti•LBTEIBRIDGE thought the proposed tax go , a n eceisary . prOtectiOn due to the agricultural inlet mi. At present the price of British wool was ruinously kw,and cheaply way to raise that price was by the im rition of a duty. Lord MILTON said, be did not think the proposi tion of the flithoorable Baronet,-if .carried into effect, wo od leider . the, article More saleable. He hoped Members weald give some intimation as to the course they wont to pursue. To renew the tax upon foreign w ool would be to take a step towards re-barbarising the country. ,If the object of the Honourable Baronet (Sir 1. Lethbridge) was : not to increase the prite of wool, why propose an addition to the duty ? It appeared to :aim that they were proceeding directly in the wrong course. . The Honourable Baronet contended that as corn was protected, wool also should be protected— (Hear). It would be just as proper to extend the prin ciple to butter, eggs, and other articles - of agricultural produce. The poor cottager had as good a right to he protected in his eggs, as the owner of a flock of 2,600 s heep. The question for the loose was, whether they would continue to act upon the commercial policy of the list seven years, or return to a system of prohibition land drawbacks? /41r. PIEIICE supported the Petition. Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that if the present system, we re persevered in, it must end in the ruin of the agri.. l culiurists.. The question was not confined to the Isgrt4 cultutists; it was connected with the general interests' of the country. If the import of the raw material increased while that of the manufactured article demi: naked, it was quite clear that it must be injurious to the country generally. The average import of wool for some time back was seven millions of pounds annually. From 1824 to 1825 there was an excess of twelve million pounds over the quantity exported, and he believed there was a corresponding increase this yeir. He thotight there was a sufficient ground for a Committee to inquire into the subject. Sir G. PHILIPPS said, it would appear from what had fallen from his Honourable Friend - who spoke last, that in point of fact, the population of this country themselves were the consumers of the foreign wool im ported, and he now proposed to increase the price of the manufactured article upon them. The agricultu rists, when they felt, or thought they felt themselves placed in difficulties, never proposed any remedy but a protecting duty. They were protected in corn, and they now sought protection in wool. He thought they were mistaken in the view they took of their own in terestv-He felt confident that an additional duty on foreign wool would be most injurious to them. Mr. HEATHCOTE said, the Noble Lord (Milton), and the Hon. Member who spoke last, seemed to think that they (the Landed Interest) did cot know how to manage their own concerns. The same language had been held with respect to eeery measure introduced in that House injurious to the Agricultural Interest. He could assure the Noble Lord, however,- that they knew how to take care of themselves. Why not protect other articles; sad the Noble Lord? Because no other article had fallen so low as certain kinds of wool, similar in naality to the Scotch. He hoped the growers of short and long wool would unite, and not permit any diffe rence to injure the interests of both. The interests of tie manufacturers, he admitted, should be attended to, but then let a fair balance be struck between the kite• resit of both manufacturers and producers. They only asked for a COmmittie to inquire into the subject. Mr. P. THOMSON hoped Ministers would not grant a Committee. It most do mischief. The very appre hension of a change in the present law bad already done much harm, It was the duty of that House to take charge of the interests of the consumers, not of either the agriculturists or manufacturers. The producers of wool in this country were benefited by the introduction of the foreign article, fur by the mixture of the latter the manufacturers were enabled to use a much larger portion cf the former than they could others. He doubted very much whether it could be made out that the exportation of the manufactured article had oot in creased. From January 1827, to January 1828, the erpoitation to Germany was one million sterling. This could not be the case if the raw material of that country awe excluded. Sir C. BURRELL said, the interests of the agricul "fon ought to be attended to, but not to the exclusion of all others. He thought this subject ought to be in iluiteti into. He trusted the growers of long and short wool would unite in their efforts; not wialaingat the sms time that the Manufacturers should . be injured.— "he agriculturists proved that they felt no hostility to he manufacturers, for they readily came to their relief 'hen they sere starving. Their hostility was directed r h an the foreign farmer, not the British manufacturer. . i leia this country they were taking off the duties, I 'Se•lmPtriedit duty df 321. or SSI. per cent. on Eng lish woo l . Mr C. GRANT said, as appeals had been made to tas sovernment in the course of the discussion, and 11411 es expressed by Hon. Gentlemen to be informed ‘shst the inientions . of Government were upon this sub jectrlie-riould assure those Hon. Gentlemen that it was ll clt out of any di sres p ect f or t h em , or ou t of indifference tol GimpOttiqr:a question, that he shotild abstain at r_ ese utlfwwentering upon any of the topics which had wetu .a _touched upon. There was a notice fi xed for Mon. 1 31 "at, on the general question, and he thought it oilie r to abstain born offering any opinion until that !Notion came before the House. At present, however. as fully prepared to 'aster into it, and he thought Mould fully vindicate Government from the tenet 11% which had been thrown out upon the subject. C. WARD said, the Petitioners were opposed to the aPP4tment of a Committee. They thought much 16 1 4 t i h ic tef w had be en done fdrryser" ,X,..ommittee. In of the Petitioners that adjustment which the a griculturi sts now sought ' for had already taken place. S ir T. LETHBRIDGE contended that wool ought is Se Inotected, as well. as corn. The same principle a P._P 6 e d 1 0 • .b;4 no, wish to barbarize the ; and he would tell- the Ntible Lord (Milton) .; t i lOtost effectual way so barbarize it would be to , • - . _ • " ) 1 Itt igreukuri; . 44flassitralig.N=Wliat they cnr,k ik t e . f . d ism a due protection, to place dam oa a , 00ti n Vtab Le foreign producer. Otherwise...et 'was P c 'ssbk that wool . could taajiY• IThe export esr vioil had been promised to them as a boon, but it turned out n() such thing. Sixty million pounds of wool-had been iMpccated within the last three years and a half, whilethe moll of British Wool was only 400,000 pounds. The hope of an equivalent, held out to them, was therefore fallacious. They asked only to be put in a fair relative position with the foreign grower. Lord MILTON said, a duty was first imposed on, foreign wool in 1819, it being then found neces,ury to raise taxes to the amount of 8,000,0001. In 1824 Go. -vernment was made aatisfied of the impolicy of the tax, and Lord Liverpool agreed to its repeal. He sup ported liberal principles of trade some years back, in opposition to the sense of most of his constituents ; but they were now convinced that he was right. If the tax on foreign wool should be re-imposed, a positive bargain between the agriculturists and manufacturing interest would be broken. The Petition was read, ant ordered to be printed. Mr. WI L BRA HAM presented a Petition from Southampton, against the Friendly Societies Bill. Mr. WELLS presented a Petition from the Owners and Occu piers of Land near Stockbridge, Kent, praying for an increased duty on the importation of Foreign Corn. Sir J. GRAHAM wished to ascertain from the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade what qbantity of foreign grain had been expo? ted within the list year from the Northern ports of England to the Isle of Man, and what measure Government had taken to put an end to the practices of which he complained ? He understood that the extent of the evil was very great. Mr. C. GRANT said, it was undoubtedly true that the species of intercourse which the Hon. Baronet al luded to, as existing between Englartd and the Isle of Man, had lately increased very much ; and the state of the law was such, that he feared there was not any power vested in his Majesty's Government to prevent it. It was, however, his intention that night to give notice of a motion, which would have for its object to put an end to the practices complained of. CURRENCY. Sir J. GRAHAM said, he wished to ascertain from his Majesty's Ministers whether it was their intention to allow small notes to circulate in England in future? and also, whether the currency of Scotland and Ireland wins to be altered ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the questions were of great importance. His Majesty's Government saw no reason to depart from the arrange meat which had been made respecting the circulation of 11. notes in the year 1822 ; nor had they any inten tion of carrying that arrangement beyond the period then prescribed. No change had as yet taken place with regard to the circulation of Ireland and Scotland; but it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to introduce some measures for regulating the currency of tliche countries. With respect to the affording of facili ties to Joint Stock Banking Companies, that was not entirely in the hands of Government. It was a subject of negociation between the Government and the Bank of England. Mr. CURTEIS said he had heard nothing lately of the plan proposed last year of baying a joint standard of gold and silver circulation. The Petition was then laid on the table. Mr. F. WILSON presented a Petition from the Deanery of Pomfret against any concessions to the Cacholies, and a similar Pe tition from Leeds. Mr. DUND AS presented two Petitions front parishes in York• shire, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Lord G. BENTINCK presented a Petition from Alexander Hooker, against the importation of Fdreign Corn from the Isle of Man. Sir E. HARVEY presented a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Chelmsford, Essex, against the importation of Ftweign Cora. Mr. WESTON said, he was ioStructed by his constituents to support the prayer of the Petition which had been presented. The Hon. Member then presented a Petition to the same effect from Saffron Walden. Mr. MARSHALL presented a Petitiod from Leeds, against the Friendly Societies Bill, and a similar Petition from Whit- • church, in Yorkshire: ; and a Petition from Northington, praying for Catholic Emancipation. • Lord MILTON presented Petitions against the Friendly So cieties' Bill, from Sheffield and Stockport. The Noble Lord pre armed a Petition from the Surgeons of Sheffield and Wakefield, praying for facilities in procuring anatomical subjects; also two I Petitions from the City of York, praying for religious liberty, and a similar Petition•from the Roman Catholics of Leeds, and another to the same effect from Stamford, and another to the same effect from Oundle, iniNorthampton. Mr. P. THOMSON presented a Petition from Dover, against the Friendly Societies Bill. Mr. CUILTEIS presented a similar one from Brighton. Mr. BUCK presented a Petition from the Mayor and Corpora tion of Bideford, Devonshire, against any further conceuions to Roman Catholics. . Mr. H. GRATTAN presented four Petitions from Parishes in the Counties of Cavan aud Kilkenny, praying for Catholic Eman cipation. Colonel WOOD presented two Petitions from the Calvinistic Methodists of Newcastle, against any further concessions to Roman Catholics. Mr. CAULFIELD presented two Petitions from the County of Armagh, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Mr. DICKENSON presented a - Petition front Yeovil, ptaying for an Alteration In the Licensing System. CORN LAW ACT. On the Notion of Mr. Cstantats GRANT ) the House went into a Committee on du Cora Laves' Act. Sir ALEXANDER GRANT, as Chairman of the Committee, read the Best Itesohation—* That when. Barley was at 531. and adder 345. the protecting duty should be 125." Mr.E.WODEHOUSE said, he was anxious to bring under the consideration of the Committee a Resolution, of which he had given notice on a folmer occasion. - It was his intention to. propose an alteration in the mode of taking the averages, by including in the Returns .several Scottish and Irish towns not at present hamed in the measure. Another Amendment consequent upon this was, that instead of the words, " the prices as set tled by law," it be insetted, " the prices as they are to be'hereafter settled by law:' This, be conceived, would again . open the whole question, and afford an oppor tunity for better arranging the question. Mr. ti RANT thought, that the scale of protecting duty, as it was sow proposed by Government for regu lating the protecting duties on Oats and Barley, ought to be adhered - to, unless, indeed, it could be shown that there existed soave strong end urgent reasons for their change. Colonel SIBTHORPE, in rising pursuant to his nbtice, said, that be was ready to bow to the superior khowledge of the Right Honourable Gentleman below him upon this subject; but he would yield to no one in as anxious desire to advance the agricultural interests and general prosperity of the country. The Hon. Mem ber went on to observe, that light, or, as they were called in Lincolnshire, "heath lands," were well suited to the cultivation of barley, but were unfit for wheat ;, these lands ooght to be.protected, or, eke they must go set of cultivation. He found that, asking the last' eight years, there hid beeS impaled MO this country 1083,739 quarters of barley, of which 57,300 (platters still remained in bond. The Hon. Metilber, after some 'further calculations, conchicied by shoving, a s en amend ment, " that when Barley should reach shoving, and be un der 345. the duty should be 155." Mr. FERGUSON said the amendment had his most cordial support. It was now generally felt throughout the country, that the scale of protection contemplated l4st year for oats and barley was much too low. Mr. F. A t EWIS expressed his sutisriie at the course alien by Hon. Members upon this subject. He main.' tained that the prOposed everigt protection was the natural one, and was , fdnaded upon- the prop ittions which had . been maintained for years. If they were to give barley an undoe protection ! they would pro taato discourage the growth of wheat...which was the natural food of man. I.esides, they could not give an un d ue protection to barley without lessening its quantity; and the experience of 1826, when barley was scarce, was sufficient to show them what afeartul decrease such a circumstance was likely again to produce on our excise revenue. Mr. FERGUSON asked why they should raise the protecting price of wheat from that of last year, and not that of barley also? The lands capable of growing wheat were favoured, while the lighter lands, fit only tor growing barley and oati, Were neglected, and likely to be thrown out of cultivation. It was last year ad• mitred by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the protection extended to barley and oats was not sufficient.' Mr. ROBINSON objected to the alterations proposed by the Hon. Member fur Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorpe), and contended that they would have the effect of raising 4s. on 18s. He should oppose the Amendment, and also any alteration in the mode of taking the averages. He thought the landed interest too much protected already. Colonel SIBTHORPE said, that the protecting duty, as it stood, was 12s. 4d. and that proposed by him was 15s. milting a difference of 2s. Bd. Mr. CRIPPS confessed he was' one of those who wished that no alteration should be made in the pro posed scale of duties. It would, he thought, be better to let the Bill go as it stood ; but if any alteration were to be made in the scale of duties, he thought it would be better that it should be made in favour of oats rather than,barley. The country was but little indebted to barleY, while much advantage had been derived from the growth of oats. He objected to the terms of the Act s with respect to Barley, and he did so upon the opinion of men in business, who had told him that the Act was so obscurely worded that it would be impos sible for the most honest maltster to pursue it. He hAd no objection to the descending scale, which was framed with judgment; and no objection that he knew had beets made to it by the manufacturing interest. He thought that the agricultural interest was sufficiently protected by the duty at 58s. and 595., as about that point was the pinching place. Up to that point he thought the Resolutions wisely framed. Mr. C. GRANT did not think sthat the mere circum stance of an alteration having been made in the scale ut wheat afforded a sufficient reason for a similar altera tion in the price of barley. Each case ought to rest on its own merits. The scale of wheat had been altered, because the duty imposed by the last Warehousing Act had failed to exclude wheat, when its admission was injurious to the agricultural interest. When that Act was passed, barley was so much in request in this coun. try, that there were not enough for the distillerie , , and the average price for some time bad been 4.05. Under these circumstances, 200,000 quarters of barley had been taken out under the Act, and the wants of the country had been relieved; but that introduction of barley did tint put - it in a situation corresponding to that of wheat. .The Committee on whose Report the House had acted had stated, that the supply of barley was inadeqnate ; and in consequence of that the scale of barley had been raised last year. When the Resolutions were first brought in, wheat was at 60s. with a duty of 20s. At that time the price of barley was 30s. with a duty of 10s. but subsequently it was 325. with a duty of 12s. Applying The same rule of proportion now, would give a duty of 12s. on 30. while in fact the duty on 30s. was 15s. It was therefore impossible to say that the protection of barley was not now sufficient, since it actually exceeded the amount of the duty imposed at the time when the Hon. Member supposed the proportion between wheat and barley was truly preserved. He had a paper in his h4nd which stated the amount of the importation of barley, from the year 1800 to 1816, both inclusive.— During all that time, the price of barley was so very high, that the average price was found to be 41s. 7d. 345,000 quarters were found to have been imported into this country during these sixteen years; and at the end of that period the growth of foreign barley having received the most violent stimulus that had ever been given to it, the importation in 1817 anymnted to 133,000 quarters at 475. 11d. in 1818,690,000 quarters at 525. 2d. and in 1819, 372,000 quarters at 41s. sd. From these prices it might be seen, that even when the largest importation took place, the agricultural interest could not have been much affected. In 1827 the average price was 20s. 3d. now it was 335. and at that price, with a duty of 12s. it was impossible that the agricul tural interest could be injured. Mr. EDMUND WODEHOUSE thought the Right Honourable Gentleman's reference to the sixteen years, between 1800 and 1816 was unfortunate, since the small amount of the importations was the consequence of the war that then excluded us from the ports of &I mre; and yet the Right Honourable Gentleman had chosen that period as the one from which he took his averages. He wished the Right Honourable Gentle man had made the subject a little clearer, by stating the value of barley in Scotland and Ireland during that time. Mr. GRAHAM PIGOTT was of opinion, that un less some restrictions were put on the bonding system, the agriculturists must suffer. He thought a ship bring ing foreign wheat into this country ought to be made to pay the duty of twenty shillings on her entering port, or that at least she should register at that duty ; for unless she did so, they would do no good for the agriculturist. • Mr. LEYCESTER wished the House to guide them selves by the ratio of last year. That ratio was a de parture froM pre-existing systems, and as it was adopted after mature deliberation and full discussion, it ought to be taken as perfectly true and correct. It was said that in Mr. C.mning's Bill the .scale of oats had been raised, while that of wheat had remained the same.— That was no objection. The ratio there was taken be tween wheat and bailey on one side, and oats on the other, and great mischief would result to the agricul turists if it was departed front. Farmers had always a hankering after wheat crops, and if they were encou raged in that prejudice, they would not employ that succession of crops which was greatly for the benefit of the country. He should object' to any thing that had a tendency to make our population change their wheat food for oats or any other substitute. Mr.' BANKES said, theacale of last year had been raised with regard to barley and wheat, not to favour the growth of those grains more than the rest, but be cause the old scale was erranieous. Mr. PEEL -sand, that as the . proposal no* before the Cornmitt,eehed been adopted efter . diiture delibera tion, it was impossible for him to consent to change it in the manner required by the Honourable Member. l-lis reeiont der resisting the alteration-were these: In the cite of wheat, the price of last year had been found . insulteient ; foc,.,ueder the then scale, the importation ' had •been sucliobskit had been Inland necessary to . altei the price and rata of 'duty. Virby had not had the same tobarle: :e w; . th resi irthe imj lips of, sinaiiqoateraibili tlitltie linad. beete Siebliar 'demand for it. Bar, even as the _scale now .attiad.A s , was highakjar barlfro)isT4e - resriiiirr iii - ortrAinsr; than had ever been before known' in the Corn Lttws of this country, with the exception of last year. BUt they .had better not bind6theistrstlves merely .byAvita.t was done last, ye4r, but take etnalculation fclerfty years past, and find-the relation whiclrbarley. bore tir Wheat and oats. Taking the calcniation'of the la'stfiftY . yeari, and assuming as the ground of that - calcatsticin, that wheat was at 100 s. the proportion which barley bore ter' . that sum was 535. and that of oats 355. Assuiniak that to be the true scale, if the account was taken in the im perial measure, barley must be calculated at 245. Bd.ro be in proportion to wheat at 625. In order to maintain these relative proportions, when barley was it a price of 32s..the duty ought to be 13s. Bd. but the duty really ' proposed was rather above that amount, being, in fact, 135..10d. on a price of 325. • The criterion he had thus adopted seemed to him the best that could be resorted to, and by that criterion it appeared that the protection to barley had rather exceeded than fallen short of what was necessary. Mr. E. WODEHOUSE thought the Right Hon. Gentleman's calculation as to the relation between bar ley and oats, made on the average of the last 50 years, was riot to be depended on, as that period included a war of 20 years, which must have most materially af fected the averages, as barley could not have been freely imported during that time. Mr. PEEL observed, that the same cit cumstances which prevented the importation of barley and oats must have prevented that of wheat. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when a division took place. For the original Resolution 104 For the Amendment 47 Majority - - —57 On our return to the Gallery we found Sir A. Gamer proposing the Resolution, that when Oats were iss. and under 265. a quarter, that the duty should be 9s. 3d. Mr. FERGUSON did not consider that duty as af fording adequate protection. One half the land in Scotland could not grow wheat ; and though the Right Hoa. Secretary (Mr. Peel) considered the duty too high, there was not a farmer in Scotland who consi dered it enough. Taking Oats at 265, and the pelsle of Inverness (represented by the Right Hon. the Presi dent of the Board of Trade) were the only persons who thought that a far price,rhe duty should be 103.6 d. Such in increase was only in proportion with that which had taken place as to wheat, and he would, therefore, pro pose that sum be substituted in place of 9s. 3d. as now proposed. It was quite fallacious to take the averages for the last fifty years; it should be more properly taken for the last six years, and they would find, in that case, that he was not asking for too high a protec- • tion for Oats. Mr. C. GRANT saw no necessity for making any allusion to the county he had the honour to represent— he much respected his constituents, but in legislating on this subject,.he was bound to take it up as a general questirn, and to view it on a brdader basis. The rate of duty for oars was already more than sufficiently high : and the perusal of Mr. Jacob's report most dissipate any fears which existed on the subject. Looking at the prices at Amsterdam and caller shipping porte r there could not be the slightest temptation to grow any great quantity of oats with a view to a profitable sale in this market. After a few words from Mr. FIMGCMON and Mr. E. WCDEHOVSZ, grangers. were ordered to withdraw, when a division took place— For the original Motion • . . 101 For the Amendment ' . • • • 59 Majority . . . . --4 Mr. WESTERN complained of an alteration in the scale with respect to the propottion of the duty in the resolution respecting peas and beans. In all former Acts the proportion had been two-thirds, and it was now con• siderably lower. He threw himself, upon the candour of the Right Hon. Gentleman for the reason why that proportion which had governed all former law; should now be departed from ? The hoe culture; used in the growing of these articles, gave great employment to the agricultural labourer, and he thought the present a most inauspicious moment for decreasing the demand for that surplus of labour of which they heard so many com plaints on all hands. He asked for no additional pro= tection, but he asked for a reason why less protection was to be given now than•in any former instance. .He wished the ratio to be taken at 41s. instead of 375. and be hoped his proposition would receive the favourable consideration of the Committee. Mr. C. GRANT quite agreed with the Honourable • Gentleman in the importance which he annextd to *the-. culture of these articles; but he thought a special case must be made out before the proposition could be ad- , mined, and it would be, therefore, better to postpone the resolution. Sir E. KNATCHBULL contended for the necessity of protecting the growth of this species of corn,: as sup plying employment at a period of the year when it was difficult to be found. It was necessary to ascertain the price of beans and peas in the foreign market s and Alteit fix such a duty as would protect the British gtowev. - !'• Mr. WESTERN said, he had heard no reason why a lower ratio of protection should be given to these ties than to others. Mr. WARD said, that he had always considered the prices of foreign corn to be fictitious, inasmuch as they' depended entirely upon what was passing in this country. In legislating upon such a foundation, there fore, they were mistaking the cause for the effect. He thought the present measere a great improvement, and that Government did not deserve to have it met by.. obstruction in any of its stages. After a few words from Mr. Secretary Pm, Sir E. Ks.trcor . _ Null., Mr. WMIULN, and Mr. C. GILANT, the Committee divided upon Mr. WEST/Wei proposition for substituting 41s. for 57a. • • Ayes . . . . . 99 Woes • • • • • 43 Majority • • • • —56 The Amendment making the price 41.. when the duty is to corn. • mence, instead of 375. was therefore carried. Upon the other Resolutions being read, Mr. BENETT complained of the unfair method of taking the average, and recommended the ports of Scotland and Ireland to be included. . . Mr. Secretary PEEL contended that the effect of such a proposition being carried would be to add to the pro., tection already afforded by this Bill. The difference produced by taking in the price of corn in ports where the demand %Vas very trifling, must be very great ; and if the Hun. Member sought for any further protection, he would p►efer his proposing it at once in the shape of an addition of 7s. or Bs. to the present price, rather than by this method of altering the extent of averages. A long conversation then ensued on this subject, but the Resolu tion upon the Averages was finally agreed to; and the whole of the Resolutions being then adopted, the House resumed, and the lit pert was ordered to be brought up to.monwW. On the motion of Colonel DAVIES, the Cities and Borough. Polls Bill went through a Committee. - The House also went int o Committee on the Stamp Duties all. Several amendMents having been added by Mr. DA WSON, the House resumed.—Report this day. • The other (Itches of the Ay were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at HAL/. PASS 'wawa O'CLOCK. ~~ L I IRIi r i ,' t s I ..i" . ‘,. I , .. . ~.. ; .H, .i:. ; i i : ~ , 4 ~:.1 ; t'l 1 14 e I, . 11 ( ' ; ' c I 1 . , i I : i. ' 1 1; 1 11 .11 • 'l' 11 I -