The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-24 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, J UNE

LATEST PRICES OF SHARES
KW BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM-

PANIES' STOCK.

From the Official List,
PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIT
LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE
30XNT-STOCZE

DAY EVENING
23.
S.

Dividend Amount
Name of Ccmpanv. I er -
of- Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
--
---- - -
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Australasia .......... 6/. per cent. 40 0 0 40 0 0 27
Brash North American 51. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 4514
Commercial of London 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 23
`Jolonial .
Londn and Westminsir 6511.
. ppeerr
cceenutt..
110000
00
00
22 6
05
06
00
1..16%
London Joint-Stock .• • 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Metropolitan ••.•• • • • • - 25 0 0 710 0
Provincial of Ireland.. 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 48
Ditto, New.• •••• • • • 8/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 18 jr
National of Ireland .. 51. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 0 20
Nat. Provncial 01 Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 0 36
Dltto,•New.• ••• • • - 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Union of Australia -•• 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0 25%
Union of London. •• - . 51. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 11
_
INSURANCE COMPANIELI.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per Of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Albion ••••• • • • • • -Ia• 3/. 105 500 0 0 50 0 0 74
Alliance Grit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 18%
-Ditto Marine....... tit. per cent, 100 0 0 50 0 5%
Atlas .
British Commercial •• 7s.per share 50 0 0 50 0 7%
Clericl,Med.&Gen.Life Si. per cent. 100 0 0 210 0 61
County .......... „ „ 31. 100 0 0 10 0 0
,Irown ••••-•• •• • • -10 s. 50 0 0 5 0 0 -
Eagle • • •
Eng.& Scot. Law .... 51. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 2%
European Life • ..... 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20
Freemasons' ... ...... 51. per cent. 20 0 0 8 0 0
,=lobe ..... .......... si/. per cent. Stock. - 136
Guardian -- - ....... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 48%
Imperial Fire ..•• •• -6/. and bonus. 500 0 0 50 0 0 240
Imperial Life -• • • ... 12s. 100 Q 0 10 0 0 16%
Indemnity Marine.... it. sh & be. 100 0 0 513 1 29
Law Life............ IL ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 52
Legal and General Life - .50 0 0 20 0 6%
London Fire .. .. .. 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 14%
London Ship ........ 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 14%
Marine •••• • • • • ..... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 10%
Med. Invlid&Gen. Life 4%1. per ct. 50 0 0 2 0 0 3
National Lean Fund... W. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 2%
National Life......... 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 9%
Palladium Life... ... 51. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 2/. Os.
Ilicenix .. .. ...... . • 3/. p. ct. & bs. - - 205
Protector Life.... .. 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 1/. 3,
Provident Life.. - .. IL ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 23
Rock Lite- - - ...... _ 4s. 5 0 0 010 0 4%
!loyal Exchange Si. per cent Stock. -19 s
itui Fire 6l. los. - - 210
DittO Lire .......... 11. tis. - - 49
Universal Litt ....... 10341. pr cot 100 0 6 15 0 22
. 1
LIST or SCOTTISH comParrxEs. plezers.
Dividend Amount
Niune of Company, per of Paid. ! Price;
• Annum. Share.
1-
£ s. d. £ s. d
Bank of Scotland - 100 0 0 .167
Royal Bank of Scotland 6/. per cent. -- 100 0 0 157
British Linen Company 81. per cent. - 100 0 0 223
Commercial Bank - 100 0 0 161
National Bank ...... - 10 0 0 15
Union Bank of Scotland 7%1. pr cent. - 50 0 0 92%
Western Bank - .... - W. per cent. - 50 0 0 84
North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. - 5 0 0 7 4.,
Clydesdale Bank •.- •• 6/. per cent. - 10 0 0 •-, ',,,,
.
Eastern Bank 5/. per cent. - 120
100 00 ,•.' i Caledonian Bank -
Edinb.& Glasgow Bank 61. per cert. - 50 0 7%
City of Glasgow Bank . 51. per cent. - 10 0 0 13%
Scottish Union lns.Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 245. 9d
Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Incur. Co. of Seetlnd• • 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 91
North British Incur 5% /. pr cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 28
Caledonian Fire Insur lOl. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 22
Edinkurgh Life Incur 6l. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 18%
Edin. & Glasg. Railway 1/.los. per c. 50 0 0 50 0 0 75
Ditto, % Shares 78.6d. p. s. 12 10 0 All paid. 18
Edin., Leith, & Grantn - 20 0 0 20 0 0 15%
I Ilasgw & Ayrshir Rail. 71. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 73%
Glasgw & Greenck Rail. 21. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 16%
Glsgw&Ganikirk Rail. 51. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 40%
Dinglee& Arbroth Rail. 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 38
Standard LifeAssurnce.l 51. per cent. 150 0 0 210 0 9

DOCKS.
DividendAnil u,n .Amount Share,
Name of Company. per
of I Paid. Price.
--- -
X s. d. I £ 5. d.
Commercial •. - 78
East and \Test India 6l. pr cent. I Stock. - 141)6
East Country ..... • - 21
London• .* • - 114
At. Katharine •••• • • • • 5 per cent. I Stock. - 104
Southampton ••••• • •• , 4/. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 27)4
CANALS.
Names of ,I t 4 Dividend Price Names of EDividend
Companies.
.3 per Companies. .1 per Price
w
cn Annum.' c Annum.
----- --.. £
X
Ashtn & Oldh 97,5/.55. p c 70 sfonmouthsh 101, 81. 160
Ashby-d-la-Z 113 41. 70 Mntgomrysh 100 51. 98
Barnsley •• .. 160. 121. , 180 Macclesfield. 100 - 38
Basingstoke.. 100: - - Xeath -•• • • 100 171. 340
Brknk&Abrg 150 51. 85 Nottingham. 150 121. . -
Cromford -• • 100 141. 150 Peak Forest. 78 3E, 68
Dudley loo' 41. - Regent's .... 33 1/. ss. 22 h
Derby •• • •
Ellsmre&Chs 133 4/. 55 Shropshire .. 125 81. -
Eiewash •. • 100 321. 300 Somrset Coal 150 71. 105. 130
Forth & Clyd 100 41. - Do.Lk Fd St 12 6/. p. c. 11
GrandJunctn 100 71. 95)6 Stffrd &Wore 140 281. 290
Grand Union 100 11. 10s. - %Shrewsbury.. 125 15/. 230
Glamorgnsh . 172 13%1. 210 Stouts:l(lp.. 145 201. 315
Glstr& lirkly 00 - - IStrtfrdon Av 714 11. 105. -
Grantham • • 150 121. 100 , Sevens and 26 1/. 85. 32
Huddersfield. 57 - - i' Wye Rail. 3
Komi & Avu ._ 3.94_15. 6,l.______th_ocr.,t R., -
/ • . • . --.
Lancaster. • • 47 I/. 10s. - 1 sey, li sh. --
Leeds& Livrp 100 341. 520 'Thams &Med 19 - -
i.elcester , 140 10, 105 Worestr del 7S 21. 44
Leiestr & Nth 1 f 53 4/. 60 ' Binning'.
Lough Is3rogli ( 142 701. 1350 Wilts & Ili ks 67 11. 11
WATER-WORKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Pric,
Annum. Share.
X s, d.
.:ast London.. •••• . • • • 8/. 100 0 0 i - 210
,;rand Junction .... • • 3/. 105. 41 13 4 - 90
;
2/. 105. 100 0 0 1 - 70
Vauxhall - 57
West Middlesex ••. • • • 51.5 x. pr cut. 63 12 9 - , 130

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LOPDS, jeme 23.
Their Lordships met at ten minutes to Five o'clock.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up several
Bills.
THE SEES OF, ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
A NOELE LOUD presented a petition from Lincoln against
the union of those two sees, and praying for the immediate ap-
pointment of a Bishop for Manchester.
The Bishop of EXETER presented several petitions to the
same effect. The Right Rev. Prelate also presented a peti-
tion from the magistrates and other inhabitants of Wolver-
hampton, praying their Lordships to pass some measure which
will make it penal to carry on the trade of prostitution. He
was very glad to find that an Hon. Member of the other
House of the Legislature had given notice of his intention to
bring in a Bill to the same effect.
SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY.
Lord DEVON presented several petitions against this
project.

LORDS HARDINGE AND GOUGH.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to know what the
intentions of her Majesty's Government were with respect to
the Annuity Bills of Lords Hardinge and Gough. He thought
that the time had come when the subject should be taken into
consideration.

The Earl of RlPON•said that, on Tuesday evening next, he
should move that the report be brought up, and the intentions
of the Government would be announced.
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY.
Earl HARD WICKE presented a petition from Mr. Frede-
rick Brown in favour of the Oxford and Cambridge Railway Bill ;
and the petitioner requ ,sted to withdraw th , petition presented
from him a few nights since against the line. The Noble Earl
presented a petition from Aylesbury and other places in favour
of the railway.
A petiti, n from Spilsby, in Lincolnshire, was presented
against the Charitable Trusts Bill.

SCOTTISH (RAILWAY) CONSOLInATIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. H.
Adie, solicitor for one of the competing lines for connecting
England with Scotland, stating that a notice had been served
on him to deliver up the papers which had been entrusted to
him in his capacity as solicitor, and for the possession of which
he was resp6nsible. He prayed, therefore, that he might be
protected, and not be convicted of a contempt of their Lord-
ships by withholding such papers.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in his chat aster of
solicitor, he was perfectly justified in withholding the papers.
On the motion of Loru BROUGHAM, the petition was re-
ferred ro the Committee.
THE REV. MR. SHORE AND THE BISHOP OF

Earl DALHOUSIE—The difference is of no importance. If,
however, there was not a reduction of prices, it could not be
Iconsidered a matter of blame to the Government, for they had
1 endeavoured to doso by proposing this redaction of duty.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY, their Lordships
divided, when there appeared—
For the omission of the words 33
Against it
Majority
On our re-admission into the gallery, we found
The Duke of RICHMOND on his legs, speaking against the
proposed alteration in the item of hops. He considered that the
proposed alterations would materially affect the interests of the
home grower. The reason why great quantities of hops had not
been introduced into the country yet, was that it required three
years to prodflce a good crop; the home produce 'also had to
pay the heavy excise duty of 17s. 9d., which the foreigner
would not have to pay; it would therefore be placing them in
unjust and unfair competition. The average produce of hops
in Austria was 42,000 per acre, while it had been proved that
the cost of cultivation was 25/. per acre. Now the coat of cul-
tivation in this country was 42/. per acre, and he wanted to
know how the British producer could compete with the
foreigner under such circumstances as these 2—( Hear, hear.)
In Kent there were 250,000 acres of land devoted
to the growing of hops, and the capital which
bad been invested in the cultivation amounted to two millions
sterling. Every year an additional sum, amounting to upwards
of 900,0007., was invested in this land, and he believed
230X0/. was for labour alone. Now he wanted to know, with
these facts staring them in the face, how they could justly re-
dnce the duty imposed'on foreign hops for the protection of the
British produce. —( Hear, hear. )
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said they could net rely upon
such data as that given them by the Noble Duke, and he would
therefore pass over some of the Noble Duke's statements, and
come to the real question at once. Now. the nearest point
from whence hops couldbe brought tothis country was Belgium,
and they could not be imported from that country under six per
cent. . When they arrived In England they would have to pay
excise duties to the extent of 60 per cent. more than the
British producer. Surely this would be an ample protection to
ti-e hop interest of this country.--( Hear, heat.) At all
events he was convinced they could not with any fairness carry
protee,inn further than 60 per cent. —( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WICKLOW said Government, in carrying out
the free-trade prineiples, ought to repeat the malt tax. It
appeared to him that they wished to abolish every other duty
but this.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Lord AsHnuaTtm and Lord Con-
CHESTER, who were opposed to the change.
Earl STANHOPE said, hop-growing was a very pre-
carious trade, and it ought, therefore, to be well protected.
The Noble Earl the President of the Board of Trade had re-
marked that 60 per cent. was protection enough, while it
wouid enable Ergland to obtain foreign supplies in times of
scarcity.— (Hear, hear.) Why, did the Noble Earl know
that the hop trade of Kent was a vrfect juggle. and that the
grower never made any profit unless the crop failed him once in
three years? Indeed, a failure once in three years was brought
about to keep up prices.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of RIPON observed that the Noble Earl had ad-
duced a most extraordinary theory as an argument against the
proposed change.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, extraordinary though the
theory was, it applied to almost every trade in the country.
Government were now consoling themselves with the thought
that they had given the people cheap bread, and all the pro-
tectionists could do now was, to get up a cry of give the people
cheap beer with it, and repeal the malt-tax.--( Hear, )
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said, although he diff red from the
Noble Duke on many of his points, he agreed with him in this,
that the malt-tax ought to be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) He
quite agreed with his Noble Friend that no greater advantage
could be conferred upon the people of this country than a re-
peal of the duties upon malt, and if their Lordships would per-
mit him to say so, he contended that no greater boon could be
conferred upon the landed interest. The measure which they
were nos discussiug, although it was technically called the
tariff, was, in fact, the question of the repeal of the duty on
corn.— (No, no.) All these matters were merely subsidiary
and contributory to that great question. Very possibly the
Government could not have introduced the one without intro-
ducing the other. He was sure his Noble Friend would agree
with him that the question which they were then discussing
was, whether they should allow foreign corn to be imported
into this country free of duty, and he contended, that if they
were to have free trade in corn, they ought to have free trade
in beer, that necessary article of domestic use; and that it ought
to be imported into a man's house.free from the inspection or
interference of she exciseman.

Lord ASHBURTON said the Noble Earl who had just sat
down, had said that this was but the part of that one great
question, the repeal of the duty on the importation of foreign
corn. It was certainly a part of the great question, " Shall
we protect our native industry ?"—Hear, hear.) In that
respect then, he agreed that this question was
part of the question of free trade. The question
for their consideration was whether they should protect the
cultivation of their own land—whether their home industry
should be protected as far as the cultivation of hops. After
that, they would go into the question of shoes, boots, and all the
different articles of home manufacture. The question, as it
had been laid before their Lordships by the Noble Earl opposite,
and those who held the same opinions, was whether the menu-
'acturers, &c., of foreign countries should be preferred to the
labouring population of our own country. In that respect he
agreed with the Noble Earl, that it was one question only, and
that was, what they called free-trade.
The Earl of RADNOR said, that the cultivation of hops
was avowedly a gambling speculation. A very extensive
hop-grower in the county of Kent had told him so about two
years ago ; and he knew that it was the opinion amongst hop
growers elsewhere, that that business was entirely a gambling
speculation. In one year a man might realise by his hops several
hundred. pound., and in the next year he might be a most
ruined. And, with respect to the wages paid to the labouring
elasses in the hop-growing counties, ie cot,ld assure their
Lordship, that so low were the wages paid to them, that they
were in the most abject state of pauperism before the carrying
out of the late Act fix the amendment of the poor-laws. The
wages in those parts of the country were, on the average, less
than those paid in any other part of the kingdom.
Earl STAN HOPE admitted that the duties on malt ought
to he repe led, but he contended, at the same time, that the
People of this ronotry. from nna_p_stromity to the other. n'ere_ot.
',pinion that the Government ought at once to repeal the duties
also on tee, coffee, soap, and all such necee,ary articles of do-
mestic consumption. _ _

The article was then agreed to without a division.
On the article lace being real,
Earl STANHOPE rose for the purpose of giving his decided
objection to the reduction of the duty upon its importation, be.
lieving, as he did, that of the articles in the tariff this was un-
doubtedly the one on which the duty should not be repealed
The reduction of the duty on the article of lace would inter-
fere moat unjustly with the poorer portion of the labouring
clas.es of this country, and more especially those resident in
the county of Buckingham. Into whatever cottage their Lord-
'hips might enter in that county, they would find that the
wives and children of the labouring classes were engaged in the
manufacture of lace.: And what would be the consequences
if their Lordships consented to repeal the duty on this article?
The labouring classes of the people of Devonshire were largely
employed in the manufacture of lace. The wages at present
were as low as six shillings per week, and yet, low as that re-
muneration was, the Government proposed to deprive the poor
people of it. In Buckinghamshire the wages per week allowed
to a woman and one or two children, at present, amounted to
twelve shillings, and on that remuneration the labouring
classes in that part of the country chiefly depended for their
livlihood.' The proposal of her Majesty's Government, how-
ever, was that those poor people should be deprived of their
present remnant of protection. If there was one article more
than another on which the duty should not be repealed he con-
tended' that that article was lace.—( Hear, hear.) He felt
strongly upon this point, and he was determined to take the
sense of the House upon the question.
The Duke of RICHMOND—His Noble Friend had said
most truly, that of all other articles included in the tariff, that
of lace was pre-eminently the one on which the duty should not,
for the protection of the interests of the labouring people of
Buckinghamshire, &c., be repealad. At the present moment
the wives of the labouring classes of that part of the
country were employed in their own cottages in the
manufacture of lace, and their children were instructed by them
in everything pertaining to industry and morality.—( Hear,
hear.) Those habits of industry enabled the families at present
to purchase all the necessaries of life. Lace was an article
of luxury, and not necessary for any one. But what would be
the effect of this proposed repeal of the duty thereon on the
children of these parties? They would be deprived of educe-
ti ,n, clothing, and the comforts of life, which they now en-
joyed. But, of course, his Noble Friend was prepared to obey
the orders of his bish—
everything, and it could not be expected that he would be per-
suaded to withdraw his consent from any measures of the Pre-
mier. He (the Duke Sir Robert Peel—(Laughter)—in
of Richmond) should have the greatest
satisfaction of voting with his Noble Friend.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that it would have been
more appropriate, perhaps, if'the Noble Duke had termed Sir
Robert Peel his (the Earl of Dalhousie's) moderator instead of
bishop, as he happened to be a Presbyterian. But he denied
that he foil, wed Sir Robert Peel in anything that did not
appear to him (the Earl of Dalhousie) to be just and reason-
aLle.—(Hear, hear.) Those engaged in the manufacture of
lace would not, in his opinion, be injured in the least by the
passing of this measure.
Lord STANLEY locked upon this measure not as one cal-
culated, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, to benefit
the people of ;Lis country, but merely as a measure to fill the
coffers of the revenue. Thht had been the effect
of the measure of 1842, and he had no doubt that this
the
f expectationthia
measure.
stniiilawrasreL'rl°tsughwtouflor followward
w with
he
passing
reduction.mimeans
adnisd htoop
thee
They
yt hweeHr
were
House
iwtnogu d
withn ot consentlu a t
matter
the
which, proposedif i
t
might be one of indifference to the revenue, vi as not so by any
parties concerned, who were women and chit-
dren. And he would ask the House to deal in the same manner
with this article as they had done with regard to made-up
goods.
Earl DALHOUSIE hoped that the House would adopt the
sugage ews tiitohn
made-up of the N
gobolaedLa.orada,e andthat deal with
bi teh
bl aye e
notaa
s theygre
ehmalgi
to the amendment proposed, but'by imposing a rate of ten per
cent. ad colorant. In his opinion Mr. Deacon Hume never
went so far as to assert that 25 per cent, could give them
the same amr,unt of protection as 20 p
Lord STANLEY—Mr. Deacon Hume says that merchants
and traders will be willing to pay the 25 per cent. sooner than
risk of
hear.
ar. )
run the of paying 20 to the smuggler, and that the revenue
will
Earino not sufferl.nz w 1
at 125%
Aper a
aciedn
that. Heera cent.
Mr. Deacon Hume never
said that the same per tentage of duty would secure them in
every article. He was sure that Mr. Deacon Hume never said
that such would be the effect with regard to lace.—(Hear,
hear.) It might be so with regard to some bulky article, such
as co rn ,b u
a but' not
present
nlighter
e v, texture,asvery su cmhuacsh
that which
connected
they were
with a country where the lace trade existed, and he considered
that there was no employment less conducive to the moral cul-
ture of the young than this very manufacture. The trade was
inthat
d i s couf s
not carried on in the houses of fathers and mothers, but in
manufact,iries, and it also unfitted the women employed in it
for any other kind of work.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said it was a grievance in this
country that parents were too apt to employ their children in
such occupations as the lace manufactures from motives of cu-
pidity, and that at a time when those children should be at
school. He was aware of many who, from being thus early
employed, were totally ignorant of every other subject, and
agreed
dur to r ewrthdomuir on
any we f
were not even capable of mending their own
.clothes.—( Hear,
hear.) He would therefore support the reduction.
After a few words froth Earl Stanhope, the Duke of Rich-
mond, and the Earl of Galloway,
Strangers wa et ret orderedthe
c laasteo
ha withdraw.d
b e
been
a,,ee
On
division.
Earl STANHOPE rose to object to the reduction of two-
pence per square yvd on stained paper.
Lord ASHBURTON said that these reductions were the
mere pedantry of political economy. He would oppose the
reduction on the ground that it would reduce the wages of the
operative.
The Earl of DALHOITSIE did not dispute that certain
masters might take advantage of the reduction to diminish
wages, but he denied that suck would be the case with the
paper stainers of the country generally.
The item was then agreed to.
SILK.

On the reduction on silk being propnsed,
The Duke of RICHMOND regretted that their Lordships
414E4 Wide W the Pinta he Pude tut night, that they

should hear counsel at the bar relative to the effect of this re-
duetion. He thought that the course then pursued was inju-
dicious. He would ask why counsel was not beard? Was
there a fear entertained that the case would be too strong for
them to resist ? He would ask what were the operatives to do
when the reduction took place ?
The Earl of GALLOWAY—Give them cheap provisions.
Duke of RICH IIOND—The Noble Earl said "give them
cheap provisions ;" but if they had no employment and no
wages, where would be the benefit of cheap provisions ?
The Earl of GALLOWAY—If all kinds of provisions were
accessible to the working glasses, in proportion to their means
to purchase them, would the Noble Duke think that no be-
nefi. ?—(Hear. )
Duke of RICHMOND—That was the fallacy of all recent
proselytes to the principles of free trade. He would now
briefly refer to the petition, and he regretted that he was so
employed during the morning that he had not time to peruse
it beforehand. The petitioners stated that a great mistake
had been made with regard to the protection of 15 per cent.
They also stated the argument as to smuggling was either
sheer folly or intentional de'usion.—(Hear, hear.) The
gross annual value of silk goods manufactured in this
country at present was from two to three millions
less than in 1824 —( Hear.) He would detain their Lord-
ships no further upon the subject, but he thought when a large
class of the humble classes of this country asked to be heard
against a reduction which affected their interests they ought to
have been heard. He thought that when another Government
came into pffice, they would be obliged for the sake of the
revenue, to put on some of those duties which it was now pro-
posedHe would in conclusion move that the item
onsilktobetaokme iofitted.

After a few words in explana►ion from the Earl of GAL-
LOWAY and the Duke of BuccLrucH,

The Earl of DALHOUSIE regretted that he felt himself
called upon last night to oppose the motion of the Noble Duke,
but his reason for doing so was because he considered
it would be establishing a precedent which on future
occasions would materially interfer with public busines.
He did not think, however, that petitieners suffered
soy loss from counsel on their behalf not having been heard
at the bar, as the case bad been ably advocated by the Noble
Duke on the cross-benches. He would now refer to the duties
on the article of silk. The mode of levying the duties on this
article was a matter of extreme difficulty, arising from the
varieties, and the very delicate differences which prevailed in the
manufactured articles. It was impossible to levy a duty ad
saloon. for in that case it must have been necessary to have
examined the separate parcels, so great was the variety. But
that would have involved a loss of time to the officers employed
and to those interested in the manufacture ; and much more
this practice would have proved destructive to articles of so
very delicate manufacture as some of them were. If, however,
they levied the duty not ad valorem, but according to the
weight of the article, that would have raised the objections
so common in interfering with commercial transactions,
that they would be raising the highest duty on the heaviest
article, although that article would generally be found the worst.
It had been attempted on that account to make a classification,
and to give the parties concerned the option of a duty ad valo-
rem, or according to weight. Since the year 1824 (the year in
which a great change e as made in this trade), it was found
that the existing classification was become exceedingly unequal.
A new classification had therefore been made up ; silks and
satins end ribbons sere placed on tables by themselves, the,
different descriptions of fabrics, whether plain or figured. The
value of these separate articleo was ascertained, and the duty
was fixed at 15 per cent. on the average value. When he stet( d
that the duty had been imposed on the average value, he was
aware that some of these articles must be of a higher value, and
that therefore the duty on them must be somewhat less than 15
per cent., and on the other hand that some of them of a lower
value must necessarily pay a higher rate of duty than the 15 •
per coot. But on the whole of these article. the merchant
will find that he has to pay a duty of 15 per cent. These re-
marks applied to broad silks, satins, and silk gauze and ribbons.
In consequence' of representations made to the department
with which he (Earl Dalhousie) was connected, by the
manufacturers of Co: entry and the Member for the place,
these parties had been pet in communication with the proper
officers of the department. And classifications and modifica-
tions had been made, which he understood were quite satisfac-
tory t. the parties. His (Earl Dalhousie's) reason for not
hearing counsel at the bar was, that the argument, however ably
conducted, and the examination of an array of witnesses would
not have led their Lordships one bit nearer the point which
occupied their attention. The duties, he said, must be fixed
by the usual, the experienced officers, put in communication
with those men practically engaged in the trade, and versed in
its details ; and, accordingly, the present classifications and cal-
culations for fixing the duties had been left to the officers and
these parties. The duty fixed was 15s. per cwt. on the average
value. If, however, the question before the House had been
the general duty, he must remind them that that question bad
been before the House. and they had given their deliberate opi-
nion on it—an opinion contained in this Bill, and
that was that 15 -per cent should be levied on the
average value. He would now come to the second point in the
petition, the past experience of the petitioners, that the legis-
lation for the last twenty years had produced an alteration in
their trade, by giving an advantage to the foreign manufac-
turer, and thereby bringing ruin upon the home trade. It
would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that the language
used by the petitioners was the same as that made use of by
those who opposed the progress of these measures, both in that
House and in the other. These were in the habit of saying that
the effect of these measures would he, that the trade would be
destroyed, the capital would be withdrawn, and the trade would
entirely go down. How were they to determine this question ?
If the silk trade had failed, if the capital had withdrawn from
it, if the silk mills had been stopped, if the imports of the raw
material had diminished, if the number of those employed in it
had decreased; if all these had taken place, the worst tears and
prophecies of these parties had proved true. But if the opposite
of these had occurred—( Hear, hear)—if the imports of
the raw material had increased, if the manu-
factures for the home market had augmented,
if the exports had increased, then these statements about the
ruinious effects of this course were false.—( Hear, hear.) He
would sho W that it. was so from the returns which had been laid
on their Lords'nips' table, from the period since the conclusion
of the war up to 1844. He must observe that the raw ma-
terial was divided into three descriptions, the raw material
properly so called ; the waste, the knubs and husks ; and the
ihrown siik. (The Noble Earl was about to quote fioin the re-
'urns when he was interrupted by a remark across the table
Iron] Earl Stanhope.) The Noble Earl said he would attend
to the points which had been alluded to. It haft been said that
in the returns on their Lordships' table the waste, knubs, and
husks and the thrown sill had been combined in the amount
given for the raw material. But he begged toobserve that if by
means of science they could now manufacture articles from that
waste as good as they were able to manufacture in former years.
he saw no reason why the waste should be excluded
from the returns. But, in giving his quotation, he would
take no account of the waste, knobs, and husks, or the thrown
sdk. The importations of the raw material for the ten years,
from 1814 to 1823, amouie iss to 15,2 Al,oolzlbs. In the re-
'urns tor the years 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, an account of the
waste, knubs, and husks had been 'included, hut he would
make every reasonable allowance—such a deduction as must
satisfy the Noble Earl (Stanhope). He would take the
amount given in these for the year preceding, and for that
which followed those he had mentioned, and making his cal-
culetion on such data, deduct accordingly. For the ten years,
then, from 1824 to 1833, he found the gross am( unt
given for raw material imported, waste being included,
was 32,916,000 lbs. ; and making the deduction for
waste and thrown silk, there would be left 31,553,000
lbs. In 1824, the great change was made, which re-
moved entirely the prohibition on foreign manufactures.
The increase for the next ten years was annually 1,521,000 lbs.i
in the next. year 3,500,000 lbs., then 3,742,1)00 lbs., and from
that it increased to 4,310,000 lbs., so that while in ten years
it had so increased, could their Lordships, with that fact staring
them in the face—could they, he repeated, believe the allega-
tion in the petition that the reduction in the duty had caused
ruin to the silk trade by the introduction of the foreign
import, when this great increase of the raw material had
followed that reduction. In the year 1845, there was an in-
crease of the import of the raw material amounting to 200 per
cent. over that of the import prior to the reduction of the
duty. Such, then, had been the increase of the raw
material as compared to the trade previously to 1824. Indeed,
for two hundred years prior to that year there was not a
system of high protection, but a moderate duty. With the
increase of the import of the raw material, the Noble Lord had
failed to prove that the reduction had been injurious to the
trade. It was well known that the price of the .article silk
was a great restriction on the general use of the material. The
reduction of the duty enabled the great mass of the people to
wear silk dresses.—(s‘ No," from Lord Stanley.) The Noble
Lord would surely admit that all servant women now wore silk
gowns—they wore them now the same as they wore cotton ones
twenty years ago. This was a proof that the reduction of duty
which had taken place, did not injure the trade, but on the
contrary had greatly served it. It gas well known that the
trade would very materially increase, but for the difficulty of a
supply of the raw material. The china market was now open
to us, and from the supply 6f the raw article from that
country there was every expectation of the trade increasing.
France was the great silk manufacturing country, and
was still able to outvie all other nations in the beauty of
that fabric, but he hoped that it would not be for long—had
had an impartation of our manufactured article, and that spoke
most favourably of the prospect of our trade..--( Hear, hear.)
When their Lordships considered the allegations contained in
the petition, which complained that the trade in silk had been
destroyed, they would no well to remember that he had shown
the import of the raw material to be three-fold. arid that,
instead of the trade being injured, it -was progressing.
—(Hear.) He was of opinion that the petitioners had failed
to show that the trade had been destroyed, or even injured
ever so slightly, by the change which had taken place. He
had been told that the population of Spitalfields had materially
decreased. He did not deny that fact. But it should be re-
membered th it the reduction of the population there had taken
place long before the reduce ion of the duty. This was occa-
sioned by the Spitalfields Acts, which had pressed upon them
long ago. Those Acts had been done away with, and deputa-
tions had often waited upon him (Earl Dalhousie), since he
had the _honour of being connected with the Government, for
the purpose of having the law re-enacted.—( Hear, hear.) The
Acts bound the employers to pay a certain price, and no more
nor less, and bound the employed to take no less, and demand
no more. This restriction upon the free exercise of labour
caused the Spitalfields weavers to take their labour into other
markets, where these Acts had no effect, and thus it was the po-
pulation of that place had decreased. They must not accept the
amount of work done as any conclusive evidence of the rate of
wages paid to the operatives. By the improvements in ma•
chinery. though as much might not be paid for a given quantity
of silk wove, it did not follow that there might not be more
paid for the amount of work dune in the day than
there was before. If, because there had been a reduction of
wages paid to silk weavers they were to conclude that the trade
was in a languishing and fading condition, they must consider
the same of all other branches of hand-loom weaving ; for in
every one of them a reduction had taken place.---( Hear,
hear.)
All kinds of hand-loom weaving had been affected in ;
similar manner. The report of the Commission appointed to
inquire into the condition of the hand-loom weavers, proved
that the distress and reduction of wages among that body did
not arise from competition with foreign producers, but arose
from competition between the weavers of this country. ---( Hear,
hear.) Hand-loom weaving was easily learned. They were
generally employed at home, and assisted by their families, and
the result of the competition among them was, that not only the
silk trade but all other branches into which hand-loom weaving
enteral had been reduced in wages —( Hear, hear.) The com-
petition of weavers with weavers was enormous, and
that was the cause of the reduction in their wages.
It was a case in which Parliament could not
apply a remedy, at least not by the exclusion cf foreign com-
petition. The Noble Lord here read an extract from the re-
port of the Factory Inspectors of last year, to show that
.the
condition of those engaged in the silk trade bad greatly un-
proved, and that the demand for labour bad been verywould
great.
In many instances a rise of wages had taken
idhaticte.all this im-
only advert to one point more. It was said
provement had taken place under. the oldsysttem, and was no
proof that the new one would work well. Bat be would in-
been under the new form their Lordships that they bad
r—that was, from the 16th
sys-
tem for the last quarter of the yea , ..
of March. By a Treasororder, on the. resolutions passing
the House of Commons, the various articles in the tariff had
been introduced duty freer. And what was the result ? The
following would show. The following return of manu-
factured silks was taken from the Custom-house, and
contrasted with the imports of the corresponding months
in 1844 and 1845. In the four months of 1844,
the amount imported was in value 129,500/. ; in.
' the for Egutlai of Voroti, ; While Lk the feu smith'

since March 16, the amount was 158,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
This showed that, compared with last year, a considerable in-
crease had taken place. Now, let them take the importation
of raw.silk during the same period : —in the four months of 1844
the quantity was 912,0001b5. ; in 1845, it was 1,617,0001h5. ;
and in the four months just ending, the amount was
1,916,0001b5. ; thus showing an increase from 912,0001bs • to
1,916,0t:01b5., or an increase of 100 per cent. ; and a far
greater increase than had taken place in the importation of
manufactured silk. He would now speak of the effect cf the
measure en " throwsters," or those who were engaged inform-
ing twisted silk and thread cut of the raw material. A reduc-
tion on foreign thrown silk was made last year, and strong re-
menstrances were made at the time. In the same returns from
which he had quoted, it appeared that from 1814 up to 1823,
the amount imported on the average was 360,00011,5.,
%fele for 1834 to 1840, the average was 265,000,
showing a reduction as compared with the former
period.—(Hear, hear.) In 1844, the total amount
of raw silk imported was four millions of pounds, while the
whole thrown silk brought in was 410,00014. The propor-
tion of thrown silk to raw silk imported was, therefore, 10
per cent. Now, let them compare that proportion with what
it was during the former period to which he referred, and they
would find it formerly was 23 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) The
relative quantites in 1844, 1845, and 1846 were, in the four
months to which he had previously referred, as follows :
Raw Silk. Thrown Silk.
18" ...... ••• 912,0001bs 135,0' 01b.
1845... ...... 1,600,0001b5.... 157,0001b5.
1846 ......... 1,906,0001bs ....136,0001b5.
This showed that the proportion of raw silk in 11346 to 1844, was
1,006,0001 W. to 912,000Ibs.—an increase of 1,000 per cent.,
(wiihtelear,thheeaarmoounwt
iothf
respectthr, ,wn silkto th
the
had a
rtie s actuallye ng
adaeecdre aisne d .th—e
silk trade, he would inform their Lordships that
there never was a time when there
prosperity or more full employment. Hear, washear.) greater
in
Spitalfields itself there had been a great improvement,
and the
same had taken place throughout the country. A short time
ago he heard that a meeting of the silk-weavers in Spitalfields
had been held, and a resolution come to, to solicit a rise of
wages. A gentleman had informed him that the rise in
wages had been solicited, and in many instances it had been
acceded to. This showed that the trade was in a healthy and
flourishing condition. He had now tried to trace the progress
of this trade, and he had endeavoured to show that the .mea-
sures which were said to be based on such fatal and mis-
chievous principles, had operated quite otherwise ; that they
had stimulated industry—increased the demand for employ-
ment—extended the exports and enlarged the imports of the
country—and had generally improved the circumstances
of ail parties concerned.—( Cheers. )
Lord STANLEY said, that after the speech just delivered
by the Noble Lord, no one could doubt but that anything
could be proved by figures. The Noble Lora had, from his
\access to documents and figures, derived information which
pro,luced an effect that he (Lord Stanley) tuts not surprised
at, end which, in the absence of the case counsel would have
presented on the other side, had that been permitted, he cer-
tainly did not hope to e.•ual in effect upon their Lordshipv.
His Hon. Friend had not established his case. He had at-
tempted to prove a ground for this great reduction of duty,
which they were now called upon to sanction. If hi, Hoe.
Friend had proved anything. it was that the silk trade at the
present moment was in a good condition—that the imports and
exports et silk were largely increasing. But if his Hon. Friend
was goink on to prove that the present prosperity was owing to
the great alteration which had taken place in consequence of
the principle of free trade, he was wrong. Admitting, how •
ever, the fact of our being so prosperous, and that this
enormous importation was now taking place, his Honourable
Friend went en to sae that they should interfere with all
this, and reduce the duties on the ma, ufactured article, trust-
ing that he would not injure the producers of this country by
competition. First of all, he differed% from his Noble
Friend as to the facts he had stated. He differed from the
facts he bad adduced with regard to the prosperity of the silk
trade in 1824, and he differed from him, more especially as to
any facts he had preyed, for he had proved nothing.- The
effect of which he had spoken was not produced by the dimi-
nution of the duty on the raw article, for if they took off the
duty on the raw article they would see afterwards that a con-
siderable increase had taken place in the consumption of that
article. He was not surprised that, after the year 1824, a con-
siderable increase had taken place in the consumption of the
raw material in this count.y, but the increase did not take
place at the time, or in the manner, or to the extent, to which
his Noble Friend had alluded in his speech. His Noble Friend
was extremely ingenious in the statement which he had made
to the House ; and, by any one who did not look
at the facts before them, he was quite s sure that
his Noble Friend's statement would have been accepted as
conclusive. 'He would not trouble the House with figures, but
if they looked at the immense improvement which had taken
place in the decennial period before the year 1823, they would
find that the average importation amounted to 1,520,000 lbs.
weight, and in the single year 1844 they imported 4,021,000
lbs. It sounded very well from his Noble Friend, whom he
hoped to have seen there to hear his expression. He would not
go to decennial periods, but to more conclusive arguments.
By the progress made by the silk trade, both before the altera-
tion was made in the law and afterwards, he thought that he
could induce them to admit that the free-trade measure had
not been of any benefit. He would take the amount of silk
imported in the ten years before the year 1823, and compare it
with the consumption which had taken place up to the year
1844. The average in the three years 1815, 1816. 1817—he
spoke with regard to the raw material—was 1,388,0001b5.
The average in the years 1818, 1819, 1820, was 1,844,0001b5.,
and the average in 1821, 1822, 1823, was 2,325,0001b5. In
1824 was prodwoed 3,884,0001b5. Now, before the principle of
free trade came into operation, the increase from the year 1815
to 1824 (a decennial period which his Noble-Friend found it
convenient to take) was from t,000,3881b5. to 3,884,0001 be. on
the raw material alone. The duty was reduced in March,
1824, and in 1824 the importation amounted to 3,884,0..01b5.
The increase in the three triennial periods, from 1815 to 1823,
was an increase of one million on the raw material. Now let
them go to a period beyond that, and ascertain the imports of
raw silk. In the year 1822, the raw material
amounted to 3,880,0001b5., showing, as he had said,
an increase of a million. His Noble Friend did not
like per tentage, and the absence of it would make
his case the stronger, for ke could roundly state that there had
only been an increase of one million in six yeare. In the sear
8.24, there was introduced into the country 3,800,000 lbs.,
and in the year 1844 were introduced 4,400,000 lbs.—( Hear,
hear.) The increase went on at a much greater rate before
the introduction of Mr. Hu-kisson's measure than it did njw,
for while the increase before its introduction was 1,000,000 lbs.
in six years, the increase since it had liaised was only
800,000 lbs. in the last twenty years. The duty was
taken (ff the raw material in 1824, and the
duty, was afterwards taken off the finished material.
The Bengal and waste silks were m;xed up in equal qoantities,
and were made up in articles of the value of of 7s. 6d. per lb.
Bengal silk cost 20s. per lb., and Hellen silk cost 475. per lb.
He mentioned that it was not a matter of indifference whether
the increase had been in the best sorts of si.k or in the knobs
and husks. The export trade in silk was not an increasing
trade, for in the year-
-1826 the exports were £291,000
1831
1846 709,000
But it might be said, take the case of a single year. He
would do so. In the year—

1840 the exports were £792,000 1
1839 ... 896,000
1838 760,000
1836 917,000
1835 07.3,000
Of the quantity of goods sent to France, a great quantity was
formed of these knobs and wastes. From the year 1844 to the
year 1845, 159.0001b5. bad been exported ; of these, 93,000 re-
presented 245,0001b5. twist and yarn made up of knubs and
husks ; and the value of these articles was only 7s. per pound.
He was sati-fled that the greater part of the exports to France
was made from this Bengal silk, mixed up with these knobs
and husks. He followed his Noble Friend through the exports
and imports of these articles. His Noble Friend had
stated a reason for the stagnation of the silk trade
from a paper which he held in his hand (Durant's Circular).
On the Ist of January, 1846, the stock on hand was 15,715
bales, while in most previous yt ars it had not amounted to more
than 12,000 to 13,000.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had
not upon that occasion ventured to put forward the question
of smuggling. He had not urged upon them the necessity of
preventing smuggling ; but upon a former occasion he did state
that it appeared from the return of the French Custom-horses
there was a larger amount of goods shipped for England than
paid duty here. Now, he (Lord Stanley) did not deny there
was a great deal of smuggling carried on beta een this country
and France, but he believed that of all articles, there was less
smuggling by way of running goods in silk than any other
article.--( Hear, hear.) And what smuggling did take place
in that article was carried on through the connivance of their
own Custom-house officers. He held in his hand a return of
the number of persons convicted for smuggling. The total num-
ber convicted was 755, and of that number 511 were for smug-
' gling tobacco, 171 for smuggling spirits, 11 for smuggling tea,
and only ten persons for smuggling silk.—( Hear, bear.) Since
the last time they debated this subject, he had looked into Mr.
Deacon Hume's evidence of 1835, and he found that gentle-
man recommended 33 per cent. as the maximum duty for
protection to the silk trade, and 25 per cent. as an increase
Fluty to guard against smuggling. Therefore, he said that, as
far as- smuggling was concerned, there was no case made out
for the further reduction in the duty. It had been representt tl
tc him that the.proposed duty, instead of being as it was rept c-
tented a duty of fifteen per cent., would be a duty
of seven per cent. on some goods, eight per cent. on
others, and nine per cent. on others. This arose from the
duty being levied according to the weight, and not upon the
value of the goods. Now, he could see no reason for departing
from the old and usual mode et classifying silks; and to show
what result the change had produced, he might mention, that
twenty-four pieces of figured silks had passed through the
custom-house that morning, which, under the old classification
would have produced 25.. 10s. at a duty of ten 'per cent.,
while. under the present system of levyi .g the duty according
to weight, they had only paid 12!. 10s. It was proposed to levy
the duty on riboons Is. the same manner, but on a representation
of its injustice and impolicy being made to the Board of Tradt,
by the Hon. Mr. Ellice, and the ribbon macuhfeacetoourildesu,o)ft
Coventry, the old classification was adopted ; anti
see why the same should not he dot.e with re,' rd
He was competentto enteritnot I }i.e;-
!Tear, hear.) e
details, or to explain the rminutiae of th e silk trade, but 1,
must be plain to their Lordships, and to sense, that there would be a manifestirtjvuesrlicV man ofe
committed in
common
proportion to the applieati n thi se dirtie
tog in amount from 51)/. to 1001. s on ahrtiarcaleesd with
v
more duty ; and when, for the firstpe time,
enmceto;isor
reductioncith
vary
took
place, notwithstanding the principles which their Lordships
had always hitherto recognised.—(- Hear, hear.) Well.
now, he had not the means, undoubtedly, of satisfy-
ing their Lordships that his Noble Friend,
supposed that has address was a mos:,
who,
silk trade no
ofdoubt, triumphant
one.t
i s
Was mistaken in his statements n
this country, but his arguments with
in that trade were ts,htorefterence to the wages
sv,
and employment of people concerned
k e ethat from 18.'26 to ,
erro-
neous. This he (Lord Stanley)
there was, as appeared by the evidence off Itt Is re.
ofG Commons
ro a , w hIN32 o
was examined before a Committee of the
in 1831, a large and progressive decrease in the number cf
employed in the silk trade—there was
spindles and people employed
of mills standing still. He (Lord
a large increase tphee
Stanley) had not the ocuracnta to refer to, but the accounts
which he had received from private individuals was very much
at
had
ewith the statements made by his Noble F. lend who
I lately addressed them. Now he would beg their Lordships
to recollect that there was one article in the silk trade in which
there had been an important falling off in the wages of the la-
bourers in that trade, and that one article was the
article of fieured velvets, upon which the highest protecting
duty to this day was 11. 7s. 6d., he believed, but by this in, a.
sure the Government proposed to reduce the amount to 93.
per lb.—( Hear, hear.) 'They were going to reduce that duty
which, according to Mr. Deacon Hume, eras only 30/. per cent.
in the year 1824. The effect of their present proposal would
be to reduce it two-thirds. Notwithstanding the statements
of his Noble Friend, as to the prosperous state of the silk trade,
ho (Lord Stanley) had learned that not only in Spitalfields, but
in Macclesfield, and in other parts of the country, the silk trade
was in a declining state.—( Hear, hear.) He could only state
the evidence of private individuals on this subject, but
the Noble Lord had only offered them similar evi-
dence in support of this measure.--(llear, hear.)
He should certainly be surprised to hear his Noble Friend say
that there had not been a decrease in the manufacture of plain
silks, and the wages of the people employed in the manufacture
of them. The wages he bad lately heard, had decreased in
lonadsa f_vlaa Lb 444 sad 44 41,1 to Lo.

.S aJ N
•
of •
v!!' •
::yen ac,ured by the most,eminent OK- r. tA, t ,
trai.e was gradually declining since • ,z-"
of what were called the principles ty Apr NT
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord conel9l •
•
that this measure was, in his opinion, not called fin *by Policy
or wisdom, nor justified by the arguments which Cad been
adduced by his Noble Friend, and he would only. vi.. 44, as
a very inferior, but not altogether unimportant considOratilms
that the effect of this measure would be still to redu.ce that
revenue. derived from our imports, by reducing the duty- mug
half of what it was at the present moment, and by which wed
realised about 332,0001.,( Cheeri. )
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Hottiot
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
The item was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was reported with-
out amendments.

50

It was then agreed, on the motion of the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON, that the Bill should be read a third time on
Thursday next.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter past Twelve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, .Tune 23.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

REPORTS

The reports on the following Bills were considered and
agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed, viz. :
Blackburn and Preston Railway ; Dublin, Dundrum, and
Enniskerry Railway ; Eastern.Ccunties Railway Stations En-
largement ; East Lancashire Itzilway (Deviation and
Branches); Enfield and Edmonton Raikzay , London and Bir-
mingham Railway and Birmingham Canal Arrangement;,
London and Birmingham Railway (Aylesbury Railway Pur-
chase); London and Birmingham Railway (Coventry ter
Nuneaton); London and Birmingham Grand Junction
(Manchester and Birmingham Railway Amalgamation);
London and Birmingham Railway (Weedon and Northampton
Branch); North Union Railway; North Wales Railway;
St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Railway; South Eastern
Railway (from the Greenwich Railway to Chart, near Ashford,
with Branches to Tunbridge and Riverhead); Sbrewsbary,
Osweasry, and Chester Junction Railway (Crickheath and
Wpm Lines); Shrewsbury, Oswe:stry, and Chester Junction.'
Rail
way (Extension and Deviations); Wath-upon Im-
provement.

THIRD READING.
The following Bills were read a third time, and it:—
piaged, • v
Ardros.an Municipal. Police and Improvement—Forth 30
Clyde Navigation and Bowling Bay Improvement—lpswich'
and Bnry St. Edmund':' Railway (Norwich Extension).—
Sheffield. Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield, and
Goole Railway—Stockton Gas—Wakefield, Pontefract, and
Goole Railway, and Port, &c., of Goole.
COVENTRY._NpNEATON, BIRMINGHAM AND