The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-18 00:00:00

CUSTOMS' BILL.

Tha clauses up to 7 were agreed to, after a slight discus3ion
on clauses 4 and 5, which was, however, in no degree im-
portant or interesting.
Clauses 7,8, and 9 were agreed to, after a few words from
Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, and-Alr. Foster. . _ .

Clauses 10 and 11 were then agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.

On clause 12 being put,
Mr. EWART said he thought that foreign coffee and cocoa
should be reduced to the same rate as that upon colonial coffee
and cocoa.

Mr. BARING was anxious that this subject should receive
the attention of the House. There was another subject to
which he wished to call the attention of the Right lion. Gen-
tleman opposite. There was a clause in the Bill which stated
that persons sworn before the Surveyor-General, and who had
given false testimony, should be liable to be prosecuted for
perjury. Now, a case occurred—he would not mention the
names of the parties—from which it would appear that the
assent of the Commissioners of Customs should be given. If a
wrong
person swore falsely, which was useful to the revenue and ,
against another party, he could nut be prosecuted without the
consentzon of the
the reveiaCommissionersue,te ;
mbuigthit be
fheproswie-ocruetewdllTitthwouats
g a
aagainst

larger during the years of low duty, than during the years of
high duty. The average exportation of British woollens from
1816 to 1819, the years of high duty, was 8,127,000/. per year.
The average importation of the same commodity during
the corresponding three years of high duty, from 182 J to 1823,
was 6,014,000/. From 1821 to 1824, the South Down wool
averaged at 2s. per lb. ; Kent wool, Is. ; Highland wool,
2s. 10. New these were the three years of low duty. During
the years 1820, 1821, and 1822, the three years of high duty.
South Down wool averaged at Is 34(1. per lb.; Kent wool at Is.
11d. ; and Highland wool at Is. 40. In 1823 the duty was
reduced from 63. to Id. per lb. The lowest price of wool for
the last 2') years was, in 1829, when South Down wool aver-
aged 7d. per lb., and Kent wool 93. In the same year,
21.000,000 lbs. of foreign wool were introduced, being a much
smaller quantity than in any former year. This, in the very
year that home-grown wool was lowest in price, the smallest
quantity of foreign wool was introduced. In 1836, when the
prices of British wool were highest, there was the largest im-
portation of foreign wool. In 18:29, the price of South Down
wool, as he had already stated, was 7d. per lb., when so small
a quantity of foreign wool was imported; whilst, in
1836, when a large quantity of foreign wool was
imported, South Down wool sold for Is. sd. per lb.
In 1836, instead of 21,000,00t)lbs. of foreign wool being
imported, there were no less than 64,000,0001b5., being the
largest amount imported for the twenty years preceding. The
conclusion to be drawn from all these facts must be obvious
and irresistible —that the price of homegrown wool was
higher in those years when the duty on foreign wool was least,
and that when the duty on foreign was highest the price of
borne-grown wool was lowest. Now, this might seem strange,
but let it be recollected that foreign wool and home-groan
wool were not rivals—that they were not articles in competi-
tion, and that, as they were mixed, in order to make a better
article, the sale of the one improved in proportion as the other
was more attainable, so that they might as well take the duty
off tea whilst the duty remained on sugar ; in order that the
reduction should be beneficial, it must be simultaneous on both.
He was sorry to have detained the House so long, but he
thought that, looking to the situation of the country, any injury
which the wool growers might suffer would be more titan
counterbalanced by the good which would be done to the ma-
nufacturing interests by the measure.
Mr. MILES said he knew from experience that this duty
upon wool was looked upon in the light of a protection by the
growers. He had, sometime back, moved for extensive re-
turns, which would show the state in which the British farmers
were placed, and prove the impossibility of their competing with
the foreign wool-growers. He was sure that the quantity of
long wool imported into this country was not at all sufficient
to justify the abolition of this protection to the agriculturists.
If he looked to the imports of 1843, and compare them with
those of 1842, he would see an extraordinary increase in the
woollen manufactures. In 1813, the imports were 6,790,000 lbs.,
while in 1842 they were 5,195,000 lbs. The remission of those
duties would not at all benefit the consumer. He had most
anxiously sought for the returns to which he had alluded in
order that every information might he laid before the House.
With regard to the Australian colonies, wool was the staple
product which they exported to this country, and it had vastly
increased of late years. In the year 1831, the amount of
wool imported was only 2,493,337 lbs., while last year it had
increased to 17,483,060 lbs. ; and ho thought this showed
that the protective duty was a stimulus to the farmers in that
colony. After what had occurred last year he was sorry to
see this duty taken away at the present moment, when the
agricultural interest were in some degree reeovering ; and he
felf this regret the more when there were so many other ar-
ticles from which the duty might have been removed with
much less injury, which, he hoped, would be done eventually.
Mr. C. WOOD was glad to hear the Hon. Gentleman ex-
press the hope that those duties would be remitted. He
differed from the conclusions of the Honourable Gentle-
man, drawn front the data which he had given to that House.
The increase in the importation of wool from the Australian
colonies had been so enormous—the importation being, in
1831, two millions of pounds' weight, while in the last year it
had been upwards of seventeen millions—that they need not
fear any injurious effect from the remission of this duty.
Mr. SHEPPARD was understood to support the proposi-
tion of the Government.

Mr. DIVETT supported the abolition of the duty on wool,
not so much from the benefit it would confer on the Australian
colonies, as the impetus it would give to trade generally.
Mr. TROTTE rt. supported the Government proposition, on
the ground that the greater the importation of foreign wool
into this country, the greater would be the consumption of
home-grown wool.
Mr. COLLETT, in supporting the Government upon this
proposition, expressed a hope that ere long they would extend
the principle upon which they were now acting with respect to
wool to the article of corn.—( Hear. )
Mr. A LI)AM said the Hon. Member for Somersetshire
(Mr. Miles) bad stated that other duties might have been re-
pealed which would have been more beneficial to the manufac-
turing interest. Now lie (Mr. Aldam) knew that the manu-
facturers were of opinion that no duty could be repealed that
would produce the same loss to the revenue, that would be half
so beneficial to them as the repeal of the duty on wool.
Mr. I )A RBY did not think the Hon. Member for Somerset-
shire was ju.tified in saying that this abolition of the duty on
wool was a step in the way of free trade. He (.Mr. Darby) be-
lieved it to be no such thing, or he never would have supported
the proposition.
Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the Hon. Gentleman that
the First Minister of the Crown, in introducing his measure,
had stated that he acted on the principle of free trade, and
that Right Hon. Gentleman stated that if he did not carry that
principle out quite so rapidly as Hon. Gentlemen on the oppo-
site side of the House could desire, yet he acted upon that prin-
ciple in the measure which he proposed. He (Mr. Labouchere)
heard that declaration with the greatest pleasure, and lie be-
lieved that all the friends of free trade must have
heard it with the utmost pleasure. He, therefore, could
not listen to the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat
down, without reminding him that the first Minister of the
Crown had placed this measure upon a different footing than
that upon which the Hon. Gentleman now found it convenient
to place his support on the present occasion. He (Mr. La-
bouchere) protested against the Hon. Gentleman asserting
that this measure had not been introduced by the Right Hon.
Gentleman in accordance with those sound principles of
liberal commercial policy, which the Right Hon. Gentleman
had so expressly announced on the part of her Majesty'y Go-
vernment.

Mr. DARBY explained.
Mr. LAIIOUCIIERE explained. Ile never said the prin-
ciples of free trade should be adopted at once without any
regard to existing interests.
Mr. WARBURTON said he was glad to perceive the
general concurrence of the House with regard to this subject,
and he would not disturb the unanimity which prevailed by
any general discussion on free trade.--( Hear, hear.) The
home growers would now have to trust to their own energies,
which was a better ground to rely upon than any protection.—
(Hear, hear.) lie rose merely to express the satisfaction his
constituents felt at the abolition of the duty on wool, and to
thank the Government on their part._( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said it would be unfortunate to have the ge-
neral concurrence expressed on this important measure of
relaxation disturbed by any differences upon other subjects.—
( Hear, hear.) He would not, however, shrink from the
general pi inciple be avowed.—( Hear, hear.) The removal of
the duties on wool, coffee, and currants, was in conformity
with the general principles he professed—(Cheers)—because
they could be removed without producing an injurious effect on
existing interests. He adhered to all the principles he had
ever professed on the subject, and those measures were in con-
formity with them. His llonourable Friend admitted dis-
tinctly that he thought, on the whole, this reduction
of the duty on foreign wool would be an absolute benefit to the
agricultural interest of the country, and yet he said he was
very sorry that the lresent time had been selected. He would
ask from his Hon. Mend, whether he thought they would be
justified legislatorso—?easa3mlineiasstuerres owfhtihche believ-
ingCrown—enif,,getiie
sphere th csomanulacturmg industry and increase the export of
manufactures, and which would at the same time confer a eoy f a
po-
sitive benefit on the agricultural interests, as was conferred by
encouraging the growth of wool—he would ask from his candid
mind this admission, that they had performed their duty in se-
curing to the agricultural interest a positive benefit, though
amongst ignorant and prejudiced persons it might. be doubted.
Mr. lIILES explained.
Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed his satisfaction at this mea-
sure of the Government. It would not only not be an injury
to the agricultural interests of the country, but he believed it
would be for their advantage. Whatever might be the effect
of the measure, it was certain the old duty was neutralised by
the introduction of Australian wool.
The clause was then agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman reported pro-
gress.—The report to be brought tin on Monday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Sir 11. PEEL it was ordered that after
Monday, the 3d of June, orders of the day should have pre-
cedence of notices of motion on Thursdays.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was committed, pro forma, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Friday next.
COUNTY CORONER'S BILL.

The further consideration of the report on this Bill was fixed
for Monday, the 3d of June.
STAMP DUTIES BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
The several clauses having been agreed to, on the schedule
being read,
Mr. FORSTER moved the following scale of duty on ma-
rine assurance, as an amendment on that proposed by the Chan_
cellor of the Exchequer, viz.:, s. d.
On premiums under and not exceeding lOs 0 3
On ditto exceeding 10s. and not exceeding 20s 0 6
On ditto exceeding 20s.
On ditto on time risks, not exceeding six months
On ditto on time risks, exceeding six months ... 2 0
On mutual insurance policies
Dr. IIOWRING, i❑ seconding the motion, trusted that his
Noble Friend would force it to a division.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion on the ground that it was the reduction of a duty for
the advantage of a particular class. The adoption of the pro-
position of the Noble Member was, in fact, to give up the duty
on insurance altogether.
Mr. HUME considered the tax upon insurances was a tax
upon prudence. The duty, not only upon marine insurances,
but upon fire and life insurances, ought to be reduced one-half.
—( Hear, from Colonel Sibtliorp. ) The revenue would be in-
creased by such a measure. The Right Jim Gentleman said
that the principle which regulated the increase in the premium
of marine insurances was wrong. Why, then, did he not cor-
rect it? His lion. Friend proposed to reduce the duty on
long distances to 25., and the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed
to make it 4s. Ten years ago all insurances between England
and America were effected in England. Now, two-thirds of
these insurances were effected in America, because there no
duty was payable. The underwriters in London should ba
placed upon the same footing as the underwriters in America,
in Australia, and in India. If they kept up the tax at all they
should keep it up as a moderate tax only.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no rea-
son to fear the competition of America with regard to these in-
surances. The competition which they had to fear was the
competition in small policies, which were effected in Hamburgh,
for short distances, and by lowering the duty on those policies
they would get all these insurances effected in this country,
Mr. WAWN, as the representative of a northern mari-
time borough, a ished to call their attention to the facts con-
nected with the North American trade—a trade principally
carried on in that borough ( South Shields). These ships made
two voyages in a year, and they were subject to the highest rate
of premium. Now, he thought they ought to have some portion
of the relief which it was proposed to afford.
Colonel SIBT HORP, in allusion to what had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Montrose, would impress upon his Right
lion. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of
reducing the duty on fire insurances. He wished the subject
had fallen into better hands .:but he should certainly, on a
future occasion, bring the subject before the attention of the
House.. lie was glad to hear his Right Honoure.ble
Friend speak in praise of prudence, for the tax
on fire insurances was a tax upon prudence.—( Hear.)
lie thought the Right Hon. Gentleman should not for a
moment hesitate to make the concession sought for. He
thought the reduction would rather add to than diminish the
revenue. The duty ought to be taken off fire insurance as
well as marine insurance. Though he sat on that side of the
House, and generally voted with the Government, he would on
this question oppose the Right Hon. Gentleman through thick
and thin.—( Laughter. )
Mr. WARBURTON said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ought to make his tax so low as to offer an inducement to all
persons to insure their property.
Sir C. BURRELL thought that if the duty upon inettrance

scruple. He did not think that such a thing was ever in the I
contemplation of those by whom the Act was passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in
the case to which the Right Hon. Gentleman referred, the
individual accused had given evidence of a conversation which
had taken place between him and two other persons. Two of
those persons had been found guilty on their own confessions
of the offences with which they were charged ; and another
was found guilty on evidence independent of the party in ques-
tion. There was great anxiety to cast some reflection on the
evidence of this party, but the Government believed he gave
evidence worthy of credit. The subject was then referred to
the law officers of the Crown, who gave their opinion that it
was doubtful whether proceedings for perjury could be taken
under the clause refe red to, without the consent of the Com-
missioners. The law officers thought the point was one 'which
they ought not to waive in proceedings of this description, and
they called on the Court to quash the proceedings which had
taken place. The Court did not accede to that, but on grounds
independent of the merits of the case, so that the question
was now before them.

Mr. RICARDO called the attention of the House to a pe-
tition which had been presented from the City of London, on
the subject of the duty on foreign coffee. The Government
would not conclude a treaty with the Brazils, because they
would not take slave-grown sugar, but they were ready to take
coffee, which was equally grown by slavcs.—(Cheers.)
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. EWART then proceeded to bring forward his motion,
of which he had given notice, that the duty on foreign coffee
and foreign cocoa be reduced to the same rate as the duty on
colonial coffee and cocoa. His proposition was, to make the
duty on foreign coffee fourpence, the same as that on the colo-
nial article, instead of sixpence per pound. He confessed his
proposition was a blow aimed at the system of differential
duties--a system which he considered most unsound, and which
a gentleman connected with the Board of Trade, Mr. Porter,
had condemned in the strongest terms, prophecying that, in a
short time, in so extensive an article of consumption as coffee,
they must adopt the only sound system, which was a system of
uniform duties. It might be said that his (Mr. Ewart's) pro-
position would lessen the revenue, but experience had
shown that, by the reduction of the duty on this article,
the consumption had so increased, that the revenue had
also greatly increased. In 1801 the consumption was only
one ounce to each individual in the country, and at the present
time it amounted to seventeen ounces per head. Besides, by
these differential duties, it must be recollected, though the con-
sumer paid a higher price, the Exchequer was not benefited.
The Hon. Gentleman, after entering into some statistical de-
tails in support of his proposition, moved the insertion of the
words "fourpence" instead of " sixpence" in the clause ; and
with respect to cocoa, the consumption of Which he showed
had equally increased by a reduction of duty, he moved that
it be reduced to one penny per pound.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the speech of the Hon. Gentleman would seem to be directed
against a person proposing a new differential duty, whereas he
thought that he ought to obtain the praise of the Hon. Gen-
tleman from his taking steps in the direction of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's own motion. With respect to the differential duties,
he considered that the inhabitants of the colonies, as British
subjects, had the same right of protection against foreign com-
modities, as was given to British subjects at home on articles of
consumption which would operate against them. The Hon.
Gentleman had dwelt much on the increased consumption. In
1801 coffee was a beverage scarcely known out of the higher
orders of society, and it was a luxury even among them. The
effect of reducing the duty had been to extend the consump-
tion of this article from a limited class to the whole community.
The Hon. Gentleman, and those who supported him, were de-
ceived if they imagined, now that coffee was an article of gene-
ral consumption, that a reduction of the duty would be at-
tended with similar effects to that which took place at the
period to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not repeat the arguments which he had already brought for-
ward in favour of a differential duty. He thought, however,
that no one who was not prepared altogether to abandon the
system of differential duties could consistently oppose the Go-
vernment proposal ; while it must be admitted by those who
were, that a great benefit was offered to the community.
After a few words from Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. P. HOWARD said the colonies ought not to be re-
garded by the representatives of the people as alien from this
country. It should be recollected that the leading men in a
colony sacrificed many objects of ambition ; and if some com-
mercial advantages were nut offered to them they could not be
expected to remain contented. The House should never forget
the declaration of its great opponent, Napoleon, that the colo-
nies were the wings which enabled this country to soar to
greatness. Believing that the amendment would not, if passed,
eventually benefit either this country or the colonies, he
should certainly give his vote against it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Ewart's amendment ... ... 28
Against it
Majority against the amendment...
Mr. M. GIBSON complained that the amount of protection
extended to particular interests appeared to be measured by
their power and influence in that House. Cocoa, which was
a very weak interest, was left. with one penny protection ;
coffee, which was a stronger interest, received twopence ; sugar
had a much stronger protection ; that tremendous giant, corn,
was not dealt with at all. He knew the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would indignantly repudiate the idea of being influenced
by any such considerations, but he thought some explanation
of the grounds of the differential duties was necessary to enable
the House to understand the subject.—( Hear. )
Mr. GL ADSTONE said they had heard of late years of
machines for calculating, but he was not aware of any machine
for calcula ing the grounds of differential duties.—(Hear.) It
might certainly have occurred to the Hen. Gentleman that the
relative value of the different articles would form a ground of
differential duty.

Mr. BRIGHT said that whatever rule might be adopted on
these matters he was convinced of this, that that of substrac-
tion from the public and addition: to private cloves was the
ruling one.—( Hear. )
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the stronger the party the
greater was the indisposition to deal with it.
Dr. BOWRING thought the argument of those who wanted
to obtain reductions for the consumer had not been answered.
The great interest they ought to look to was the consuming
interest.—The item was then agreed to.
On the next item, with respect to the duty on currants,
Mr. HUMPHREY said he thought the duty on currants
ought to be fourteen, instead of fifteen shillings, in order to
avoid the fraction of a pound.
Mr. HUME said the duty on currants ought to be made as
low as possible. He was sure that, by doing so, the consump-
tion of the article would be greatly increased.
After a few observations from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, the
item was agreed to, as were several other items.
_

Upon the item raising the duty on plums preserved in sugar
to sixpence per pound,
Mr. HUMPHEILY and Mr.; HAWES contended against
such an extravagant impost.
Mr WARBURTON, while they were on the subject of
fruits, wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Kent. He had, some years ago, sat upon a
Committee with that Right Hon. Baronet, to consider a pe-
tition of the fruit-growers of Kent, praying for an increase in
the duty on apples. The Committee had reported against an
increase of the duty. In the following year the Right Hon.
Baronet became a member of the Cabinet ; the new tariff was
proposed, and the duty on apples was increased from 5 per cent.
ad valorem, to 6d. a bn'hel. Now it was rather too bad, in a
new tariff, which was brought forward with the avowed object
of lowering the duties, to find that on such an article as apples
the duty had been raised?
Sir R. PEEL thought these discussions offered no great
temptation to a Minister to reduce duties. The worthy Alder-
man, encouraged by his success in supporting the turbot and
lobster interest.—( Laughter)—had now taken up with the pud-
ding interest. With regard to the duty on apples, it had been
generally understood that, in order to induce the House of
Lords to pass the Bill reducing the duty on fruits, Lord Mel-
bourne had consented to re- consider the question of apples,
with a view of affording apples additional protection ; and, in
accordance with that understanding, the duty had been raised.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman that when his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Kent accepted office, he had
made ne stipulation in regard to apples.
Mr. F. BARING said that Lord Melbourne had engaged
that the subject should be re-considered, and he considered
that that pledge had been fully redeemed by the appointment
of the Committee of which the Hon. Member for Kendal
had been a member.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, tho subject had been fully dis-
cussed in 1842, and considered it was useless to revive that
discussion. _ _

-.--.-...
Mr. WARBURTON considered that his statement re.
mained untouched. The Committee had reported against any
increase in the duty, and in defiance of that recommendation,
the duty proposed by the Right Hon. Member for Kent, which
had been rejected by the Committee, had been imposed.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL had certainly misunder-
stood what had fallen from Lord Melbourne on the occasion
alluded to. He, as well as several others, had understood the
Noble Lord to say, that there should be an increase in the duty
on apples.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that the article of apples was not the
only article of the produce of the county of Kent which had
been carefully protected in the tariff. Canary seed, which was
almost exclusively produced in the county of Kent was also
protected by a high duty.—( Cries of " Question, Question 1")
Sir R. PEEL said there was another article, the produce of
the county of Kent—the article of hops. The reduction of
the duty en foreign hops was five times as great as the increase
of the duty on apples or canary seed.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY wished to draw their atten-
tion back to plums.—( A laugh.) They were about to increase
the duty from 1/. 7s. 6d. per cent. to 2/. 15s. per cent. He
wished to know the reason of this increase?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that it was merely a question of the construction put upon the
law by the Treasury authorities. Plums were subjected to a
low duty—fruits preserved in sugar were subjected to a higher
rate. Recently plums had been imported preserved in sugar.
The Treasury considered they were liable to the higher rate of
duty ; and it was to give effect to that opinion, that the pre-
sent proposal had been made. They were, in fact, in the
same category as confectionary.
Mr. HUME said that confectionary imported from foreign
countries was subject to a duty of 6d per lb., but if it were
imported from the colonies the duty was only Id. per lb.
Now, would plums imported from British possessions be ad-
mitted at a duty of Id. a lb. ?
Mr. GLADSTONE said plums would not be admitted at a
duty of; Id. from the British colonies, but they did not consti-
tute an article of colonial export.
Mr. COLLETT would move as an amendment that the duty
be continued as at present.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY would divide against tho
clause.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place.
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. GLADSTONE then rose, and said he had great satis-
faction proposing to the House the total extinction of the im-
post on the raw material of one of the most ancient of our
manufactures—the duty on the importation of foreign wool.
The facts of the case lad been so often stated to the House,
that he did not think it would be proper, at that late hour, to
trespass long on their attention. He would, however, observe
that the present amount of revenue derived from this impost
was insignificant, when compared with the advantages which its
abolition would confer on our manufactures. He would not
argue that the measure he was about to propose would inflict
no loss upon agriculture, nor would he for a moment admit that
agriculturists were called upon to make any sacrifice to the
general interests. The ground he took was, that the abolition
of this duty would be a decided benefit, and advantageous to
the community at large.—(Hear, hear.) He did not eay that
the measure would not, in some degree, affect various classes
of wool-growers, but the stimulus of competition would, he
thought, rather increase the price of the raw material. With
regard to the wool of Australia, he did not say but it would
have a depressing effect on it, but it would be trifling and inap-
preciable in amount if compared with the amount of benefit
which those engaged in manufactures or agriculture would re-
ceive. Now, as he said before, he would nut trespass on the
House at any length, by adverting to the general principles,
on which the measure was founded, but would state a few facts
upon which the House might form a tolerably correct judg-
ment. Previous to the year 1819, there existed a moderate
duty on the importation of foreign wool, lower than that which
at present existed. The duty then was I Is. per cwt. It was
altered in 1824 to 6d. per lb. A higher duty was subse-
quently imposed. Now, what he wanted to show was, that dur-
ing three years in which the duty was the highest on foreign
wool the prices were lowest for home-grown wool. The ex-
ports of British manufactures were, as might be expected

were lessened it would induce many persons to insure their pre-
mises who were now deterred by the heavy expenses of it.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS said the greatest difficulty some-
times was experienced in effecting insurances upon farming
premises. If only a stove were erected in a dairy a large extra
charge was made, on the ground of it being hazardous. How-
ever it was not so much his intention to interfere with the ar-
rangement of those offices, as the matter was an extremely
difficult one to deal with. However, the fact of its being so
difficult made it incumbent upon the Government to make the
duty as low as possible.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the numbers
were:—

For the original motion ..
For the amendment
Majority —47
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the HOU3C re-
sumed, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the Isle of Man
Customs, which was received.

The Vest ludia Relief Bill then went through Committee,
and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.
Mr. WYSE moved for the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee on Art- Unions.

Mr. EWA R f seconded the motion, which was agreed to
without discussion.

Mr. HUTT obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
laws relating to aliens.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to prohibit the holding of vestries in churches.
Mr. HUME objected to the motion, and it was eventually
postponed until Monday.
Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice of his intention to move for
a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Gilbert
Poor-law Acts.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at One o'clock.