Star.
London, England, 1822-05-07 00:00:00

.

Nrir*,4l

.

. '

O •

. ,

petition was was ptopseed to be established, in the same
manner as was done in Scotland, and the gooi effects
of which were always felt in that country ; for at the
time when the country banks of England were suf-
feting the greatest crush, the Scotch banks rode
through the storm, and no such thing as a bankruptcy'
or failure was known to have taken place in any of
them. The plan of extending the banking system all
over the country, could not now be adopted without
the consent of the Bank of England : they had a veto
upon it, and,he would ask whether a relaxation of
their monopoly was not an advantage for which they'
,ought to receive a further continuance of their Char-
ter for tea years? Ile should be ready to discuss
this subject fully when the proper occasion arrived
for so:doing.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said he should
make a few remarks previous to a motion with which
he meant to conclude. The question between the
Government and the Bank depended on the equiva—
lent that was to be given. In Ireland he conceived
it absolutely necessary to open banking concerns in
order to give them greater security, by admitting an
unlimited number of partners ; but it did not follow
that such a thing should be done in England, where
capital abounded so much, and he did not look to
the same advantages from the plan here as in Scot-
land. He trusted the Bank of England would not
issue one note less in consequence of this extension of
banking concerns throughout the country : but it
would be a question of some importance whether it
would be wise to continue its monopoly to the Bank
of England,for ten years longer—a thing which had
never been done before without a large pecuniary
sacrifice cn the partof that body. It appeared, how-
ever, that a large sacrifice was to be made on the
part of the Public to the Bank, merely for the pur-
chase of a present relief, which was not likely to be
attended with any great effect. The Noble Marquis
then moved that there be laid before the House co-
pies of all the correspondence between the Govern-
ment and the Batik of England on the subject of the
extension of the Bank Charter.
Earl GREY, in reply, said he considered the plan
of enlarging Country Banks as altogether nugatory,
unless it was intended as the beginning of an evasion
of the provisions of the Act passed in 1819, for the
Renewal of Cash Payments.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, the chief object
was to put Country Banks on the best possible system.
Lord ICING strongly condemned the measure for
selling the Annuities payable to Officers and Pen-
sioners, while a Sinking Fund was kept up, that
would counteract all the good effects likely to result
from such an operation.
After a few words from Lord SVFFIELIN Lord
LANSDOWN'S motion was agreed to, and the House
adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sir R. SIIAW presented a Petition from a body of Christian
people, styling ihemselves Separatists, complaining of the h
ard-
ships to which they were exposed, in consequence of their h
ard-
ships refusing to take an oath.—Laid on the table.
The Importation of Goods Repeal Bill was read the second
time and ordered to be committed tO.IIIOCrOW.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a Petition from the Owners
and Occupiers of Laud in Boleworthy, Devooshire, complaining
of distress, and attributing it to the unexampled pressure of
mation.—Laid on the table.
Mr. W. GORDON laid on the table a Petition from the
Ship.owners of Aberdeen against the Navigation BilL
Captain WEM ISS presented a Petition from the Farmers of
the County of Fife, praying that the Scotch Distillers might be
put on the same footing as those of Ireland. If Scotland was
allowed to export her spirits, the consequence would be an in-
creased consumption of barley by 500,0b0 quarters annually-
Sir R. FERGUSSON supported the prayer of the Petition.
Lord A. HAMILTON considered it a great hardship to the
Scotch Distillers, that not only were they prevented from ex-
porting their spirits, whilst England and Ireland could export
theirs, but even the spirits imported from England or Ireland
were not allowed to be re-exported from that country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the
Bon. Gentleman who presented the Petition had overstated the
cue. This was a question of much importance, and he wished
the House to suspend their opinions until the ommissioners of
Inquiry, before whom the whole matter was laid, should make
their Report. In the present distress, be bad no objection to
give every facility for the consumption of barley ; but he had no
hesitation in saying that be would prefer seeing the increased
consumption take place rather in beer than spirits, which were
so hurtful to the morals of the People.
Sir RONALD FERGUSSON said, that the Scotch Distil-
lers, who brewed for the English and tome market, were placed
under certain disadvantages. They were obliged to have two
llcenses, and the works for each were to be distant two miles ,
from each other. Also, if after having tried the English market,
they found their account in ivturning to the home consumption,
they were Pot allowed to have a license in the English concern
until a year had elapsed after it ceased to be worked for the Eng-
lish market.
Tres e HUNTER BL AI It moved for a copy of the Report
addressed by the Lords of the Treasury to the Chairman oft he
Board of Excise for Scotland, relative to illicit distillation in
that country--
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a Petition from
the Owners and Occupiers of Land in Kent, complaining of
Agricultural Distress. The Hon. Member prestnted two laini
simi-
lar Petitions from the same county.—Laid en the table.
Mr. DUGD ALE presented two Petitions from the Owners
and Occupiers of Land in the county of Warwick, complaining
of Agricultural Distress, and objecting to that part of the plan
which referred to the grinding of corn in warehouses.—lteferred
to the Agricultural Committee.
Mr. PARES presented a Petition from certain Unitarians,
against the Marriage Act.—Laid on the table.
Mr. MAULE presented a Petition from the growers of Belo.
ley or Rincardine, praying the exportation of Scotch Whiskey.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a similar Petition from the
growers of Barley of Forfar.—Both referred to the Agricultural
Committee.
Six THOMAS LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition front
the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the counties of Somerset
and Gloucester against certain parts of the plans in progress for
relieving Agriculture. The petitioners stated that these were
not time
.plans from which they could expect substantial relief.
They thought that still less was to be expected from the plans
presented by the Honourable Member for Portarlington ( Mr.
Illeardo)—(A laugh). In all these particulars, he (Sir Thomas)
agreed entirely with the petitioners. Respecting the plans of
the Honourable Aleniber for Portarlington they were so vi-
sionary that he knew not how to argue against them; and yet
that Honourable Member had charged him(Sir Thomas), and
other Gentlemen in that House, with giving opinions without
at the same time giving any reasons for them. This referred
more particularly to the mode in which he (Sir Thomas) had
advocated a system of higher protecting duties. Now the fact
°Pinion without grounding it upon
was, he had never stated an
such substantial reasons as were at least =miming and satisfac-
tory to those who were of the same spike with himself. The
Honouraldie Member had talked of eir a practical question
IL. by the test of rosaim iut he (fir iilM) Will sure that his
( Mr. Ricardo's) r lag add lead wa esi y error and delusion.
There were not 'acing r piss of the bed effects of putting
the nation under, the gui of the Goddess of Reason, as
the annals of a neghbouring people could testify. He had only-
to repeat once mote, that he never stated any vision without
a reason for it ; and wiles I=tigras so warranted,
resiLninit Gee why It should nut be lir at mush cousi-
dentbm as the Honourable Mensbey's for Perearibiton, er any
other whatever. lk should only say, in conekalati, that unless
prompt and easiest protecting duties against the Importation of
every species of agricultural produce were harmed, the House

•

•
,

COLONIES.
Mr. HUM E said, that the Howe was grolably not aware that
the now Colonies were place/ ors a iMihront amen? than
that which regulated the old ones, and that's madorr of Agents
were thereby created, as he dangle, emosseasudip. if they
were placed upon the old systems a ermarftbkiesoing would
be effected. Ile should therefore move for a Return of the
names of the Agents employed at the Colonies of Ceylon,
the Mauritius, Malta, and the Cape of Good Hope stating by
whom they were appointed, and the mount ot ;larks they
received, and whether they held any other Aces or salaries.
Also for a statement of the duties such Ollcers have to perform.
Mr. HUSKISSON observed that such Returns had beers
made, and he was at akw to know what good could be done
by repeating them. However, thls could be made up again, if
necessary.
HUME made some obeervadons open the refusal of a
Committee to make the returns as hem hed for thorn.
Mr. WILMOT was not aware the returns could be
made as the Hoe. Member desired. The information would be
much more a matter for explanation.
Mr. HUME said that returns of a similar nature had been
mad, from other departments.—The motion was agreed to.
NAVIGATION ACTS.
Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from the town and port of
Hull, praying that the Bill foe repealing the Navigation Acts
might not pass into a law.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir M. W.RIDLEY presented a similaryetition from New-

caide•upon-Trne.
Mr. BEAL MONT hoped tbe laws would not be altered o
as to injure the coasting trade, In which so much property was
etatharked.--The Pedtion was ordered to be printed.

BANE CHARTER.
Mr. GRENFELL observed, that be had recently moved for
copies of the Correspondeoce that had taken place. between
the Bank of England and the Government. As it was desirable
that those returns should be made at the earliest possible period,
he wished to ask the Right Don. the Chatwellor of the Excite-
querwhetber they would be on the table that evening, and if
oat, when they were likely to be ready Ile also wished to ask
when the question of the extension of the Bank Charter was ex-
pected to come on for discussion ?
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY suggested that the Ilan.
Member had better put the question when his Right Honour-
able Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hi the House.

-
IRISH POOR.
Mr. CALVERT stated, that he had observed a considerable
influx of Irish Poor into the metropolis within the last few days.
They came in parties of 50 or SO together. lie understood that
these poor people were taken away again in waggons. The
Member wished to know from the Right Hon. Secretary of
State whether this was done simply under the regulations of the

pat lilies?
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that this was the first informatics
he had received upon the subject.
NAVIGATION BILL.
Mr. LAMBTON presented Petitions from the Ship
Owners of Shields and Sunderland, against the Bill
for altering the Navigation Laws. The Petitioners
stated their opinion, that the Bill now pending went
to overthrow entirely that system of Navigation Laws
under which this country had risen to its present state
of commercial greatness; and, whilst it did this, it
went to transfer all our present advantages to Ame-
rica and other foreign nations. The lion. Member
said, his opinion certainly was in favour of a free
trade ; but this was a speculative opinion only ; and
if this Bill was really to have the effect of injuring
the Shipping Interests of this country, as represented
by the Petitioners, he could not, whatever his wish
might be, support the Bill. The Hon. Member then
entered into a review of the scale of expense of ship-
building in this and foreign countries, by which it
appeared that British-built ships cost several pounds
per ton more than building in foreign yards. If
this was true, he must acknowledge that, unless the
sailing of British ships, or some other particular cir-
cumstance, gave them a decided preference over
foreign-built ships, it would be utterly impossible to
throw open the trade, unless at the risk of the ruin
of our own merchants.
Lord ALTHORPE objected to the Bill on the
same grounds.
Mr. GLADSTONE was also opposed to any alte-
ration in the Navigation Laws.
.Mr. M. A. TAYLOR was fearful the measure now
before the House would operate to the advantage of
all the rest of the world at our expense. Unless the
system was to be free trade all over the world, he
must oppose this Bill.
General GASCOYNE thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman who brought forward this Bill, should
be prepared to shew some advantage likely to ori-
ginate in the measure before he called on the House
to support it.
Mr. WALLACE would not now enter into the
merits or demerits of the Bill, but he trusted when
the second reading was brought forward he should
be able to shew good reasons for the adoption of the
measure by the House.
Sir W. CURTIS also strongly opposed the Bill.
If this measure was adopted, there would be an end
to all our commercial greatness.
Mr. LAMBTON could not agree with the Right
Hon. Gentleman in thinking that partial discussions
were injurious. He thought them, on the contrary,
useful, as serving to elicit truth.
Mr. ELLICE said, that he could not avoid express-
ing his astonishment that his Majesty's Ministers
had never proposed any regulation for reducing the
charges on British shipping. He was prepared to
state, that the charges at our ports were from one-
fourth to one-half more than in any foreign port.—
Tor instance, a Collector at Quebec enjoyed an in-
come of between £3OOO and £4OOO a-year, levied on
British shipping ; whilst, he would venture to say,
the Collector at the port of New York, the next to
London, Liverpool, Hull, and, he believed, Clyde,
did not derive above £4OO or £5OO a-year from fees
on shipping arriving at that port. In the West India
Islands, likewise, a British ship pays the same fees
at every island she has occasion to touch at. These
were things that required immediate attention. Ile
must allude to the subject already brought before the
House by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen—namely,
consular fees. In Sicily, for instance, a ship must
touch at four ports, in each of which he has to pay
consular fees. He was the more anxious to press
these matters on the attention of Government, 'be-
cause Government had it in its power to relieve the
shipping interest from these burdens, without the in-•
lerterence of the House. Nothing was more neces-
sary than an immediate attention to this subject, If
the country was to return to free principles, lei us
endeavour to put our shipping as much as possible in
a situation to meet the competition of the foreigner.
The Petitions were then brought up.
General GASCOYNE wished to know, as the se-
cond reading of the Navigation Bill stood for this

,
•

-

throughout
Mr. Wits.
they House
couldwould
take
to
disculisssitcie it tend
Bilionththeat a second
die
mot"ion"fbour tt
its e
if
m bei,
the
being committed.
Mr. LAMBTON trusted that the Right Hon. Gen-
tYeman siould lose no time, now that the Committer]
on Foreign Trade was sitting, in pressing on its Inost '
' serious consideration the representations of his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Coventry.
WunAdLe!..dAiCscEussiaiosin,inthiahte_ethoe
Committee.
had been
already l
After a few words from Mr. MARRYATT, Sir %V.
Mr.
Ds CIigiVICIFT' and Sir M. W. RIDLEY, the Petition.
was ordered to be printer'.
The Navigation Bill uas then read a second time,
and ordered to be committed to-morrow (this day),
when a day would be fixed for the discussion of the
principle of the measure.
LICENSING SYSTEM.
Mr. HUSKISSON said a Petition had been put
into his hands, which he wished the parties had put
into those of some other more conversant with their'
particular interests. It was, however, his duty, under
any circumstances, when lie found nothing objection-
able in it, to lay it before the House. The Petition
came from a builder, who stated that he had built
from 400 to 500 houses in the County of Middlesex,,
about Mile-eod, the Commercial-road, and those parts
which connected the metropolis with the new Docks.
He stated that, when 100 of these were built and let,
a great inconvenience was felt from the want of a
public-house on the spot, the inhabitants being com-
pelled to go a considerable distance for their hem—
Thiecircumstance being made known to the Peti-
tioner, he built a house in a convenient place calcu-
lated for the public business, and that alone; the ex-
pense of building it being upwards of 6001. It was
intended that this should be a free public-house. In
1817 a memorial, signed by the principal inhabitants
and Churchwardens, was presented to the Magis-
trates for a license for this house ; but,without making
any inquiry into the circumstances of the case, the
application was refused. The inhabitants then wished
to present a Petition in their own behalf, but they
were answered that the decision of the Magistrates
was absolute, and that, for that year, the matter should
remain so. In 1818 another application was made,
the house being still untenanted, and the number of
houses having swelled in the meantime to 200; but
it was again refined. In 1819 the Petitioner finding,
in his own language, that g, he had not interest suffi-
cient for a license," sold the house to a person of the
name of Brown, from Bermondsey, for 1,1001. This
person had been dealing with Barclay and Co. but,
upon coming to his new quarters, he informed the
Petitioner that he should change to Truman and
Hanbury, as they alone had interest in that place to
get him alicense—(Hear, hear).—A license was then
in fact obtained. The houses still going on to increase
to 400, the inhabitants again suggested the conveni-
ence of building another public-house, as the first
was now some distance from those housei last built.
Petitioner, in consequence, took a piece of ground at
sonic distance from the other, for which, in 1821, he
applied for a license, but was refused—(Hear, hear).
—But it happened that another person had taken a
piece of ground near the same, without any greater
claims to be licebsed than the Petitioner's ; but, as this
was sold to Hanbury and Co. there was no difficulty
in procuring a license—(Hear).--He (Mr. Huskisson)
had advised the Petitioner, when he first heard his,
case, to have recourse to a Court of Law, suggesting
that this House.was not the place for redress; but he
was answered that it was the. pinion of Counsel that
he had no legal remedy, and all that remained for
him was to lay before the House the abuses of a sys-
tem by which he had been deprived of his property.
It should be recollected that this was a builder—one
whose business it was to sell.houses. But what wasl
the effect of this partiality upon him ? that the house,
which, after remaining three years idle, he sold to
Brown for 1,1001. Brown could now get 3,000/. for,
from the single circumstance of its having a license
—(Hear, hear).—Now, upon this Petition, all he
would say was, that if the facts in it-were true, there
was the greatest necessity for reforming the licensing
system. It was not to be endured that the system,
in addition to all the abuses arising out of the mono-
poly which it gave rise to, should also be prostituted
to the depreciation of private property—(Hear, hear).
—The town was now portioned into districts for
licensing in the same way as water, that somewhat
more useful beverage, was supplied by water cons-
panies--(Laughter).—He would ask how long was
this system to continue? The case, however, was
different as to the country, and, like the Poor Laws,
this difference presented obstacles to any improve-
ment. He believed, however, that with the excep-
tion of some of the larger towns, there was no want
of free houses in the country. Having stated these
circumstances, he wished now to call the attention of
the House to this important subject. He had before
taken the liberty to put a question to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), touching the
price of beer, and that Hon. Member pledged him-
self that he would state to the House when the time
arrived for lowering the price of beer. Ile (Mr.
Huskisson) wished to know whether the time had yet
arrived when so desirable a fall was to take place?
and at the same time he wished to tell him that, if
the time had not yet arrived, something would be
done to hasten it—Wear, hear).
Mr. F. BUXTON said he concurred with the Right
Hon. Gentleman, that if the facts of this Petition
were substantiated, there was a strong case made out
against the Magistrates. He had to thank the Right
Hun. Gentleman for allowing him to see the Petition
before it was presented, as it gave him an opportu-
' say of collecting some facts which would completely
reline the averments of thc Petitioner.. In the first
place, be stated that he built the public-house in
1817, and in the same year applied for a license.
Now it was not to be wondered that the Magistrates
refused it this year, as they certainly wre warranted
in considering the application premature. Ile'applied
again next year,' but his case was 'no stronger,, for
though more houses were-tindaubtkdly. built, yet they
were entirely untenanted: Buethen in the third year
the license writ granted. Now, up to this time, he
contended, the Magistrates were strictly ri&lit in their
conduct. But then it remained to cleats them trim


,

-..~

imputation of corrupt Melts—Ms, be had
hope, he should easily do. It was said that
obtained a license, because be transferred
Barclay and Co. to Truman and Han.
it was dear, if these latter Gentlemen
, influence, that they Would use it only for
their own good ; bat whit was she ease here?—dolt
Brown's was an entirely free house, Besides, every
one acquainted with the trade was aware, that no.
thing was more common than this transferring frog.
onobrewer to another. So firthen the Magistrates
were acquitted es to the first part of the case. Bee
what did the Petitioner do afterwards? Instead of
being.disheartened, he proceeded to build two houses
'pore. To the first of these, however, there was as
objection, for it was only 200 yards from the first
house—it was in the same street, and was petitioned
against by the person who first got his license. The
other was only 150 yards off, but the House which
Spradley built, who obtained the license, was 320
yards distant, and not in the same street. It was said
that this house was sold to Truman and Hanbury,
but this was not true, for he (Mr.-Buxton) had in his
band Spridley's lease. So far, then, he trusted, he
bad defended the Magistrates with success from the
charge of corrupt motives. To come then to the
question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, respecting a
fall in the price of beer. It was very true that be
(Mr. Buxton) pledged himself to state the time when
a fall . might be made in the price of that article,
though he did so without consulting the other brewers
of the Metropolis. What he then said was, that when
the stock of malt in the brewers' bands, which had
paid the full duty was consumed, they would then
lower the price of beer. The late reduction of the
malt tax would amount to only a farthing in the pot,
though the Public expected the beer to be reduced a
halfpenny. But the reductions of 1818 and 1819
were to be also taken into account. He (Mr. Buxton)
had never said that. the price of beer should not be
reduced, for he admitted it would be outrageous to
expect that the only effect of the reduction of the
malt tax would be to put money into the brewers'
pockets. With regard to the question, he would an-
swer the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the time had
come for reducing the price of beer, which t% as low-
ered a halfpenny a pot, though the Government re-
duction amounted only to a farthing. Having thus
said so much for himself, it remained to him to say
a word on behalf of the brewers generally. A very
general impression prevailed in this House, that the
greater part of the public-houses were in the hands
of the brewers. This was not true. • He had taken
the trouble to make out an account of the number of
houses which he had the honour to serve, and Gen-
tlemen would judge from it, that the charge was not
very correct. He found that he served in all 766
persons, of whom 105 lived in the country ; of this
number 49 houses belonged to him (Mr. Buxton), 22
were confined by loans, but the remainder were all
free and independent. It was not to be understood,
however, that he was now defending the present sys-
tem, of which, in truth, he was no admirer; and he
appealed to the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr.
Bennet), if he had not given him all the assistance
in his power, in and out of the House, when he
brought in his Bill? He had even suggested a clause
to be inserted, with a view completely to cut off the
brewers from the possibility of having a share in any
public-house. This would of course interrupt the
freedom of the trade, and would be felt still more in
the country than in town. It was, however, of so
much importance, that, for his own part, he was
ready to submit to the restriction, in order to get rid
of the abuses which were complained of. Another
objection had been started, respecting the strength of
beer. A gallant Admiral had said, that beer was not
of the same strength now that it was in his younger
days. Now he (Mr. Buxton) had taken some pains
to compare the strength of beer now with what it had
been, and the House would see that the modern bevy
had the advantage. lie was able to ascertain that
beer. was 25 per. cent. stronger than 20 years ago.
This fact he stated,- not upon his own authority, but
frpmthe. books of the Excise, where an account was
kept of .the relative strength of beer. These facts,
therefore, proved that six out of seven in the trade
were free, and this statement was borne out by the
Report of a Committee of this House. There was
no. bar to sufficient competition, and under all these
circumstances he had to complain of the charges
which were too frequently made against the bteuers
in that House.
Mr. C. CALVERT said he rose merely to make
one observation upon the statement of the Right lion.
Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson). He had stated that
monopoly did not prevail to such an extent in the
country as in the metropolis and the larger towns.
The reverse was the fact. It was in the villages the
greatest monopoly prevailed; for he (Mr. Calvert)
knew the larger brewers in the country supply all the
villages in the neighbourhood with beer, without ad-
mitting of any competition. He (Mr. Calvert) had
himself complained of this system, and stated to ihe
Magistrates that they should not sanction so much
partiality and injustice. He had given an opinion
upon the subject, and he had now no difficulty in rz-
peating, that, if he was a Magistrate, he would n,;:
give countenance to such a system.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT said, that the great evil of the
present system was, that it shut out fair competition,
by which the Public were deprived of good beer.
Mr. BENNET pointed out the defects of the pre-
sent system, which enabled the brewers in the coun-
try to drench the people with vile poison. He had
been round to some of the houses and tasted the beer
himself, and • had found it such stuff that he won'
dered it could be drank at all. He was of opinion
that the evil could only be • remedied by rermittrg
beer to be sold as freely as bread. From doing tltts
there were no just grounds to fear that drunkenne9
would increase, as that vice was not found most pre'
valent in wine countries, where some could be pr.'
chased at almost every house. He wished every OC's
to be allowed to sell beer, but he did not wish ever!
one to be allowed to keep a public house. The h!"
forbade persons to tipple in public-houses ; but C'e
Magistrates, the wise men of Gotham, required 11.1"
those who sold beer" Should have benches, table..
pipes, and newspapers, to induce the poorer classes"'
drink more than they. would otherwise take. 11'..`
beet freely sold as he proposed, as bread or as 50!.;.1.r_
was at present, he was confident that it would bey..:•E
the Public without at all injuring the Revenue. Soc.e
loss might be sustained front such a change, but 4
was the duty of that House to look to the general !ir

t I
1
I I
1
j

. .
weak' fail in reOrkt eanlidenee a e 111.10.41 thaw flagpift
wise now loohedat dear ntesforea vridt niniingeort."—yirr
Petition was ordered togessitrtik ieinted.
Mr. MAXWELL a Pedtie kat Or dam*.
goner, of semi" for the rouse/ ReoffarK vitati'the subject
of Agrttial LlWros.—Orderest b arid* •
Colonel DAVIES gave notice, that urn same ham octs.
skin he should move a series of Itesololons tor die raped a pr.
tan Taxes.
...As metal.

,P 4 •
day, wisit tliel., lost' .to ro -Ned with de Bill that the imputed,
day ? because, Wow, ivereuW bit $ seem convenience-4 some hope,
..]
to hate a day fixed wben it would posidrely come os. I "sown obtael
Sir I. COFFIN- said, that the fees on shipping himself from
throughne the United States were most enormous. ury. Now
Mr. WALLACE said, he despaired of being able used any infi
. •,.._ _ TE___..........1.1 ...1............ mini