ords of the treasury.
It was contemplated to employ convicts in clearing and cultivating, and
by the sale of land to indemnify the crown for the outlay. The governor
was authorised by the secretary of state to allot portions of land to
ticket-of-leave holders,--a measure offensive to the settlers in
general, and found to be impracticable.

The legislative council passed several acts of great colonial
consequence. The Abolition of Differential Duties Bill (July, '46)
exacted the 15 per cent, _ad valorem_ on colonial commerce, in obedience
to the policy of ministers. Thus the inter-colonial trade was loaded
with burdens of great severity, and in many instances it was cheaper to
send raw material to London and import English, than to exchange
colonial manufactures. The measure was welcomed by some sheep-holding
members as a tax on Port Phillip sheep, but the government disclaimed
any other object than the increase of the revenue. A heavy retaliatory
rate was then imposed by the New South Wales legislature. They however
addressed their governor to obtain, if possible, a disallowance of the
exactions of Wilmot. Messrs. Dunn, Orr, and Stieglitz entered their
protest against the bill, and avowed the principles of free trade.

A bill for electing commissioners of paving and lighting for the city of
Hobart passed the council (August, '46), and although disliked as an
indirect scheme of taxation, was not unpopular. The first election under
it occasioned a keen competition and considerable excitement. It was the
first instance of representation, but the bill made no provision for a
scrutiny, and the returning officer declared the poll against the
protests of the defeated candidates. Many fictitious votes had swollen
the numbers of their antagonists. The commissioners sat for some months,
and gave exemplary attention to their duties; but when the time came for
rating the city, the defect of their election appalled them. This
objection was long foreseen. An election without a scrutiny might not be
founded on one valid vote. The government, unwilling to admit the defect
of the bill, did not attempt to reform its details, and at length it
fell into disuetude.

A measure of still greater ultimate importance was enacted by the
council, intended "to restrict the increase of dogs." A heavy tax was
imposed on the keepers of this indispensable protector of house and
fold. The multitude running about the streets was felt to be a nuisance,