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, and the destruction of flocks required some check; but the frame-work of the bill was objectionable, and the charge excessive. It will be seen hereafter that the tax occasioned the most serious disputes.