The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

• Mr. BUCHANAN presented a petition from the Notaries
Public of Dumhatti-1, praying for the repeal of- the Tax on
Notaries Public.
Mr. LINDSAY presented a similar Petition frcon the No-
taries Public of Perth,Yorfar, and Cupar. •
Mr. LAWLEY presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Nuneaton, praying for the repeal of tho window-tax.
Sir C. PAGET presented a petition from the Licensed Vic-
tuallers of the town of-Carnarron, against Exciso Licenses.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a similar petition from the Li-
censed Victuallers of Islington.
Mr. T. COURTENAI presented a petition from Totness,
praying for the repeal of the Duty on Coals carried coastwise ;
and another from the same place, against the exportation of
Long Wool.

Mi. GORDON presented a petition from the Society of
Advocates of Aberdeen, praying for the repeal of the Tax on
Attornies.

Mr. R. MARTIN presented a petition from the inhabitants
of the parish of,St. James, praying the llouse to adopt mea-
sures for preventing cruelty to domestic and other animals.
On the motion of Sir T. LETHBRIDGE, there was or-
dered to be laid before the House, a Return of the number of
Vessels which cleared out of the wester ports of Great Britain,
in the years 1811, ,and 1823, with the tonnage of each, and
the number of Vessels and Tonnage from each port. Similar
Returns were also'ordered from Ireland, and several other parts
of the United Kingdom.
Petitions against the Combination Laws were presented from
the Journeymen Boot and Shoemakers of Bath, from the
Artisans of Rochdale, and from' Daniel Pettywn of Coventry,
by Mr. PETER MOORE.

•Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from the General Associa-
tion of the County of Tipperary, for ameliorating the condi-
tion of the lower classes, praying, (we believe) against the re-
peal of the bounties on coarse Irish Linens. The same Hon.
Member presented-a petition from the inhabitants of St. Mary's
parish, Dublin, against Local Taxations.
Lord BINNING presented a petition from the Notaries Pub-
lic of Haddington, praying for a repeal of the duties on licences
to practise as public Notaries.
Lord P. OS/301tNE presented petitions from lifelburne and
Linton against negro slavery.
Sir GEO. HILL brought in a bill for regulating the office
of county treasurer in Ireland, which was read a first tinis,
and ordered to be read a second time on Monday, and to be
printed. He also brought in a bill for the better preventing
the stealing.of records in Ireland : it was read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
Petitions were presented by Sir T. ACLAND from Ilfra-
combe, Biddeford, Oakhatupton, and other parts of Devonshire,
complaining of the severity of the duties on sea-borne coals.
Sir G. HILL brought up the report of the Irish 4 per cents.
bill, which was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow.'

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OP THE ISLE "OF MAN.
Mr. CURWEN rose to submit the motion of which he had
given notice on this subject. He began by assuring the House
that he had no personal objection to the gentleman whe filled
the office of Attorney-General of the Isle of Man : his sole de-
sire in making the motion was, that equal justice might be done
to all the inhabitants of that island. The Hon. Gentleman
then proceeded to state the grounds of his motion. He began
by remarking, that in the opinions of those best acquainted
with the concerns of the island, it was considered to be of im-
portance that the Attorney-General of the Isle of Man should
be an English Barrister, and one not slightly acquainted
with the practice in the English Courts of Justice. This
would be admitted to be the more necessary when the fact
was as he should mention, that the Governor or Deputy-go-
vernor of the island presided in the Court of Chancery there
situation which certainly must be painful to the feelings
of a military officer, whose education was not likely to fit him
for such a task. It was therefore necessary that an officer so
circumstanced should at least have able assistants. It was
true that the present Attorney-General of the island was
an English Barrister, and one of considerable experience
and knowledge of the law; but it was also known, that his
duties were for the greater part performed by another, and
that he himself very seldom made his appearance on the
island. The Honourable Member then went into a variety of
details, to show the inconveniences which resulted to the inha-
bitants of Man, from the continual absence of such an officer
as the Attorney-General, and from having his duties, in many
instances most important, performed by another. The Attor-
ney-General, or his deputy, were the only persons in the island
who could prosecute a criminal ; and the leaving shch a duty
to another, with a very small salary for its performance, was,
he thought, very unwise and inconvenient. He would admit
that the salary paid to the Attorney-General was too small, but
he would rather see 1,0001. a year paid to some gentleman who
would reside in the island and attend personally to the duties
of his office. The Hon. Member, after farther observations
on the inconvenience of the. present practice, conchided by
moving " That an humble address be presented to his Majes-
ty, praying that he might be graciously pleased to give direc-
tions that there be laid before the House a copy of a memorial
from the HOuse of Keys; in the Isle of. Man, 'concerning
a copy of the patent of the present Attorney-General's ap-
pointment." .
pursuedwiihou tknowing on thisotchceaysi mighto n
Mr. PEEL said he was rather surprised at the course which
the Hon. Men
n He had b
e produced
called for
he, ntmeepearepderitto a discussion of thewhole question to which they
referred. He was disposed to grant the information required by
the Hon. Member, and would therefore have thought it and,-ib Member
unne-
cesssary to take up the time of the House on the subject at pre-
' sent, had not the premature discussion of the Hon. Member
made it necessary for him to say a few words upon the propriety
of having the Attorney-General of the Island an English Bar-
rister; but the having one at the expense to the island which
the lion. Member suggested, might be a question in the
consideration of which the expense would be a More import-
ont matter. The present. Attorney-General of the island
was Mr. Clark, a gentleman eminently qualified for the duties
of the office, and who, from being Recorder 'of Liverpool,
had as much acquaintance with the practice of the criminal
law as almost any other judge in England. Mr.-Clark was ap-
pointed to the office because he was Recorder of Liverpool, and
because his frequent attendance at sessions there would give
him opportunities of passing over to the Isle of Man whenever
the public service required his presence there: He accepted
the situation on condition that he should be ready toattend its
duties in person whenever the public service required it; or if
he could not so attend, that he would then give the situation
Up. It was true that the duties were for the (Treater part per-
formed by another, who received for such service 1001. a year,
out of the 5001. a-year which was the salary ; but it was not
the fact that Mr. Clark never attended on the island. In the
course of the last year, he went over the island three times.
The first time was, on a trial for murder (a crime which was of
very rare occurrence there), and prosecuted the 'criminal to
conviction. Another case, when his presence was required,
was on an inquiry which he (Mr. Peel) had thought it proper
to have instituted into the conduct of one of the Judges of the
island, who had been accused of gross nialversation in the dis-
charge of the duties of his office. The result 'of that investi-
gation was, that he (Mr. Peel) had felt it to'be his duty to
recommend the removal of that Judge from his office, and he
was removed accordingly. On that occasion, as well on all
others in which the interests of the island were concerned, he
had 'received the most able assistance from Mr. Clark., who was
at all times willing to devote his eminent talents and valuable
time to the personal discharge of the duties of his office when
the public service required it. Under these circumstances, he
did not see why the island should be called upon to pay
a-year out of its -small revenues, when it at present had its 1,0001.

interests so well attended to for 5001. He would not say what
he might do if the situation werevacant," but certainly as long
as Mr. Clark chose to hold it, he did not think the interests of
the island would be benatted by a change.
Mr. HUME said that his lion. Friend-had not intended to
blame the Government for the system at present adopted ;
but he thought that the conditions on which Mr. Clark gothic
appointment should be fulfilled by that gentleman as long u
he chose to hold the office. One of those conditions was; that
the Attorney General should reside on the island, and he was
in consequence to have an addition of 2001. a year to the SOO,
a-year enjoyed by his predecessors, making his salary 6001. a
year, as it was al present ; but notwithstanding that he re=
ceived the salary, he did not reside on the island.
Mr. PEEL asked the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, how it
was possible that residence in the Isle of- Man could be made
an indispensable condition, of Mr. Clark's holding the situation
of Attorney-General, when it was notorious that he had duties
to fill at Liverpool as recorder ?
General GASCOYNE said, that before Mr. Clark held the
office of Attorney General for the Isle of Man, it had always
been considered etinecure. The salary had, however, been re,
cently increased, in order to obtain the occasional residence of
that officer, which had been recommended by Lord Sidniouth.
—Now, Mr. Clark, from residing in Lancashire, was at no
great distance from the Isle of Man, and was always willing
to repair thither, whenever he thought his presence would be
advantageous.
Mr. HUSKISSON felt it to be almost unnecessary for him
to say a word upon this subject, after the satisfactory ex-
planation which his Right Hon. Friend had given of ihe man-
ner in which Mr. Clark had performed the functions of his
office. He thought that it was as well that the Attorney-Gene-,
rid did not reside in the island ; for if he did, it would be al-
most impossible for him to avoid being implicated in some of
the.party differences which prevail amongst its inhabitants.
After a short reply from Mr. CuawEw the motion was
agreed to.

PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.
Mr. 111.31 E moved for a return of the establishment of the
Breakwater at Plymouth, specifying the number of persons
employed there, the salary paid to each person, and the various
incidental expences belonging to it. • -
Sir G CLERK had no objection to the motion. Hen Could
not, however, allow it to pass without observing, that the work
would be concluded at a cost of nearly 200,001. leas than
.had
been originally expected.
Sir I. COFFIN spoke in favour of the utility of this work,
and of the economy with which it had been constructed. The
bay of Plymouth, from being a very unsafe anchorage, had now
become a mere mill-pond. If the Breakwater had cost half as
much as the national debt amounted to, he should not have
grudged the expence of it.—(Loud laughter.)
The motion was then agreed to.
LEGACY DUTIES.
_ _

Mr. HUME, in moving for the returns cf which he had
given notice, called the attention of the House to the state of the
Legacy Duties, and the views which he entertained for their
_

improvement. He stated that their whole duties produced a re,
venue of 1,1101,000/. and that he understood a very small por-
tion of that Revenue to arise from Legacies under one hundred
' pounds in value. His object was to have the duties removed
from legacies of that class, which he conceived would be doingg
a great public good, at very little expence of income. Tile
Honourable Member then proceeded to state the amount of
duties paid in particular cases where the hardship ap-
peared to him excessive, and such as ought not to be main-
tained. He mentioned the case of the poor woman, who had
1001. bequeathed to her, but before she could receive it, an ex-
pence of 14/. had been incurred in stamps and fees. He
also
alluded to the charges of Proctors, and to the extent to which
their bills were swelled in
_particular instances by the
necessary purchase of stamps. In a letter from a Magistrate,
which he had received, complaining of these hardships, it was
stated that the utmost advantage was taken of the law as it
now stood, and that even the worsted nightcap in which a mats
died, or his old slippers and shoes, had been valued for the
purpose of exacting the duty. The Hon. Member moved for
a return of the total amount of Revenue arising frOm Stanips
in the United Kingdom, upon. Legacies, Probates, and Mini-
nistrations, for sums not exceeding 1001., in the year ending bth
of January, 1824, distinguishing the amount paid in England,
Scotland, and Irelrnd.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saw nothing
to object to the motion of the Hon. Member. It was a subject
which he considered as deserving his attention, but he did not
wish to pledge himself as to the ultimate view he should be
disposed to take of it. He should certainly give it his bat
consideration, and that was all he could say at present. .
Lord BINNING said, it would be extremely desirable that
the duty should be removed on Legacies lef, for charitable
purposes.
Mr.'LOCKHART said, that the Hon Member would find
that a small portion only of the Proctor's charges could come
under the controul of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
greatest difficulty arose from persons being obliged to make
probate in the Court of the Metropolis. If the Archbishop of
Canterbury would appoint Courts where that could be done
in the principal towns. it would be found a most important
benefit.
After an explanation from Mr. HtruE, the motion was
agreed to.

BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.'
Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the third reading of the above
Bill.

Mr. HUME thought it would be better to postpone the third
reading of the measure until it could be ascertained whether or
not it was likely to give satisfaction in Ireland, as that was the
chief object of the measure.

Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that the Hon. Member was mis-
taken if he thought there could be any measure which would
not create a difference of opinion in Ireland. Considering; aU
the circumstances to which the Bill related, 'he thought 'it
would be most expedient to invite discussion uvon it jai-
Ireland.—The Bill was read a third time, and passed.
COAL DUTIES.

Sir W. RIDLEY presented a petition from the Proprietors
of certain Collieries in the North of England, praying the cot-
tinuance of an equal duty on Coals. Ordered to be printed.
The Hon. Baronet then moved the Order of the Day, and
the. House resolved itself into a Committee upon the Coal Trade
Acts. The Honourable Baronet then proceeded to request the
attention of the House for the short time only which he hoped
to detain them. lie believed that no one had heard or read
the speech of the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exche:-
quer without being gratified-at the sound principles therein
proclaimed as the foundation of that commercial and financial
policy Which the Government intended to adopt. But he had
yet to learn upon what grounds of justification the same speech
should contaih a proposition for an unequal rate of taxation
upon the same article, and which would produce the ruirrof
the coal trade in the City of London, and almost that of ihr
north of England. The Ilon. Baronet read a passage from the
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the- di.-
mmution of the 'duties on Rums, which argued for the fairnets
or placing the duty upon the same footing as that paid by Bri-
tish spirits, and stated that in principle it could not be reduced
lower. Now here was a plain and distinct recognition of the
principle of equal taxation ; and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman
violated his own principle almost in the same breath, by re-
moving the coal-duties in so unequal and disproportionate -a
degree. If it were said that this had been done for the benefit
of the consumer, then the Right lion. Gentleman must go fur-
ther, and take off the duties altogether. If it were done on ac-
count of the inferiority of flee article, the Right-Hon. Gentleman
nust
had variousstillgortir nthserr,tsan andld some a
ookatthes ecionailsrioofrin quality the norLith:y
as thethey
coals of Staffordshire; but they paid the same duties before
they could get into the market, as the very best that were pro-
duced. The Right Hon. Gentleman was bound to consider the
interests which had grown up under these duties for a century,
and rather to give them protection than injure them by such 'a
measure as had been proposed. The Honourable Bart. then
referred to two documents issued from the Treasury, in which
the importance of these rights were acknowledged and it ro-
tection promised-then', and where a former opinion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was recorded, expressing his hope that Pat-
liament would never countenance measures which were- in-
jurious
y individuals, say any
ik
ttut her
andpisnepgne
di
than(enw which would
aic...nhy
Hhw aendv hurts,so producedeusitat
heee
here
that eee
him,lsian
y effect. r
ab
ver or
to the Tyne navigation. He was quite certain that
ech
ce
the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never
that tendency, they must be inadvertently used. But there
sipohani
shillings
lsiangges i na
nhdi s
in
zn that part where. he spoke of the reduction of the
gt
interestsen
wast.
tlt
hwarseea
the coal proprietors of the North had no objection to this duty
being taken oil; but thought that the Chancellor Of the Exche-
quer had done perfectly-right in reducing it, and wished he
would reduce more. But in stating this to- the House,' the

t Hon. Gentleman said certdp peraorevpossesiing arnono-
ikrly were in the habit of stinting the supply for the sake of
nnhancing the price to their own benefit, and to the hiss of the
Consumer. He knew there was an impression that an under-
standing existed amongst the collieries of the North by which
they could at any time only supply a certain quantity to the
London market. But this he altogether denied. The llon.l
Baronet then went into a statement of the extent of the
northern collieries, and the population they employed, and
maintained that the heavy export duties keeping them out of
the foreign markets, with other restrictions, prevented them
from trading freely with the article,. and therefore deananded
protection. With regard to the increase of price to the con-
numer, the proinietor had nothing whatever to do with it.
The price of coals at the pits had not increased, and within
the last two years it had been from two to four shillings
per chaldron. lie had .a statement of the number of ships
-in the market, - together with the prices, for every market
day in die...last year, and upon two only was the whole mupe.
ply pun:hosed. He would state to the House the number
of ships in the market, over the demand,, for each month. In
February lUO, in March 250, in . April - 156, •in May ISO, in
June 44, hi July 72,in August 127, in September 156, in Oc-
tober 97, in November 43, and in December 559. The lion.
Baronet made a cal-responding statement of the number of ships.
~for which meters could not be supplied on the market days._
shonld'Atilimit a Resolution to the Committee for removing
the Whole of.the duties, with a view to impose fresh ones upon
s' an ecenal scale. His second Resolution .regarded the meting
trade, with whom the Right Hon. Gentleman had dealt very
'hardly, in allowing them no sharein the remissions which had
tnken place. His third Resolution would be, that it was ex-
medient for the said duties to be totally but gradually repealed.—
' The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving ilis'first Resolution,
that it woe the opinion of the Committee that the duty on coals,
-culm, or cinders, not being charcoal made from .wood, brought
coastways from any port, or by inland navigation to certain
places, snouid ceait and determine ; and that all coals, calm,
and.cineers, not being -charcoal made from weed, in case it
was suche es was Mest usually sold by weight, should pay a
duty of four shillings andsix-pence, and in case it was such as
was most usually sold by measure, a duty of sit: shillings.; and
that such articles brought by the Grand Junction.or Padding-
ton-Canals, or by the Thames nearer than the City Stone or
Staires Bridge, should pay a duty of three shillings and six-
' pence.
Mr. LITTLETON called upon the House to consider the
reasons for which a duty hail first been intrusted uOon coals int-
Ported by sea, and not upon those which arrived by inland con-
veyance. He was satisfied that every one must see that it was
owing to the hnmense advantages which such a mode of carr:age
conferred. The srst imposition of the duty upon inland coals in
the year 1305, was a great injustice, and which could not be
suppereted upon any reasonable grounds. There were a bun-
..dred pl.-tees where the inland Coals now came into corn-
petition with those in-more:ad by sea, without paying any
duty whatever. This was the case in all ports so as they did
..rros approach the Metropolis. If his Right
.1 ion. Friend the
-Channelico of the Exchequer approved the principle of the
.I.onden Duty, which he was happy to think was not the case,
then be-was bound to extend it to all other places. The mono-
!poly of the Northern Coal Proprietors was not limited to Lon-
don. but had been secured all round it .to tin extent of seven-
;teen Miles by Land, and thirty-one by water. Ile would.shew
"the Horse whet was the cost of a certain quantity cf coals
when inverted inland and ready for sale, and the cost of an
:equal quantity of sea-borne coals lying in the Thames Pool, and
:it would be for them to judge whether the Proposed duties
,were unequal. The expence of freightage and other charges,
:compared to the prime cost of Newcastle coals, was as 11 to
17.. The same expellees, as compared to the prime cost of
Staffoidshire coals, was as 29.4- to 18. The King's duty upon
the Newcastle, as 13 to 17 : die duties paid by the.Stafibrd-
sshire to the-Government and the City, as 19 to 8. So that upon
'both these heads the charges were infinitely higher upon the In -
land.cazls than upon the sea-home. In addition to this belied to
state, that the.charge of tonnage upon coals to the vane of 181.
was from 20 to 3:1 : so that about 160 per cent. was paid 'upon
o.he prime cost of the article. The sea coals navigating the tree
sea were not liable to those charges, and therefore come into the
market with such great advantages. Perhaps after this the Hotive
would not be surprised to hear the small proportion of inland
.coals introduced into the London market. The importation of
more than 50.00 tons annually was prohibit&. ; but the duties
he had mentioned rendered such a prohibition useless. The
lion. Member read a statement of the quantity of inland coal
imported since the passing of the Act of 1603, which chewed the
very small proportion that came into the market. In the year
1822, it was 1,559 tons ; in 1/323, it was 912 : and in 1824; 1663
tans. The Hon. Baronet had stated that the northern col-
lieries had a limited market for their article, but he would
;find that, by comparison, those in Staffordshire were much
worse off. The reason why his constituents 'wished him to
eupport the resolution of the Government was this. While
they did not object to the gradual reduction of the duties on
.the coals from the north, although that, would be much to their
injury, they felt that they had a right to claim the earliest re-
:d action of those which had been placed upon themselves with
ro much injustice. He was sorry to say that he had no jute-
.- reit in the question; but the Gentlemen on the other side had
serener reasons to opposing the plan of Government. His
. Hon. Friend, the Member fOr Yorkshire, and the Hon. Men),
:hers for Durham and Newcastle, had weighty reasons for the
• epreeent motion, but he must decline taking their evidcnce as
.Iteing interested persons. He must make die same reutirk with
:regard to the Hon. Baronet's denial of the existence, of Trio-
nopely.. It was the common belief that a monopoly did exist,
-and sand( a one as had the power to affect' the prices paid
by the public. He should for these reasons glye a negative to
the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished tosay
,a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the Hon.
Baronet. In what he had said relating to the parties who felt
themsc.ives a&r.ricved, he did not state so directly that there
• was a combination amongst the proprietors. He stated that if
such a case existed, it was necessary to meet it by some mea-
sure of protection to the public. And he said so much in con-
-silt-iv-Ice of what bad been thrown out by an Hon. Alderman,
,one of the Members for the City of London, on presenting a
petition at a prcsio.ns
pert of the evening ; and he rather di-
rected his observations to that statement, than ter the indi-
oAdnala in question. If they possessed a monopoly, they had
certainly a right to take advantage of the law for their own
benefit: But it was the duty of the Government to look and
.see whether ,nett a state of the law could not be properly
.and justly altered. It appeared to him that the course he
had pursued was not open to the charges of inconsistency,
which the Honourable-Baronet had brought against it. When
the duty was first laid upon inland coals hr .1t.:05, a prohibition
was added fur preventing the importation of more -than 50,000
-tons annually. From this it was evidently the intention of
' 'Parliament that the article should be admitted to that extent.
Nocv the fact was, as had been shewn by tile Hon. 51ember for
Staardshirc, that the duty had almost amounted to an entire
oirollibition, and thus the intentions of the Legislature had been
frustrated. But the Hon. Baronet said that. tire inferiority of
the coals kept them out of the market, rind consequently that
-the reduction of duty should be extended to the inferior coals
.in the •North. In that he forgot the other duties that were paid
.by the inland article. The tonnage duties were imposed by
Act of Parliament, and whether the duty was paid to • the Go-
vertu-Ant or to individuals was much the same to the individual.
The. coals imported into London-last year amounted to no less
than 1n400,050 chaldrons; and it therefore could not he seriously
:maintained that the 50,900 tons in question would not preps-
- • clice, the general consumption. It was to be observed also,
• that in proportion as London increased in wealth snd•popula-
. tion, would increase the consumption of this article. It lied
progressively increased for -.several' years.,• Tile coal owners
of the North haft nothing to fear. They had Indeed no real
ground of apprehension. All that he (the Chancellor of the
Ex-chequer) hatl proposed, was to give an advantage, to thee con-
.suetner.
.The Hon. Baronet had -alluded to the duty pressing
on coalsof an inferior quality; 'and thus preventing its exports-
_time; but it was to be remembered that the" export duty had
been reduced, and the,quantity expoited- was 'increasing very
fast. In every point of view, therefore, the alarm cf the lion.
Baronetwas without' any just reason. - He Would now shortly.
allude to the other resolution proposed by the Hon. Baronet.-
- They were certainly calculated to attract such Hon. Members
. as had been very urgent for a repeal of the Coast Duty, but he
.could not,,on that account alone, acquiesce iu them. The second
-proposedetO .retain that very inequality against London which
was so much complained of., It would leave the six shillings
•as well as the three shillings duty untouched. Ile objected also.
~for the same reason, to the. third resolution. That proposed a
-.gradual reduction.. He could not at present agree to this, be-
cause it might occasion a loss of revenue of 900,800/.. lie might
be wrong in his financial calculations,. and- as to his proposed
,mode of disposing of the. surplus revenoi; but whether. he was
right or wrong, he should he inconsistent if he approved of
• this resolution. It would pledge him to destroy his own cal=
.culatiorie, and he .believed that it was not necessary for him to
commit so suicidal an act. For these rea.sOns he should be un-
der the necessity of objecting to the resolutions proposed by the
. lion. Baronet.
Mr. ELLlSONsupported the resolutions, denying that there
. -was any desire on the part of the Northern Coal Proprietors to.
.obtain a monopoly.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY opposed the resolutions; denying
that there was any combination to keep up the price of Coal
among the Proprietors of Staffordshire.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY supported the Resolutions.—
The Northern Proprietors (of whom he wasone) desired no
• .advantage over their competitors but what was given them by
nature. He should have thought that those who so warmly
_Advocated the principles of free trade would have cordially
:jjoined_ in. these resolutions. He denied that the Staffordshire