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

Proprietors had any right to complain, mezcly because of
the superiority which those of the North at present and al-
ways would have over them. It wax Merely complaining be-
cause the North could supply the consumer with a better and
cheaper article than they could. Much stress had been laid on
the advantage which the Northern proprietors had in convey-
ing the coal to market by water carriage; but this was no rea--
son for depriving them of the natural advantage. As well
might it be proposed to tax the northern dealers in corn, on
account of the advantage which they also in that respect pos-
sessed over the inland dealers. What was so much called the
monopoly of the North he ihily admitted. It was a monopoly
caused by the means of eying the bast article the cheapest :
and of the inland proprietors could ever give the best and
cheapest against those of the north, they, in their turn would
have a right to monopoly. But this advantage about which,
so much had been said, was always lessened in value on
breaking out of a war, or •on the mere rumour of a war.—
The safety of the water carriage then became endangered,
and the expence of it was proportionally increased by the
increased rate of insurance. The advantage it was admit.
ted was fully enjoyed at present ; but it should he rempin-
beret' that they were laying' down the rule for a permanency.
He might observe that, in a national point of view, the coasting
mode of conveyance ought to be particularly encouraged by this
country, as it kept up a nursery fox' seamen ; but it was with
regard to the contending proprietors alone that he was now
speaking. Ile supported the Resolutions of those of the North,
because they asked for no special protection. They wanted
only justice.—( Hear, hear !)
- - • -•

. ,
COVRTENAY spoke in favour of the Resolutions.
The West of England, particularly Devonshire, was but scan-
tily supplied with coal in consequence of the pressure of the
duty. lie wished to see it entirely repealed, in order that the
consumers might benefit from it.
Colonel WOOD was perfectly satisfied that the Gentlemen
interested in the Northern Trade might dismiss from their
minds all fear under any circumstance, from any competition
in the London market with the inland proprietors. The
Northern Coal Owners had already a bonus of 3s. 4d. a chid-
dron, which of itself, would materially affect the inland Pro-
prietors by keeping them away from many of-the markets. If
the House should decide that a Revenue of 900,0001. could he
properly taken off it would be proper to consider what articles
it snould be taken from. In that case he certainly should not
give the preference to a repeal of the Coal Duty but rather to
that of the Window Tax, for if it came to a choice he should
preferlight to fire.—(A laugh.)
Lord miLTON said he objected to the selection of any part
of a country for toe repeal of a Tax as much as he world any
selection for the imposition of a Tax. Ile objected altogether
to this Taxation or repeal of Taxation upon a geographical
principle. He. wished to see the present Tax repealed alto-
gether, though he was not surprised at the partiallity shewn by
a Chancellor of the }E; :chequer for the Western Counties.—
(A laugh.)—Cornwall alone, though not abounding in milk or
honey, abounded in Members of Parliament.—( Laughter.) —At
the same time, however, he did not think that the Coal Tax
should be repealed, while the Window and Malt Taxes remain-
ed at their present amount. The Noble Lord concluded, as
we understood, by declaring his intention to support the Reso-
lutions.

^illr. N. CALVE RT opposed the Resolutions.
Mr. REAI A YNE thought the Coal Tax altogether objec-
tionable; but he did not think that, after it had so longcnn-
tinued, it should be suddenly -repealed to the sacrifice of ex-
isting interests.

Sir T. LETHBRIDGE opposed the resolutions. He would
support them if he thought the public would gain by the repeal
of the tax ; but he would not consent to the repeal merely to
support a monopoly. The existence of the. monopoly had been
rub-flitted by the different Hon. Gentlemen connected with the
Northern Coal Trade; and he roust therefore be excused for
:toying that he believed the repeal of the tax would not benefit
the public, but would merely convey money into the pockets of
the large dealers who were interested in a continuance of the
monopoly.
Mr. LAMBTON said, he had intended to protect himself
against the suspicion of interested motives on this question, by
taking no part whatever in the discussion; but as the charge
of monopoly had been so strongly urged against the Northern
Coal Proprietors, and had been so loudly dinned in his ears
by the Honourable Baronet who had just sat down. he could
not forbear declaring that there. was no combination what-
ever amonr•those Proprietors for the purpose of keeping up
the price. .Their object was only fairly to supply the market.
In proof of this he could refer to the known fact, that the sup-
ply. from the northern market had increased every year for se-
veral years. The northern proprietors wanted no monopoly.—
They, wanted only fair competion-7" it clear stage and
,hew
fa-
vour.rhe regulations now existing appeared to ,IleN a
preventet
de-
sire to keieletxt,,heerntlinft:,ottl
etilr' ecoiar ba dutiesn!arl'N-giciat Latoyet
n amounted almost
ll'Orset
to a prohibition. The taking off these export duties would
find employment for thousands. increase our tonnage, and be-
nefit our nursery for s,:amen. Repeating his disclaimer, on the
part of the northern proprietors, of all desire for monopoly, the
Hon. Gentleman concluded, by declaring his approbation of
the resolutions: -

Sir PLIOMASACLAND supported the Rosolutions. The
consumer was the parts to be considered in this question, and
he regarded the opposition made to the present Resolution as
tantamount to a demand that the Uouse should make a grant
in favour of private interests to the detriment of other private
interests and the certain loss of the public. The only proper
course of proceeding, was to make the reduction general, and
not partial and particular as they had heard proposed.
31r. NEWMAN • contended that this tax ought to be re-
moved, not only because it was oppressive, but because it was
an immoral tax, the children of poor people being early taught
to steal wood.
Mr.-MONEY supported the repeal of the tax.

Mr. H. SUMNER said that this tax was one which he had
always considered ought to be, among the first to be repealed.
He felt no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequor would
apply any future surplus to the reduction of this tax.
Mr. Alderman BRYDGES assured the House that the City
of London were very anxious to have this tax repealed.
Mr. Alderman WOOD supported the Resolutions.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY reminded the Committee of the nature
of the first Resolution upon which the House was about to
divide.. It was to relieve the City of London from the duty of
3s. 4d. a chaldron upon coals carried coastwise. The other
Resolutions were,to bring the duty on inland coals to the same
proportionate reduction as the first Resolution would effect on
sea _borne .coals.
Lord MILTON hoped the Committee would not forget that
the first Resolution appertained' to the City of London only.
The Gallery was then.cleared for a division :
For the Resolution
• Against it

Majority - - —32
Upon the second Resolution, the numbers were_
For the ResolutiOu, -
. . Against it -
Majority -
Upon the third Resolution—
For the Resolution
Against it -
Majority
-
GAME LAWS.

73
-13

The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the
Game Bill.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved that they proceed with
the Bill, clause by clause, from the point they had reached at
their last sitting.
On the clause enacting that in such existing cases of inclosed
lands as di& not reserve the right of disposing of the Game, such
a clause should be understood.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY moved an Amendment to the
efFcct, that in place of the word " existing," should be inserted
the word " future," thus making the clause prospective and not
retrospective.
Mr. STI TART WORTLEY defended the original clause,
which he did not think went to injure any one person.
Colonel DAVIES thoUght, that as the right alluded to by
this clause.was in abeyance, no one could complain that they
hid not the power to dispose of that right in this Bill, as they
thvight it fair anti equitable.
Mr. JAMES proposed, that the clause should be left out
altogether:
Mr.:LOCKHART supported the amendment. He thought
the original clause was a direct violation of all existing leases.
Mr. .JONES thought this clause so unjust; that although he
approved of the Bill, he would rather give it, up altogether than
pass it with such a provision in
Mr. MONCK supported the Amendment. He considered
this the most unjust clause that ever was introduced into any
Bill-brought into that House.
After a few words from Mr. J. MARTIN, the Committee
divided—
- - • Al

—....._
For the Amendment - - - 41
Against it - - .. - 33
.Majority in favour of the Amendment ----- 8
On the motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY the clause thus
amended was then struck out of the Rill.
.Mr. S. WORTLEY rose, on the clause allowing qualified
persons to permit others to sport on their ground, and proposed
to leave out words repealing nearly the whole of the clause.
Mr. LOCKHART considered the clause unnecessary. By
the common law, persons could do all the clause gave autho-
rity to do.
Sir J SHELLY. Sir J. SEBRIGHT, and Mr. R. COLBORNE
opposed the clause.
Lord MILTON could not consent to deprive the poor man