Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-31

Could make On The lest estate in Virginia. As the
people OF Henrico were not growers Of tobacco,
were the court ofthat couaty as well calculated
TO represent the tobacco interest as the Executive
Ihe House refused TO recommit the report, and
the resolution OF the committee that a bill be
Drought '' IN pursuance Of there port was agreed to-
A resolution OF The committee of roads, Sc de-
caring reasonable the petition of the p and Direc-
'ors OF nnlcker's gap turnpike CO. for further time
I'd hhlsh their r0ad was concurred in A resolu-
uoh was also concorred in, rejecting the petition
81 sundry citizens OF Brooke for the relief of the
widow andchildren of VIM. H. Gardner. A re-
port from the Z. OF &. of. DECLARING il exp.dent
amend the act concerning the securities OF con-
stables, declaring reasonable the petition of r. Il
Goodwin, and rejecting the petitions of sundry
inhabitants oil Fiuvanna, Buckingham and Gooch-
iaha, Tor the pardon of Jesse Connolly convict in
'he f'ehlehtiary--were read and concurreJ in
a OIL 10 explain and enforce the act to suppress
dueiiins, was rejected on its first reading. This
OIL proposed to repeal the 3D. section of the duel
ing 'aw' ana the I'd section Of the act concerning
oaths of office.
Hesoluiions from the C. of Finance. rejecting the
peutions OF II. NJ. Sy dnor and Wexford G. Settle
commissioners OF the Revenue in Frederick for
u''he' compensation aud declaring it inc pedieut
10 repeal any part of the 9Th section of the act
concerning ordinaries sc. were concurreI in. A
iuf'her resolution OF the committee declaring il In,
e e nh
'c revenue payable into the Treasury The 18th Dee
instead OF the LIST OF October. gave rise 10 .ome
debate. MIR. Anderson, Of S. moved to amend the
resoiu'ion so as to declare the change expcdient.
,his nouon was supported by Messrs. Marshall.
oihp, hives, Jackson, and Gholson, and opposed
ny 'essTs. blackburn, Gaines, Dromgoole and
Tar'ann-But the motion prevailed rs to %.
MESSRS. RUSH & SAY.
we recommend the Essay of 4 r;,;- a., a..
public attention.-N you'd seem, from his quota
lions IRON Say, that Mr.. Rush has been rather
unfortunate IN his reference to that distinguished
foiticai Econonist.--In this said business of the
St" MANUFACTURE, 1t appears from the following
document very recently published, that the British
government sre determnedt 10 take off the restric
lions upon foreign silks, in spite OF the importu
nate interests of the Eug-h artists. Had Mr..
,.usn Deem OF his Majesty's Prvy Council for
itade' Is probable he would have given differ
1 ent advice:
Office Of Committee of Prirv Council f.,
Trade, -Noo IL, 1925
SIR-The lords OF Committee nj Priv, Co,
Gil Tor Trade having had under their consideratio,,
'e memorial Transmitted in your letter OF the s,b
ui stating on behalf of the Silk Manufacturers and
DIX ihrowsiersof Maccesfeid, that their interests
can only DE sustained by indefinite continuanc.
OF the present prohibition OF Foreign wrought silk
am uI ected to acqusn you, for the information
OF the Petitioners that their Lordsbips see mn f
Hcient grounds to induce them to recommend or
countenan'e any proposal to Parliament, having
LOT lis ooJect to postpone the period at which For
eiSh wrought silks are to be admit ed for consumn
,ioh IN Tie United Kingdom, or 10 alter the con-
oitions CT that admission. | am sir vou, mo,
obedieut humble servant.
THOMAS LACK.
10 MF. :. iiiggihboham, alacclesfcld.