said, he held in his hands petitions from several parishes in Staffordshire, praying that no alteration might take place on the duty on coal. He would enter into no discussion on the subject, as he was quite satisfied with the declaration of the chancellor of this exchequer last night, that he would oppose any motion for a committee.

condemned the system of giving one part of the country an exemption at the expense of the rest. Not long ago, for the sake of a few counties interested in rock salt, a great portion of the country was subjected to considerable sacrifices. In like manner, the iron manufacturers now wished to enjoy an im- munity from taxation at the expense of the inhabitants of the coast. He hoped, however, a committee would be appointed to investigate the subject thoroughly.

said, if the measure of an equalization were carried into effect, it would be attended with the most ruinous consequences to the large establishments of Yorkshire and Gloucestershire.

said, there were but two questions to be considered; one, whether the petitions should be brought up; the other, whether they should be laid on the table. If gentlemen did not mean to object to either of these stages, he thought it was irregular to enter into discussion on the subject.

said, it was perfectly competent to any member, on an occasion like the present, to discuss any subject in the body of the petition, or any statement made by the member who presented it. This was a question of the greatest importance to many parts of the country, and the constituents of many members were deeply interested in it. These members would not do their duty to their constituents if they did not second their wishes. The hon. member for Staffordshire had done his duty to his constituents —he had raised a cry against the measure of an equalization, by which, according to him, the country would be ruined. His "country" consisted of a few ironmongers, who naturally enough wished to remain exempted from a tax which pressed' heavily on others. But, whatever might be the case with respect to the iron manufacturers, the poor of the county of Stafford, so far from being injured by an equalization, would be greatly benefited by it. They would obtain coals cheaper in consequence of the equalization, as there would then be a free market.

said, it would be very unfair to subject those manufacturers which had grown up under the exemption, to a taxation on coal. But the manufacturers, while they opposed the imposition of a tax on themselves, did not wish the continuance of the tax on the districts on which it already operated. If, instead of contending for an equalization of the tax, these districts proposed the repeal of it, they would meet with very general support. There never was a tax imposed more at variance with all the principles of economical science. There were, therefore, the best reasons why the tax should not exist at all. But an equalization would produce a very different effect from what many of the petitioners for it expected. One of the causes of the great superiority of our manufactures was, the abundance and cheapness of coal. In several manufactures, a very slight tax on coal would be attended with ruinous effects.

contended, that the object of the inland manufacturers, judging from their petitions, was, that there should be no alteration in the duty at all. He maintained that a duty of 1s. on the ton of coals at the pit's mouth, would only add 4s. to the price of the ton of iron. The iron manufacturers knew that this could easily be proved in a committee, and therefore they endeavoured by clamour to prevent the appointment of a committee.

said, he should oppose the measure of going into a committee. What ground was there for going into a committee? The tax was imposed under ancient acts of parliament, and the citizens of London had acquired and rented their properties with the knowledge of this burthen.

said the hon. member for Durham had intimated, early in the session, that he intended to bring in a bill on this subject. He wished to know when it was proposed to carry this intention into execution.

said, he had not yet communicated with his constituents on the subject; but the member for Surrey had given notice of his intention to propose a bill.

presented a petition from Thomas Spring Rice, esq. the unsuccessful petitioner, against the return of the sitting member for the city of Limerick. He believed there was but one feeling in the House as to the hardship of the petitioner's case. The petitioner, however, did not now come forward with any expectation of redress, but to draw the attention of the House to the defective state of the existing law.

knew not whether redress could be given to the petitioner; but it became him to say, that provision should be made to prevent a recurrence of such a case in future. The act said, that a copy of the poll, verified by the clerk of the peace, and deposited among the records, should be considered sufficient evidence. But, what he wished particularly to call the attention of the House to, was, that the committee had ordered the poll-clerk to be brought over. What would be the consequence of such a precedent? Thirty or forty poll-clerks would have to be called over from Ireland on every future petition against an election. He wished the decisions to be reduced to one definite rule, and not left to the discretion of a committee: he wished that the petitioners should not be left to as many conflicting opinions as there were members in the committee.

hoped that some legislative enactment would be made on the subject.

was free to admit the excessive hardship of the petitioner's case; but there was no evidence before the committee that the poll-books were genuine, and though the petitioner requested that the committee would apply to adjourn for ten days, to enable him to procure witnesses from Ireland, yet the committee felt, that in yielding to this request they would have done injustice to the sitting members, who had witnesses in London at a great expense.

disclaimed all intention of making any illiberal remarks on the members of the committee. The tendency of his observations was, to amend the law.

deprecated discussion on this subject at present. He thought that the petition, although it only prayed for the amendment of the law, implied a reflection on the committee. Fifteen gentlemen, sitting on oath, had come to a decision, and it was not fit that that decision should be questioned. It was at present inconvenient to discuss the propriety of amending the law, and it was at all events unnecessary, as the House had ordered the minutes, and notice had been given of a motion to amend the act.

wished to ask the noble lord opposite whether any resolution had been come to regarding the oath to be taken by officers on half-pay, at the time of receiving their half-pay?

said, he had not been able to give a satisfactory answer last session to a similar question from the hon. gentleman; but he now had it in his power to tell the hon. member, that it had been thought expedient so far to relax the rule referred to, that whereas by the present regulation no officer could receive his half-pay without making an affidavit that he held no other place of emolument, civil or military, under his majesty, it had been resolved to substitute an oath, that he held no office, civil or military, under the crown, exceeding three times the amount of his half-pay, which was competed to be equal to about twice the amount of his full pay; and considering that the greater number of officers, particularly inferior ones, had little chance of future employment, he hoped the House would not look upon the amended regulation as too liberal.

said, the answer of the noble lord was entirely satisfactory.