presented a petition from certain Owners of Collieries on the Tyne and Wear, complaining of the Duties of 6d. and 4d. per chaldron on the importation of Coals into the London market. These duties were to be appropriated to defray the expense of making the approaches to the new London-bridge. The petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel before the committee on the bill in defence of their interests. The hon. member moved, that the petition be referred to the committee.

opposed, the motion. The petition prayed, that certain duties should not be solely applied to the object in question, but other duties might be appropriated to that purpose. The committee had already heard counsel on the subject, and decided, that the 4d. and 6d. duties should be solely applied to defray the expense of the New London-bridge approaches. The petitioners ought to come forward with their opposition on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading of the bill. It was conformity with a recent decision of the Speaker; that, under such circumstances, the petition should not be sent back to the committee.

denied, that the committee had come to the decision stated by the hon. and gallant member. They had determined, that the 6d. and 4d. duties should be granted for the purpose stated, but they had not decided that other funds should not also be appropriated to the same object. One of the prayers of the petition was, that the sole management of the funds in question should not be left in the hands of the city.

repeated, his assertion, that the committee had decided as he had before stated. The expense to be defrayed was million sterling, and the committee determined that the 6d. and 4d. duties should appropriated, for a cer- tain number of years, to the payment of that sum. These duties were to be solely applied to that purpose, without aid from any other fund, except such assistance should be voluntarily and gratuitously offered.

also denied, that the committee had come to the decision stated by the gallant member for the borough of Southwark; and was of opinion, that the petition should be referred to the committee

, in reference to the decision alluded to as having been made by him, observed, that he had decided, that an individual, who merely professed to be an agent of the public, and who had no interest in a private bill, could not have his petition referred to a committee—such a person had no locus standi before a private committee. The case was different where the petitioner possessed an interest likely to he affected by a bill. Then it was said in the case referred to, "here is an objection to the principle of the bill," and he had decided, that the party had no right to go before, a committee upon the principle of the measure. The present petitioners professed toe possess interests which; would t be prejudiced by certain clauses in the bill; and, so far as that consideration went, the petition ought to be referred to the committee, who were to hear the petitioners upon such parts of the measure as concerned their interests. But it was stated, that the committee had gone beyond that point of the case to which the petition relate. If so; it was useless for the petitioners to go before the committee: unnecessary loss and expense would be the only consequences; and the House, knowing the fact through one of its members, that the committee had already gone to far remit the petition to it; as by so doing they would only occasion delay, loss, and delusion. The only remedy was to move upon the report, that the bill be recommitted, when the petitioners might be heard.

said, the hon. and gallant member for Southwark stated, that the committee had gone beyond the point to which the petition referred. Against this assertion the House had the opinions expressed by the hon. baronet and himself, to the effect, that the committee had not proceeded so far as to preclude it from entertaining the petition. He trusted that in this difficulty the House would refer the petition to the committee, leaving it to itself to decide whether or not it had gone too far to hear the petitioners upon the matter in question.

had no objection to the petition being referred to the committee; upon the understanding, that the committee should report as to the fact, whether it had or had not passed the point to which the petition related; and that if it had, the petitioners should not be heard.

enjoined the committee—as there appeared to be a doubt on the subject—to ascertain, whether they had gone beyond the point in question, before any attempt wee made, to hear the petitioners.

requested the hon. member for Coventry to postpone the motion respecting the Silk Trade, which stood for to-morrow, to any other day, as it would be a matter of great convenience to his majesty's government.

said, he had every wish to accede to any request made by his majesty's government He had no objection, therefore, to agree to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman; but as the Silk Trade was in a state of the greatest possible distress, he hoped no long delay would be expected. He would prefer Friday, as he was otherwise apprehensive that the discussion would be too long deferred by the Easter holidays. He trusted, that government would be inclined to grant a Committee of Inquiry, and that an intimation of their intentions would be stated, in order that the silk manufacturers might no longer be kept in suspense and uncertainty.

agreed, that the motion should stand for Friday, or any day after it. His right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) was prepared to state what it was the intention of his majesty's government to propose.

said, he was charged with two petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. One of them he should then present, reserving the presentation of the other for a future opportunity. The petition he was now about to present was from certain students of the university of Glasgow; and it would have been more numerously signed than it was, but that the signatures were confined to those of students of three years standing in the university. This petition, and a circumstance that had lately occurred in Edinburgh, gave him great satisfaction as they afforded a confirmation of the statement he had made, when he presented the Edinburgh petition, that the rank, talent, and intelligence, of Scotland were in favour of civil and religious liberty. A proposition lately made in the Edinburgh Presbytery to forward a petition to parliament against the Roman Catholic claims had been rejected by a majority of thirteen to four. This distinctly showed the feelings of the clergy of the metropolis of Scotland upon this subject. He rejoiced at this circumstance, for the sake of the character of his native country, and of the clergy of the capital, and as affording a corroboration of the statement he had made with respect to the sentiments of enlightened persons in Scotland, including the clergy, which were decidedly favourable to the great measure of relief now passed by the Commons, and received in the upper House of Parliament by so triumphant a majority