The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-04 00:00:00

(OUIZT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

ALLEGP,D GItEAP COAL MONOPOLY.

Ycstcrd.'y a Court n held upon one day's notice, " spe-
leceive a Report from the Coal and Corn and Fi-
n:ance Committee respeetinf; the coal trade, and fur pre,miting
Tetitions,to Parliament in 'elation thereto." The Lord INDyor
look the Chair at eleven o'clock, and
Mr. llunN, the Chairman of the above-mentioned Commit-
te,', having requested the attentive consideration of the Court
to a F•utject, which he described as vitally 17nportant to the iii
teres•s of the citizens of London, . and to the nlick country,
prey Jnted the following report:_

4. We, whose names are hereunto stutzeribed, your Com-
mittee of Coal and Corn and Finance, to whom, on the 29th
day of April last, it was referred to consider the petition of Mr.
Christopher Tennant, of Hartlepool, in the county Of Durham,
in relation, to two Bills pending in Parliament, entitled the
Durham south-Vest Junction Raikity,' and the South
Du rham witerebv an inerc,,,ett supply of coals would
be brought to the metn,polis, and d competition in the trade
cff,ctually pi-ornoted, with instrk.actior.s to take such measures
as should be thought neeessary, aid to propose a petition to
Parliament in the event or being deemed expedient so to
do, do certify that we ir.onediately proceeded to consider
the same, and were att:m,led by Mr. Tennant, Mr. Elliott,
the owner of the Her.th,sley Colliery, and Mr. Vathern, of
Hartlepou:, when Mr. Tennant laid before us plans, show-
ing the lines of the ',aid proposed railroads, and stated that in-
creased facilities ,could be afforded thereby for conveying coals
from the pits ir. the county of Durham to Hartlepool, and
from thence to the metropolis, at a reduction of expense,
whereby r, competition in the supply of that necessary article
of coo" ..mptiou would be created, and the public consequently
bcnefitted.

" That we, your Committee, having taken the said state-
ment into consideration, inspected the proposed lines of the
said railway, and referred to the proceedings of this Hn.
Court of the 17th of December, 1829, in relation to the Cla-
rence Railwav, having a similar object, viz., an additional
supply or coals to the metropolis, in which the Court .ex-
pressed their readiness to afford every encouragement within
their means to that undertaking, as they were satisfied that
increasing the competition by enlarging the supply of sea-
borne coals in the pert of London was the only effectual mode
of procuring the :same at a fair and reasonable price, are of
opinion that, as such objects will be materially promoted
thereby, it will be expedient for this Hon. Court to petition
Parliament in favour of both the said proposed railways; and
we have, therefore, prepared petitions accordingly, which we
have caused to be hereunto annexed, and recommend to this
Hon. Court for adoption.
" To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom in
Parliament assembled ;
" The humble petition of. the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
and Commons of the City of London, in Common
Council assembled ;
" Showeth,

That a Bill is depending in this Honourable House for
making a railway from Frosterbury to the city of Durham
'branch of the Clarence railway, tirtih various branches there-
from, all in the County Palatine of Lancaster.

That the of of the said Bill is to increase the supply of
coal to London aad,the eastern coast of England, and thereby
to cheapen that great necessary of life.
" That your petitioners have been informed that an arrange-
ment has been entered into by the principal coal owners ship-
ping coals on the Tyne, Wear, Seaham, and other harbours, to
limit the supply of coal sent to the London and other markets,
and that instructions are regularly issued monthly of the quan-
tity to be sent to market by each colliery, so as thereby to keep
up the price.
" That your petitioners have also been informed that, in
order to give full effect to the said combination, the parties
concerned therein have established offices with secretaries and
clerks, and have bound themselves, by certain rules and re-
gulations by which they levy contributions from each coal-
owner according to his bond; and the panic:: interested in
limiting the supply of the metropolis, are applying the joint-
stock land in an attempt to prevent the pasting of the said
Bill,

" That your petitioners are of opinian that, increasing the
competition by enlarging the supply of sea-borne coals in the
port of London, is the only effectual mode of procuring the
same at a fair and reasonable price.
" That it appears to your petitioners that the making of the
said railway will be the means of diminishing the said mono-
poly, and of opening a fresh snpply of coals to the metropolis,
and will be an object of great public importance.
" Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honour-
able House that the said Bill may be passed into a law."
The CHAIRMAN of the Committee submitted that the mat-
ter before the Court being of such serious consequence to the
whole community of England, he hoped and expected to wit-
ness an unanimous expression of approval of the recommenda=
tion of the Committee..—(Hear.)
The petition was then unanimously agreed to.

The ;notion that the petition be signed by the Town Clerk,
and presented to the House of Commons by the Remem-
brancer, accompanied by the Sheriff, after a long discussion,
was carried.

Upon the motion of Mr. BURN a similar petition was voted
to be sent to the House of Lords.

It was then unanimously agreed_ that the Committee should
promote the petition, and the Court adjourned.

KING'S BENCH-TUESDAY.

GIBBON V. HUME.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, in this case, applied to have the rule
obtained in the beginning of the present term discharged. His
application was founded on the satisfaction which the defendant
had in the interim made his client, an acknowledgment of
error, he said, as creditable to Mr. Hume as satisfactory to his
client, who only endeavoured to set himself right with the
public by an appeal to this Court.
Rule accordingly discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.-TUESDAY.

GIBSON V. BOUTS.

This action was brought by plaintiff, the assignee of a bank-
rupt, to recover from defendant a sum of money which, as was
alleged, the bankrupt had paid to him in fraudulent preference.
The action was tried in London before the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, and a verdict returned for defendant. A rule Nisi to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside was subse.-
quently obtained by Mr. Sergeant Bompas.
Mr. Sergeant ATCIIERLEY now showed cause against the
rule.—Mr. Sergeant 13omPas supported it.
The rule was made absolute.

PREROGATIVE COURT-TUESDAY.