The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-20 00:00:00

COAL TRADE.

Earl BATHURST laid on the table a report, of

he Coal Trade Committee.

The Martinis' of LONDONDERRY congratu-
lated the House that a report from this Committee
had been laid on their Lordships' table after its la-
bours of two years. It-was not his intention to en•
ter at length into the consideration of that report
on the preient occasion, but it might be proper to
state some 'of the results at which the Committee
had arrived. One of these was, that it was indis.„
pensible that the Coal Act of the 4th George 111.
should be reversed, and that coals should be sold by
weight instead of by measure, in order to prevent
the frauds upon the consumer to which the measure

ing system gave rise. Anotber result was, that the
charges on coals in the port of London afforded the
Corporation the extravagant surplus revenue of
60,0004 per annum. The coal meter system ought
to be abolished, and a better and more economical,
arrangement made and adoptedfor clearing the ships;
and the improvident practice of consuming the waste
coal without benefit to any ono ought also .to be
abolished. Without at present entering into the
merits or demerits of the proceedings at the port of
London, he might state that the accusations and
calumnies against the coal owners had been amply
refuted by this report of the Coal Committee. It
had been held out in some quarters that measures
ought to ho taken to protect the public against the
combination of the coal owners; but the Committee
had declared, and justly declared, that as long as a
'free and open competition existed, as at present, be-
tween the coal-owners, it was impossible. that the
public interests could be injured by any com-
bination among the coal-owners. The free com-
petition afforded the public ample protection. He
hoped, therefore, that was an end of the calumnies
which had been circulated to the prejudice of
the
coal-owners. He congratulated their Lordships and
the country on the mass of evidence 'on this impor-,
tant subject which they had now before them. Such
a body of evidence with respect to the coal trade
hid never been collected before. The evidence of
was particularly valuable, and
Mr. R—?—, the clerk to the Tyne and Wear 'No-
it to the special attention of their
vhieg'areticoormi Cmoemtidpead"
Lordship with reference to the charges in the port
of London. He again congratulated their Lordships
on hiving such a report before them, and he hoped
that means would be speedily found to do away
with, what he might call the nefarious charges widen
so much enhanced to the public the price of this in-
dispetisible article. The reduction of these charges
to a proper and moderate rate would be one of the
most -valuable legialative measures that could be
adopted. There was one point, however, which,
although a most important one,.had not been pressed
441* Committee so much as be thought it ought
to have been. He meant the Government duty of
six shillings the chaldron on the coals brouklit •tti
the port of London. This duty was, in his opinion,
by fur higher than it ought to be, and he was de-
sirous that the Committee should have introduced
into their Report a strong recommendation mate-
rially to reduce, if not entirely to abolish, that duty.
There were others in the Committee, however, who
thought it best not to press that point, and the Re-
port had been framed accordingly, He hoped, how-
ever, that the calumnies against the coal-owners for
their monopoly had been by this Report completely
done away.
Lord TEYNHAM presented a petition from a
certain Company of creditors, as they represented,
of the East India Company, praying that a clause
might be introduced into the _Bast India Registry
Bill, to oblige the CoMparty to pay the money due
to them. The reason which they alleged was, that
they had lost their security. by the-neglect of regis-
tration, and that the Company were answerable for
the consequences, and on lit
it to pay the debt.
Lord ELLEWBOROUG observed, that the
Company had nothing
todo with the matter, and
that no blame Whatever attached to them. The
fault rested with the Supreme Court, which had
neglected to take the proper security, and one "_"
jot of , the Bill now in progress was, to remedy the
inconvenience as far as could reasonably be done.
But the Company Was not to blathe for the neglect
of registratioe— Whatever fault there was rested
with the Judges of the Supreme Court.
• •
EAST RETFORD..

The *Martinis of -SALISBURY,irctse to move
the second refttling of the East Retford
ment Bill. As to precedents for . measure of this
kind, he had only to refer to the cases of Cricklade