The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-14 00:00:00

COAL DUTY IN IRELAND.

Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from St.
Mary's parish, Dublin, praying for a repeal of the
coal duty ; after which the Hon. Member proceeded
to bring forward a motion in compliance with the
prayer of the petitioners. The question, he con-
tended, involved the interests of the coal districts in
England, and therefore could not be considered as
affecting Ireland alone. The amount of the tax
was but inconsiderable, as it did not exceed 50,0001.
or 60,0001. per annum. But the inconvenience in-
curred by the people was not to be estimated by
the sum paid into the Exchequer. If free trade
should be thrown open between the two countries,
there could be little doubt that the revenue would
derive an augmentation in another way from the in-
creased consumption of coal, owing to the progress
of manufacturing industry in Ireland. This tax
pressed upon the landed proprietors of Ireland
as well as upon its manufacturing industry.
But the repeal of the tax was not only called
for upon the ground of general policy, but
also on peculiar grounds. The tax was con-
trary to the stipulations of the Act of Union. lie
should, however, wave this argument, and rest the
question upon the ground of general policy. In
Scotland, which was a coal-producing country, no
duty was imposed upon coals imported ; whereas in
Ireland, which was not a coal country, a tax was
levied upon coals. The repeal of this tax would be
of essential service to Dublin. It was calculated,
that there were 7,000 persons in that city wanting
employment. He would show how the repeal of
this tax would act upon this part of the population.
One of the first woollen manufacturers in that city
had informed him that if the coal tax were repealed,
he could increase his establishment so as to employ
double the number of men he now employed. Now
tho woollen trade in Dublin employed 1,000 men,
equal to one-seventh of the unemployed populatibn.
If the woollen trade could be thus acted on, would
not the same cause act upon the other manufactures,
which had, in fact, become almost annihilated by the
high price of coals ? The difference in the price of
this article in Ireland and Scotland operated as a
premium to induce capitalists to remove from the
former to the latter, contrary to the policy we were
intent upon. The amount of duty collected on coals
in Ireland was 73,0001. Taking that and the leather
tax together, the House would recollect that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had repealed three
millions of taxes in England, and if he repealed these
two taxes, he would remove only 100,0001. from
the burdens of Ireland.—(Hear.) This was a trifling
sum, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, by introducing
economy into the Irish establishments, might do
more than find an equivalent for the coal tax: On
these grounds he moved " That the House do re-
solve itself into a committee to consider the Acts
imposing a duty on coals in Ireland, with a view of
repealing the same."
Lord KILLEEN* seconded the motion in a short
speech ; but the Noble Lord spoke in so low a tone
that we could only collect that he heartily concurred
in the sentiments of the Hon. Mover.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
felt himself obliged to oppose the motion. With
respect to the argument of the Hon. Gentleman
against the unequal proportion of taxation which
had been reduced in Ireland, that circumstance
arose from the peculiar manner in which Ireland
had been fostered, so that there was scarcely a tax
in that country which could be further redueed con-
sistently with the interests of the empire. Abstract-
edly considered, the coal-tax did certainly affect the
industry of the country. But it should be con—
sidered that the tax on Ireland was Is. 10d. per ton,
while in England it was 4s. Surely, if a reduction
of taxation on this article was called for, relief
should be applied to that country which bore the
largest part of the borden.—(Hear.)--But his Hon.
Friend argued that Ireland laboured under a disad-
vantage as compared with Scotland, which paid no
duty upon coals. He (the Chancellor) admitted
the fact, but what claim would not England have, if
both Ireland and Scotland were exempt from the
duty ?—(Hear.)—The Hon. Member must look to
the whole question of the duties on sea-borne coals;
and when it was considered that these duties pro-
duced a revenue of 800,0001., he would put it to
the House whether, after the relief which the
country had already experienced, it could, with a
due regard to those to whom we had contracted an
obligation, reduce so large a portion of taxation,
even if the arguments in favour of it were more
_cogent than his Hon. Friend's. His Hon. Friend
had said that a reduction of taxes in Ireland was a
reduction of the burdens of England. He admitted
this. He contended also for the converse,—namely,
that a reduction of taxation in England was a relief
to Ireland. With respect to the recommendation
of economy by his Hon. Friend, he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) begged to remind the House,
that when he brought forward the budget, he had
expressly taken credit for the resources which had
been, and which were to be, obtained from a reduc-
tion of our establishments. Thinking that the con-
tinuance of this tax was no violation of the Act
Union, he had no hesitation in giving his oppositioi
to the motion of his Hon. Friend.
General GASCOYNE supported the motion.

Mr. WARBURTON was also favourable to the

motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL followed on the same side.
Mr. BARING gladly supported the motion.
Mr. G. MOORE suggested to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that if he determined to continue the
tax as a general tax, he would modify it-by exempt-
ing from it all coals used in manufactories in Ireland.
Mr. E. WODEHOUSE said, that this tax could
not be defended in argument by any man whatever.
Lord MILTON opposed the motion.
Mr. P. THOMSON opposed the motion, be-
cause its object was a partial one.
Lord CASTLEREAGH opposed the motion, as
we understood.

Sir T. D. ACLAND supported the motion.
Lord ALTH OR P considered every measure which
benefitted Ireland benefitted the empire at large, for
the interest of Ireland arid England was, in fact, the
same.

Sir C. COLE supported the motion.
Mr. RICE said a few words in reply, after which
the House divided, when the numbers appeared—,
For the motion l2O
Against it lB7
Majority —67
HACKNEY COACHES

Sir J. NITROTTESLEY rose to move for the
appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the duties, salaries, and emoluments of hackney-
coach commissioners, and the present state of public
carriages in the metropolis. The Hon. Baronet
prefaced his motion by stating the inconvenience
which arose from the present system, and the ne-
cessity which existed for some change for the public
advantage ; he conceived that that necessity must be
apparent in every person who had an opportunity of
observing the present state of things. The Hon.
Baronet concluded by moving—" That a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into the duties,
salaries, and emoluments of the Commissioners for
the regulation of hackney-coaches within the Bills of
Mortality, and into the state of the public carriages

K~~

within the said bills, arid to report the evidence, and
their opinion thereon, to the House ; and also to in- .
quire into the state of the law affecting the same, and
to report their opinion thereon to the House."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
did not rise to give any opposition whatever to the.
motion of the Hon. Baronet—on the contrary, he
was extremely glad that the Hon. Baronet had moved
for this Committee. This was a question which,
however trifling it might appear, had occupied for a
considerable period much of the attention of the de-
partment over which he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) presided, and the only difficulty which
appeared opposed to that change which seemed so
desirable, consisted in the adjustment of those claims
for compensation which individuals filling public
situations of this description might set up with regard
to what they might consider exclusive rights and
exclusive emoluments. These were matters which
could be nu where so satisfactorily adjusted as in a
Select Committee of that House. He should not,
at this late hour, go further into the question.—
He should content himself with saying, that
he most readily acquiesced in the motion of
the Honourable Baronet, and he had no doubt
that the result of that Committee's labours
would be, to place the accommodation afforded
by public carriages on a better footing than it was
at present, and one more calculated for the public
advantage. It was his (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's) intention to effect great convenience for
the public in this respect, by a provision in the 8.1 l •
which he should shortly lay before the House for the"
amendment of the Stamp Acts, relating to the re-;
gulation of stage•coaches.—(Hear.) As the law at
present stood, with regard to hackney-coaches,
stage-coaches were prevented from taking up paE-
sengers upon what were called " the stones," and no
stage-coach could ply for passengers in London.—
Now he proposed to remove that impediment.--
(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that the greatest
possible convenience wordil arise to the public by
permitting those coaches to ply regularly from one
part of this metropolis to the other—for, by that.
means, the middle and poorer classes would be •
enabled to travel cheaply and expeditiously from one
end of London to the other.—(Hear, hear.) He
harrhad an interview (as we understood the Right
Hon. Gentleman to say) with the parties whose
interests were principally involved in the coaches
which were, under the existing law, allowed to ply
in London, and no difficulty had been started by
them to this proposition. He was satisfied that the
arrangement would be beneficial to the public,
but that it would not be injurious to the owners
of those coaches; for the class of persons who
would travel in the stage-coaches when they should
be suffered to ply in town, were not those who
would at any time take a hackney-coach if the law
remained as it was at present.
The motion was then put and agreed to, and the
following Committee appointed :—" Sir John Wrot.
tesley, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John
Russell, Mr. Powlett Thomson, Mr. George Dan•
son, Mr. Denison, Sir Robert Wilson, Sir Edward
Knatchbull, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Hob-
house, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. William Peel, Mr.
Nicolson Calvert, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Hume, Sir
Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Robert Gordon, Mr. Ridley
Colborne, Mr. George Lamb, Lord Viscount Low-
ther, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Samuel Whitbread, Lord
Viscount Howick, Mr. Maberly."

-