The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-10 00:00:00

THE LONDON COAL TRADE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN:
SlR—Permit me to address you on the subject of two arti-
obis wliich have appeared in )(sus- piper, under the head of
Ccal Monopoly of the Port of London," containieg state-
molts so completely at variance with facts, tiLtt if the author
of them had sudied systematic misrepresentation, they are ex-
actly of the kind which I should have expected he would have
produced.
He quotes two extracts from the evidence given before the
Committee of the House of Commons in 1836 ; and I there-
fore conclude that he will not question upon an authority which
he has already recognized, the refutation of his allegations. 1
see that you have published in this evening's paper a letter
from " Veritas," contradicting the monstrous charge made
against the coal-factors, that their commissions last year
mut-tinted to the enormous suns of 400,C('N., and sta-
ting that he could have as easily refuted the various
other assertions. I am perfectly satisfied that he could have done
so; but I am afraid the public will set as little value upon a
mere assertion of the falsity of your correspondent's state-
ments, as i set upon the statements theroselves, knowing, as
I do, that they are totally false, and, therefore, to disabuse
the public mind on an important subject, I think it only
right to supply that information which " Veritas" says he
cooLl have given, but which I am sorry he has not supplied ;
and het;" I would correct an error (evidently originating at
puss) in s; sting the rate of factorage to Le Is. 2d. per ton,
as it is only tili-leepence per ton. It is not my intention to dis-
cuss the opinions cc speculative notions of your correspondent,
but merely to inquire Into the truth of his assertions, and to
show how much accuracy there is in his calculation from the
propositions which be has himself laid down. First, it is
stated that coal of the first quality cests at the moment of
putting it onboard of colliers in the Tyne ifs. 4-id. per ton.
Fre:glit to London
Unloading and meterage ls. lid.

Total 18s. sid.
The fact is, that ecal a the first quality cost on board
the colliers in the Tyne, in January, 1836, 9s. 9d. per ton.
( See Evidence before the Committee in 1836, pages 53 and
54 ; ) but since October, 1836, at which period the best coals
were advanced 9d. per ton, it has cost 108. 6d. per ton.
The average freight from the Tyne, in 1835, was 7s.
(see Evidence before the Committee in 1836, page
98), but by the evidence given in your page*', of yesterday, the
average freig:7t from the Tyne ,in &37, appears to have been
9s 21d., and that the London charges en one ton of coals sold
at 235. 6d. amount to 2s. 3id., exclusive of for delivery of
the cargo. We have therefore the following restil.! as the
AvcrAge price whi h the Newcastle best coal cost, delivered Ln
Ix lid, ,n 1837:
P-ice of coals un beard ship in the Tyne I9E. 6d. per tor.
Insurance
Fr. ight to Lorel,:n
-.. 2a. 3d.

London charges
Total
225. ld.
Out of the freight, the ship-owner had to pay 9d. per ton
for delivery.
This price of the Sunderland best coals, on board ship in
the Wear, is Ili. 6d. per ton, being Is. per ton higher than
the Newcastle best coal, and the freight is, en an average, at
leaot 6d. per ton higher from the Wear than the Tyne, to-
gether Is 6d. per ton; therefore, the average price which
the Sunderland best coals cost, delivered in London, in 1837;
!calculated on the above principle, is 235. 71d. per ton. Se-
Londly, it is stated the total quantity of coals imported into Lon-
on for five years, from 1833 to 1837, was 11,330,258 tons,
;which, at the average price of 23e. per ton, sold for
13,029,8061., of which sum the factors received, for their mo-
-1 copoly, 2,018,0161. Now, Sir, the average price of
Steward's Wallsend in 1833 was ......... 18s. 3icl.
1834 - ..... 20s. 3:1,-d.
1835 -
1-( See Evidence before Cornmitte in 1838, page 65.)
1 From this data it may be, therefore, fairly assumed that the
!average price of the best coal in the five years was not near
1235. per ton t What an outrage upon truth is it, then, to state
i that 235. per ton was the average price at which all coals im-
ported into London sold in that period. At page 72 of the
evidence before cited it is stated that the average price of coals
on all sorts, sold on four market days, in April 1936, was
'l9r. lid., and in the evidence of your paper, of the 2nd inst.,
that the average nrice of all sorts of coals, sold on four
market days, in 'December, 1837, was 21s. 4id., the
moan price is 20i. ad. per ton, which, as the prices
.of coals averaged higher in the last two years than the three
previous years, considerably exceeds the average price at
which all coals can be fairly computed to have been sold in the
'years 15t,33, 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837. I have, hitherto, spoken
only of the coals actually sold on the market, not of the
coals Imported by Gas Companies and large manufacturers,
which on a moderate calculation may be stated at 170,000 tons
per year, or at 850,000 tons for the five years, and which
° would co=t, on an average, about equivalent to a market price
of 16s. 6d. per ton delivered in the pool ; therefore, taking
into account the reduction made in the average price by those
coals, it may be fairly assumed that the coal-owners and ship-
owners, have supplied this metropolis with coals for the last
five years at an average price of only Nineteen shillings per
ton, instead of at 235. per ton, as your correspondent has most
erroneously stated. To repel the scandal that the factors
have divided among themselves 2,018,016/. in the five years,
or equal to 3s. 10d. per ton on the whole quantity of coals
imported, besides an inexplicable odd 3d. per ten, I refer to
the Commons' Report, page 30, which states the factors are
paid by a Commission of one-half (or ten shillings) per cent.
on the amount of sale, and threepence per ton factorage;
and they take the rink of the merchants for payment. Again,
I tell your correspondent that his retroning is false in a most
important particular supposing that the factors did receive the
nondsome factorage which he state s ; inasmuch as his calcula-
tion of the aggrega e sum begins with the year 1833, whereas
the factors'r, gulations had not taken effect on the 3d of June,
1834. See Report, pages 27 and 28.
Thirdly, It is stated that a brig of 350 tons, or 220 regis
tered tons, is navigated at the expense of about 115/. per
voyage,occupv ing 33 days, and that her time is thus occupied :-
Ist, to go to the colliery requirts 4 days ; 2d, to return, 4 ;
3d, to unload, 5 ; 4:1-t, waiting for the good pleasure of the
factors and srecela=oro. or London and Ne, castle, and lying in
inactivity twenty ; total 33 days, at 31. 10s. per day, the crew
expend in inactivity, 70/. per vogoge.
Let it be observed, that the ship is loaded by magic in no
time.
I would ask, Sir, if your correspondent is really aware of
the absurd conclusion which these premises lead to--namely
that if the ship were not detained the 20 days in London, the
expense on her voyage would be only 451. To explain, if
115/. he the expense of a voyage of 33 days, and if out of
that time the ships lays 20 days in London, at a daily expense
of 3/. 10s., it must follow that if that detention was obviated
there would he a saving of 70/. on the voyage; therefore,
from the total expenditure of a voyage of 33 days, 115/., de-
duct the expense of the 20 days' detention, which is obviated,
at 3/. 10s. per day, 70/., and only 451. will he left for the
expenses of a voyage of 13 days. Mark this, economical
ship-owners, that a brig carrying 350 tons of coals and em-
ployed 13 days on a voyage from the Tyne to London and
back, can be navigated at an expenditure, including all charges
of port duty, ballast, pilotage, wages of the crew, provisions,
delivery of the cargo (which is alone 13/. 2s. 61), and insu-
rance of the ship, of only 451.
Out of pity to your correspondent, I will not further expose
the utter absurdity of his statement.
Fourthly, It is stated, if the monopoly of the factors were
legally destroyed, coals from the Humber, the Trent, the
Ouse, and Whitehaven, might be brought to London concur-
rently with those from the Tyne, and might be sold in London
on an average of 16s. per ton all through the year. As
none of the owners of coals shipped fer these ports are parties
to the factor's regulations, there is nothing to prevent them
from sending their coals to the London market, and selling
them when and how they please. Why do they not, it may
then be asked? To which the answer is, because the prices
in the London market arc too low to enable them to carry on a
profitable trade to any great extent from Yorkshire, or to send
coals at all from Whitehaven. Will your correspondent ex
plain how they could do so if the prices were lower? Due
he know that all the Yorkshire coals which come to thi
market are brought either by traders, which carry goods dow
from London, or by ships, which, having delivered cargoe'
from foreign in the Humber, have a particular object i
eornirg to London, perhaps to load an outward cargo, an
would come to London in ballast if coals could not be got o
the spot, or would proceed to the Tyne, Wear, or Tees, for-
any of them ? If he will make proper enquiries at the Yorkshire
wharfs down Tooley-street, he will ascertain what profit or
loss there would be on a voyage to the Humber and back, it
the freight of a cargo of coals was all that the ship earned.
Will any ship-owner engage to bring coals from Whitehaven
to London at tte freight of 16s. per ton for the year round
i> he had a guorantee rf immediate dispatch here ? Most
assuredly he would not, but would laugh to scorn such a pro-
posal ; and yet your correspondent says that coals from White-
haven would be sold here at 16.. per ton. Freights as high
as 14s. to 15s. 6d. per ton hare been paid this winter from
the Welch ports to London for coals to be sold here imme-
diately on arrival. as Welch coals do not wait any turn for
sale, and they could not h ,ve been got round on these terms
'ut in shios which hart deiiver,d cargoes en the West coast
from America awl the 13.al'e, and wanted to return home, or
in ships which, a'ter having delivered cargoes in the channel
ports, had seized the opportunity of proceeding round land
with a fair wind, b( ing at lib( rty to proceed in that direction
on to the N.rth, as the wind suited when they railed. I ask,
ar.; di r ports of Workington, Maryport, and Whitehaven,
firm which the Cumberland coal is shipped, to he compared
, 1;.... Cy. Carliff or S' am, a; 7,Tia if the dis;anee•
•. e. - • , 11,1 x ShipON,ll. r send his ship 5,
t aan :;dvanc•• per to,
f, em 1-or W• lets port,?
If your corn.'oPondent would make me a present or a cargo o 1
coals every nionti; during ti:is year free on board at White.
haven, and oblige me bring the same to London, I would at
once decline his obliging as I know that when the coals
arrived here they would not roclize in the market, or be worth
the amount which I should have pay for freight, and the
London charges of about 9s. 3d. per tcti upon them. I would
further observe, is it not notorious that the ports imme-
diately North and South of the Humber get their supplies
of coal from the Tyne, Wear, and Tees; that a large
quantity cf coals is sent to Dublin and other Irish ports. from
these rivers, and that the Cumberland coal goes only to the
nearest parts of Ireland and Scotland, as it cannot be sent a,
greater distances to compete with the Durham and Northum-
berland coal ? Do not these considerations, then, prove tha
the north country coal, as it is usually termed, is supplied at
the lowest price, which will remunerate the producer and the
carried (not excepting the port of Loudon), and this is all that

:0%.: