The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-12 00:00:00

nuouely as he could the proposal that was made. I,
would be most improper to do any thing which would tend
to injure the shipping interest, for the sake of giving a partial
benefit to another interest.--( Hear.) Under all the circum-
stances, he hoped the House would not cement to the motion
of the-Noble Lord. He believed it would east a most serious
impediment in the way of the Bill passing at all—a Bill,
which was calculated to confer so great a benefit on the con:-
munity.—(Hear. ) There was one provision in the Bill to
which he must for a moment refer. The city under the pre-
sent law, possessed the right of levying thirteen pence for every
tots of coals brought within a certain distance. Two circum-
stances had happened which deserved the serious attention of
the House; one was, that coals were becoming more an article
of export than they were formerly ; the other that steam-
boat navigation was going on with the spirit of enterprise
which became every day more daring and successful. It was
of the utmost consequence that London should he able to
enter into competition with Liverpool, Bristol, and the other
great ports of the country upon perfectly fair and equal terms.
—( Hear, hear.) It was of the utmost consequence that ships
exporting coals from London for the purposes of commerce.
and that steam-boats taking coals from London, should not be
subject to this duty.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore urged the
expediency and propriety of the city not standing on any
rights they professed in order to defeat the wishes of the
House. The city had already most liberally consented to
allow a drawback on every ton of coals within a certain limi-
tation, and that was no slight sacrifice, for it amounted to
about 5,0001. a-year. Under all the circumstances, he called
upon the House not to support the proposition of the Noble
Lord, which would be attended with the greatest possible
danger to the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON agreed in a great measure with the
sentiments of his Hon. Friend; at the same time he should
wish the Bill to pass into a law, subject to the clauses proposed
by the Noble Lord opposite. A more scandalous monopoly,
and a more scandalous combination never existed, than that
which affected the coal trade. He would now state to the
House certain facts which lie did not see in the report of the
Committee of this year, but which had been partly elicited by
the evidence brought before the Committee of 1836. The
President of the Board of Trade had introduced a Bill
exempting coal exported from the greater part of the duty to
which it was subjected, and, the consequence of this was
that a greatly increased trade was going on with the north of
England for the exportation of coals to foreign ports.
If the owners of coal merely demanded the same price from the
English consumer as they did from the foreign one, there
could be no room for complaint. But that was not the rule
they adopted. They sold their coals at Is. per ton less than
they would supply any for home consumption. That was not
the worst of their conduct. There was a small sort of coal
called Bean Coal, which was fitted for lithe-bunters, engines,
and steam-boats. The coal-owners sold that coal to the
foreigner at Bs. 6d. the Newcastle chaldron, while they ac-
tually refused to sell a ton of it to the English consumer et
less than double that price—( Hear)—so that the foreign con-
sumer got it at cheaper rate than the Englishman. Was there
ever such a want of public spirit—such selfishness—
that in order to drive the manufacturers of England and the
steam-boats to use the large coal, they did that which was
eminently calculated to promote the growth of foreign manu-
facturers. Was there ever such a monopoly—it was really
infamous, and he hoped Parliament would adopt some regula-
tiens as would put the trade upon the principle of fair end
open competition.--( Cheers.)
Mr. BELL acknowledged that it was with extreme sur-
prise that he had heard the proposition of his Noble Friend,
whs usually was very anxious to do justice to all parties. If
the proposition were carried its only effect would be to give
one class of traders advantages over another. He denied that
any monopoly existed in the coal trade of the North. He
understood that a monopoly was where the supply
of an article was confined to a few. That was net
the case in the North, for the owners there had to compete
with the coal owners of Wales, of Yorkshire, of Stafford, and
other coal counties. The prices of coals had risen in cons
quence of the immensely increased demand which had arisen.
The Hon. Gentleman here entered into a statement showing
the prices of coals in all the coal counties in 1835 and in 1837,
and accounted for the rise in the prices to the greatly increased
demand which had arisen, which was proved from the fact of
there being an increase in the imposts of London for 1837, of
250,000 tons over 1836. He denied that there was any
monopoly in the North, as there were sixteen or seventeen
proprietors who were altogether independent of the regulations.
The cost of a ton of coals in the Tyne, 10z. 6d., the city dues
were 2s. Bd. freight 9s. 4d., and the London coal-merchants
charge was 10s. 6d. making in all 1/. 12s. 6d., and of that sum
los. 6d. only was charged by the coat-owner. With respect
to the observations of the Honourable Member for Bridport,
relative to the price charged to foreign ship-owners, he would
observe that they were charged Bs. 6d., and the London ship-
owners instead of 16s. only 10s. 6d. He hoped the House
would leave the coal-owners of the north to the competition
which the great increase in the consumption of coals had pro.
duced, and he would add that be would give the proposition
every opposition in his power.
Sir ROBERT PE EL could not give his supp.irt to the
motion of his Noble Friend, because it involved a very dan-
gerous principle. His Noble Friend proposed to do cosy
with the tax upon inland coals, thus depriving the seaborne
coal of the fair advantage which it derived from the facilities
of its local position.—( Hear.) The corn markets in Essex
had a great advantage over the London markets from their
position, but he could not consent to affix discriminating duties
to compensate for the additional charge of land conveyance
from a greater distance. Upon that ground he could not
consent to the proposition of his Noble Friend. He wrssur-
prised at the indignation of the Hon. Member for Bridport.
He (Sir R. Peel) believed that there was a monopoly among
coal 'merchants, practically speaking—he believed that they
attempted to gain as much in the shape of profit as they pos-
sibly could, but he was surprised that the lion. Gentleman
should express un indignation at that, and that he charged
the coal owners with selfishness.-_(A laugh.) They charged
less to the foreign ship owners than to the London
ones, but that merely proved them to be totally devoid cf
patriotism. He (Sir R. Peel) did not expect more pa-
triotism in a coal-dealer than a horse-dealer.—( A laugh.) He
never expected anything but great selfishness from the coal-
owners. He ( Sir Robert Peel) had foreseen the conse-
quences of permiting foreigners to purchase their coal duty
free several years since.—( Hear, hear.) He foresaw the
injury it would be likely to create as regarded competition
with foreign manufacturers, and it was their fault that an ex-
ception had not been made with regard to that particular ar-
ticle, by casting their glance to a more remote period, and
t hereby securing to England the elements of future prospe. ity.
He acquitted the coal-owners of all blame, but he could
not pass upon them those panegyrics which his Hon. Friend
the coalowner behind him had complimented him with.—
( Much laughter.) Why, Quintus Curtius himself, if he was
a coalowner, would extort as much as he could.—( Much
laughter.) As the Right Hon. Gentleman had observed they
had legislated much too hastily upon the subject of Railways,
it was right that inland coals should pay as high a duty as
those carried by sea ; but the city had no right to demand
more than a fur proportion. It was their duty to say
to the City, " We wilt reduce the tax on inland coals, but
then we require you to diminish the duty on seaborne coal in
similar proportion." He ( Sir R. Ps el), for one, could not
consent that sea-borne coal should be charged with a duty
while inland coal was allowed to pass free.—( Hear, hear.)
The City,' in his opinion, had a vested interest in this matter,
which he (Sir Robert Peel) was willing to protect to
the uttermost.--( Hear.) It had shown a great example
of liberality in appropriating so large a proportion of these
funds for the protection and convenience of trade. Although
he could not concur in the proposal of his Noble Friend, he
would at the same time express a strong opinion, that it was
impossible that anything could be more advantageous to the
city, than to make every reductiou they could in the price of
coals. The facility of procuring fuel, was one of the
greatest advantages which could be conferred upon the
labouring classes of the community.— Hear, hear.) It was
most important to facilitate the delivery of coals. The me-
tropolis was gradually becoming a great manufacturing town;
and this, coupled with the improvements in steam navi-
gation, rendered it most important that the price
of coals should be 'reduced to the very lowest scale
possible.--( Hear, hear.) The improvement of this great city,
he considered an object most worthy the application of its
funds; and he thought, therefore, it was a legitimate applica-
tion of part of this duty to the construction of a Royal Ex-
change.—( Hear, hear.) He should give his cordial support
to the gradual reduction of the coal duty. He should be
happy if there were none at all ; he thought that would be
the proper way of meeting the monopoly. (Cries of
" Hear, hear.") But he would never consent to an at-
tempt to secure to the consumers greater advantages then
they ought justly to possess. He was of opinion it would be
setting a most dangerous precedent to interfere with the pro-
perty of other persons—(Hear)—not that he denied the exist-
ence of the monopoly—not that he aid not believe in the
existence of the combination—(Hear)—and he was quite
ready to put an end to it by every legitimate means—( Hear)
—but at the same time he would resort to no means not re-
concilable with the principles of justice.—( Hear. )
Mr. L ABO UC HERE said lie had rather let the duty go
on, and take it oft at once when it could properly be done,
thantime reduce it gradually, and so extend it over a longer space
of .

Sir R PEEL explained—He thought the smaller the duty
the better, and would rather have 10d. for 15 years, than 13
i.
for 10 years. He would consent to reduce the duty on sLa-
borne coal to 10d. and equalize the duty on ail coals.
Mr. L ABOUC HE RE would agree to that as tar as re-
garded the chartered duties, hut he thought the duty ought
not to be higher than Bd. when it was given for certain pur-
poses now accomplished.
Mr. PEA SE said the coal-owners of the North did not
object to competition on every ground. Till a few years ago
coals from Yorkshire, Wales, and Scotland, were gradually
increasing in qnantity, but the reduction of the price of coals
from Durham and Northumberland had produced the
practical monopoly which the country wished—the
cheapest and the best.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The coal
trade hi Durham and Northumberland had not, nevertheless
been a fair paying trade for the last ten ) cars. He spoke feel.
ingly as to this question; he did not think the coal-owners of
the north had much to do with it;—the coals might rise to-
morrow a shilling—the Staffordshire coals might then come
into the market ; and the market would be opened. After
having heard all the evidence, he considered the best way would
be to take the duty off, and let all parties stand fair.—( Hear.)
Lord TEIGNMOUTH could not- support the motion or
the Noble Lord, because it appeared to him to be a partial
way of meeting a great question, which was whether this eta!
tax should be contiuued or not. He thought considerable (!e-
-lesion existed on the subject of the Coal Tax, and if that Tax
were removed, the consumers would not d rive much benefit,
but that if any party was benefited, it would be the coal
proprietor. He should P.O extremely sorry to gain a little