The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-28 00:00:00

COAL TRADE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Snt,—The letter of your correspondent, " An Observer,"
upon the Coal Trade has but just met my eye. I .venture
to trouble you with a few remarks upon this production,
whirls I think called for by the grossness of the attack
made upon the Coal-owners and Coal-miners in the north
of Engl ind.
The violence of your correspondent in the attack upon
those individuals sufficiently exposes the motives which in-
duce the disp'ay of his rancour and spleen. 1 am not
ignorant of the endeavour made to throw dust into the
eyes of the public, by exciting odium against the Coal-
owners, in order that the more flagrant spoliators may
escape detection. The exactions of the City of London
Corporation on coals produce a large income, which it is
not desirable it should lose. By diverting attention from
an evil of such magnitude. and so near at home, and di-
recting it to the north, it is hoped that the venerable relic
will yet be suffered to remain in aggrandizement of the
coffers of the Corporation.
Here is the mala fides of the attack, for really the sub-
ject has been so much discussed in and out of Parliament,
that a very strong and powerful motive must have induced
any man to commence a fresh discussion upon it. The
Coal-owners have never shrunk from an investigation.
Their else has been laid before Parliament, and Commit-
tees have sat upon the trade in coals. The City was on
these occasions dragged before the public most unwil-
lingly, and at one time the reluctance felt by the worthy
functionaries of this Corporation to show the amount of
revenue derive" by them from coal, was almost the occa-
sion of the prerogatives of the House of Lords being exer-
cised with decisive vigour. The openness and candour
evinced by the Coal-owners was remarkable, and will
secure them from every dishonourable imputation.
They had nothing to fe ir. Every unbiassed indivi-
dual who has inquired into the subject of the regula-
tions under which the Coal-owners carry on their
mining operations, knows full well that no attempt
at monopoly is, or has ever been made by them,
and that any endeavour to restrict the supply, or raise
prices unnaturally, would be ON their part as impolitic as
it is iinpoasilile. Every one.who knows any thing of the
matter, who knows the extent of the fields of coal in Eng-
land and Wales, and in Scotland, is quite well aware that
any vain endeavour at monopoly, or at advancement of
price, by the Coal-owners of the Tyne and Wear, would
recoil with dreadful effect upon their own heads. The in-
vestigations which the Coal Trade underwent before Com-
mittees of both Houses of Parliament, induced both Com-
mittees to express a decided opinion that the trade could
not be left under a more efficient controul than competition.
And what can regulate the price of any article of produc-
tion but competition ? And can any one pretend that an
ample competition does not prevail in the Coal Trade?
The idol of your correspondent, the report of the City
of Landon Common Council, deprecates the regulations of
the north country Coal-owners. This is quite natural.
The Coal-owners had given them a vast deal of trouble,
and much more, had laidopen the disgraceful system which
had been fostered by theta for a series of years in the ma•
nagement of the Coal Trade in the city of London, and the
enormous sums received by them from coals. This in-
come in 1828 was 121,8351. Such an exposure was not
likely to pass unrevenged. Hence the virtuous indigna-
tion of the Common Council, and of "An Observer." It
is amusing to observe the credit taken by your corres-
pondent on behalf of the City Corporation, on account of
its having seen its error, that is to say, on account of its
long •continued maintenance of an outrageous system of
fraud and corruption, which, now discovered and laid
open, is gently called an error. It is indeed entitled to
our thanks for having seen its error, and its reso-
lution to mend its manners. But how grossly your
correspondent deceives the public expectation. The
" errors" of the Corporation, that is to say, the disgrace-
ful system which has for so many years prevailed
in the London Coal Trade, will be made the sub-
ject of legislative interference in spite of the
Corporation, and it is good grace in them to
yield now. But the " evil" which the Corporation is
going to ameliorate, must refer to the income it enjoys,
for to be effectual it can refer to nothing besides. Will
then the Corporation give up its coal dues, its prescriptive
metage, its balliage, and its orphan's dues? This, from
the declaration of your correspondent, might have been
expected. But let us hear the report of the City Com-
mittee upon the subject, which is much applauded by your
correspondent. This report informs the community that
they will consent to any regulation that may leave them
the same nett revenue from coals that they now enjoy.—
Here is amelioration ! Surely your correspondent is him-
self a participator in the joyous doings of the City function-
aries, the expenses of which are, I am informed, expressly
charged upon the coal metage fund.
Notwithstanding the solemn anathema pronounced by
the City Committee upon the regulation of the Coal-owners,
notwithstanding the profound knowledge of all matters of
trade and commerce which the members of that body mutt,
from the nature of their avocations, and of their callings,
unquestionably possess, and of which knowledge their
reports are from time to time the august disseminators, it
does happen that the regulation alluded to is capable of
a very sure and safe defence. I shall proceed to remark upon
the letter of your correspondent as the subject presents itself
to my view. 'With all the respect which I must neces-
sarily have for your correspondent, and for his talents, I
a:n induced to conclude that he has made a sad mistake in
his selection of principle, and of necessity in the super-
structure he raises upon them. He commences by
an invocation of " first principl. s." They are very
useful things, and they frequently serve for men to appeal
to when ail other resources fail them. lam quite aware
of their advantage, but then all dogmas, or axioms,
with which a man's heal may be crowded, are not
" first principles." The hypothesis that the least
possible interference with the employment of capital
either by the Legislature, or by any self-constituted
bodies, is best," is a very different thing from a prin-
ciple of conduct or of action used in the light intended
by your correspondent. How does the hypothesis stand
in the abstract ? Clearly open to a thousand, aye tens of
thousands, of modifications. Can this be a principle
which no man can subscribe to without so many excep-
tions, that it becomes in fact no &wet nible principle at all?
Why, if this be a " first principle," there is no Act of Par-
liament for the regulation, the increase, or the encourage-
ment of the node and commerce of the country, which
does not invade its sacred limits. But then, says be, it is
to be the " least possible interference." It is very well,
but who can settle the degree of interference? The in-
terference has been in all trades, and in all enactments re-
specting trade, so very considerable, that the principle is
utterly lost and abused. Nor is it proper it should be
otherwise. It is no principle at all. A principle, the
more especially a " first principle," must be precise and
determinate in its meaning, bearing intrinsic) evidence of

its own force and virtue.
The fact is, your correspondent has stumbled upon an
hypothesis, which, in order to substantiate as a principle
to be acted upon, wi,uld take a letter just as long as he has
built upon his unfottunate assumption. He had minas
better have taken a principle out of Ad on Smith's" Wealth
of Nations," than trusted either to his own ing,nuity in the
manufacture, or his own sagacity in the application.
But mark the inconsistency of this gentleman. He
himself gives the principle to the winds. lie names a
principle, merely fur the purpose of laughing it to scorn.
It is he who asks for a legislative interference with the
co ,l mining operations of the North of England, or he
wishes the Act of Anne onfotceil. It is fortunately a
dead letter. It is not applicable to the subject, but if it
w.•re, the principle of the enactment is a sufficient gua-
r tutee of its cons'gnment to oblivion. It might as well
be attempted to enforce the yet unrepealed Acts against
forestalling and regrating, in which the wisdom of our
ancestors is suffieiently apparent.
The arguments of your correspondent, Sir, are directly
in the teeth of his own avowal of principles, and I there-
fore know not how to treat him. But his statements may
create delusion in the public mind were they to pass alto-
gether unnoticed.
Now, Sir, the Coal-owners of the Tyne regulate but do
not restrict. The supply to the markets is regular and
ample. The consumption of coals in London increases annu-
ally, and last year exceeded all others in the amount of its con-
sumption. This proves that the Coal-owners do not restrict
their vends. The import into London in 1830 exceeds
that in the year 1829, when there was no regulation.
It is quite certain that the regulation can have no effect
upon the supply. To use the principle of your corre-
spondent, " the supply and demand adjust themselves."
This is the ground-work of the regulation. The demand,
feeble or strong, is ever complied with. Can your corre-
spo,dent produce a Coal List in which it shall appear that all
the Shits at market were sold, and that there was an actual
scarcity ? He is well aware he cannot. It is 'impossible
to deny that the demand is plentifully supplied.
Then, what injury does the regulation work ? If it
have no effect in d.itninishing the supply, your correspondent
maintains it has upon the price. Now, I meet him upon
this question. Under the regtuhliarttieoenn the einaiivigersagtehpLrioenedoon.
the Tyne has never exceededthis
rice the Coal-owners find
chaldron, free on board. ;
they can maintain against.ill cpornpetition, awl this, there-
fore, is the fair market price—for the market price at all
times, and in all places, means nothing more than the