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

. . ,
poelterhy with his cousteuents by voting for a proposui
tuat was manifestly unjust.
Mr. WOLVE RLE Y ATTWOOD should vote against the
proposition of the Noble Lord on the ground that the result of
it would be (if carried) to give a bonus to the land-borne coal
at tile expense of the sea-berue coal.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the sense of the House did no
appear to him to be so much in favour of his proposition as to
justify the House in dividing on it. He did not however re-
gret having called the attention of the House to this subject-
-(Hear, hear)—and he had lietensd with great satisfaction
to the expression of opinion on both sides of the House. The
motion was then withdrawn.
BUSINESS OF THE' ROUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to make en observation with
respect to the business of the House to-morrow. He under-
stood it would be very improbable that there we ide: be a suffi-
cient attendance in the evening to enable the llouso to pro-
ceed with the business, and as there would be sotee Bill( before
the House to-morrow that he should be voy unvAlling
to lose the chance of forwarding, that the better way woui ke
for them to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
Sir R. PEEL said it won!' be a great advantage if the
Noble Lord would state what particular Bills he intended to
bring forward to-morrow.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said be sitoutel move the farther con-
sideration of the Prisons Bill before any ether business.
COAL TRADE BILL.
The House then went into Commietee on the Coal Trade
Bill, Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 10 being proposed, which relates to ,the drawback,
Mr. HOME said doubts had been expresseel
.whether thtuts
clause included coals used by steam-boats. It was unts'l
be the object of the clause that steam-boats should have te.'e same
advantage as others ; and he therefore thought it wou:sl be
advisable to introduce the words "steam-boats" into the
clause. This clause would be productive of the greatest Act-
vantage to the commerce of the port of London. and be
wished these benefits to be extended as widely as possible.
Mr. L A BOLTCHERE said there might be an alteration
made in the schedule.
Mr. W. ATTWOOD thought the object very desirable,
but that the clause was sufficiently explicit.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the 13th clause being proposed,
Mr. HUME moved the omission of' the last paragraph—
" Provided also that no such regulations which apply ex-
clusively to the coal trade shall prevent any vessel from re-
maining with the cargo thereof unsold withiu the port
of London for a period not exceeding fifteen days."
One great nuisance connected with the coal trade
was the great numb' rof vessels allowed to remain in the Ri-
ser, frequently for several weeks. The Committee discussed
tse remedy to meet this complaint, and it was agreed that
powers should be given to the Committee of the City to make
such regulations as would remove the complaints now existing
of the great crowd of colliers that interfered so much with the
navigation of the River._( Cries of "Hear, hear, hear.")
In orer to protect the interests of the public against the
errors of the City authorities, it was proposed that all the re-
gulations should be made by the Navigation Committee, but
could not be acted upon without the sanction of the ,Board of
Ti a'e If the proviso were retained the city authorities could not
remove any vessel unless they had remained in the river more
than 15 days. Any one at all acquainted with the state of
the river must be well aware that such a length of time was
too long, for it was much incommoded, and the authorities cught
to have power to remove them sooner. He thought the pros iso
would stultify the whole powers given by the Bill. It was his
intention to move a clause, giving the Committee power to
clear the river. The public were taxed to the amount of
137,( OM. a year, for that was the amount of the coal duty last
year; and yet nothing had been done in order to make
the river as it ought to be—a highway fur the great
trade of the port of London.—(Cries of " Hear.") It
was now almost impossible to get a ship through the immense
tiers of coal vessels which crowded the river, and now it was
absolutely necessary that open space should be kep for
steam-beats. Why should not the ships be unload& at
the wharfs like all other merchandise—such a plan would
at once clear the river, and reduce the price of coals at least 3s.
a ton. He hoped the House would concur in the propriety
of b aving the whole of the regulations in the hands of the city
authorities, and he moved the omission of the proviso.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN denied that the river was in the state
represented, for owing to the great exertions of the Harbour-
masters, from the lower Pool to St. Catherine's Docks was clear
for ships. If the object of the Hon. Member's proposition was
that the vessels should not be allowed to remain in the river
longer than 15 days, unless below Blackwell, he (Mr. C.) .
would not object to it. But he was of opinion that any com-
pulsory measure by which the shipowners would be obliged
to send their vessels into certain docks entailing upon them
additional expense would inevitably throw that additional ex-
eense upon the consumer.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr: LABOUCIIERE objected to the House making those
regulations which might be much more conveieiently left to
the Corporation of the City of London assisted by the Board
of Trasle. The Hon. Member opposite objected to these
vessels being sent into collier docks, and he (Mr. Laboochere)
quite agreed with him that it would be inconvenient to send
them in, but that was not the question before the House. As a
e aural principle, he objected to the limitation of these regu-
ionc., which should be more properly left to the discretion of
toe Corporation of London and the Beard of Trade.
Mr PEASE said the subject underwent three days'
consideration before the Committee. The Committee had
been specially summoned and it was decided that the provision
was a fair ard proper one. He complained of the unfair
and harsh manner in which hundreds of thousands
of ship-owners from the north were treated by placing them
in a position from which all other ship-owners were exempted.
It was too much now to call upon the House to strike out the
only clause which afforded a protection to the ship-owners:.
After a certain period they were to be driven out of the river,
whether they had succeeded in selling their cargoes or nut.
The ship-owuers in the north had full confidence in the fair-
ness of the Board of Trade, but they had not confidence that
ttie city would on all: occasions administer those regulations
wiih fairness.
Mr. HUME agreed with the Hon. Member, that if the
p•ov:sion was appliede to the coalowners alone, it would be
i ,hly improper; but he wished the regulation to be applied to
it vessels frequenting the Port of Loudon.
Lord G. SOMERSET said this clause, as it was,
might be considered justly as a protecting clause : if it
were struck out, the City might make what regale-
liens they pleased without any controlling power what,-
ev, r. —( Hear.) What he contended was, that the City,
under the supervision of the Board of Trade, should have per-
fect freedom of action. He was anxious that this clause should
stand part of the Bill ; but lie could not egree that this proviso
was to he considered as having the sanction of the Commit-
tee. Tile proposition of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny was,
fist, to leave the question unfettered, and he (Lord G. So-
merset) hoped he would succeed.---( Hear.)
Mr. M. BELL said, within the last few years the number
of colliers in the river allowed to stand had been reduced from
170 to 146, and lately four or five tiers had been removed.
The ccalowncrs of the North had agreed to this, and they
ought not to be further fettered. Neither the Legislature
nor the city had any right to interfere with them in the dis-
posal of their private pepperty ;—they ought to be suffered to
use their own discretion in making regulations beneficial to
themselves and to the public.
Mr. P. THOMSON said the question was whether, if the
Corporation, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trade,
were to have the power of making bye-laws, that power should
be limited in only one instance. lie took the Bill as it stood.
He presumed it was considered for the advantage of the
trade of the metropolis, and the navigation of
,the river
Thames, that this power should be given to the City
(subject to • the supervision of the Board cf Trade);
and if it were thought injudicious, that Parliament should
force these bye-laws. Was it not the height of inconsistency
to restrict that power in one particular instance.—( Hear.)
He gave no opinion as to whether fifteen or thirty days
were the proper time to be fixed ; but he should
wish to exclude the proviso ; for it was impossible
to ascertain for the present much less fur the future, what was
the right period that should be allowed.—( Hear.) The pro-
viso could prevent a period shorter than fifteen days being
fixed : that might be inexpedient.—(" No, no," from Mr.
Pease.) Well, if the regulation were tint inexpedient, the
Corporation would not make it, or if they did, the Board of
Trade would net sanction Hear.)
Mr. A. WHITE said, that if the shipowner was not al-
lowed 15 days for the sale of the cargo, he would be put in a
worse condition thanehe merchant who imported corn or any
other produce into this river. It would be making a very im-
proper and invidious distinction between shipowners.
Mr. HUME thought the Navigation Committee ought to
have the power of fixing the time lest the parties should
make use of the time for the purpose of combining for the
raising the price of coals.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said this was a question
that must be decided according to the extent of confidence the
House had in the Navigation Committee. He for ono must
state that having beenia member of that Committee, and having
taken very great pains to have certain regulations carried into
effect ; but not having been able to succeed, he had no con-
fidence whatever in their being fit persons to make bye-laws
on so important a question. He had been long convinced
that the way in which the Navigation Committee exer-
cised their power was a most unwise mode of exer-
cising it, and that it called loudly for redress —( Hear.)
lie had not confidence enough in the Navigation Committee
to :Wow them to deal with so large and important a part of the
shieping frequenting the port o London. Why were they
to make laws for colliers, excluding all other vessels ? Either
take the jurisdiction altogether from them, or give theta
the power to exercise it in all cases. The tendency of
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny was
to drive the colliers into the docks. There was a project for
constructing such docks, and no doubt if they should be found
useful and convenient the colliers would enter them, but he
protested against compelling them to do so.—( Hear. )
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when thc
numbers were—

For the proviso
Against it
Majority against the proviso —47
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. HUME bad given notice of a new clause, with a view
to giving encouragement to the coal.owners to clear the
stream, by allowing there a drawback of threepence per ton
upon ail coals unloaded in Docks, or along the side of
Wharls.-.L( Hear, hear.) His object was to clear the stream
is which navigation was now actually very dangerous,
but as be understood it was to be opposed, he would not then
press it.

We shall give the conclusion in our
SECOND EDITION.