The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

DUTY ON COALS•

A Public Meeting of the Inhabitants of Lon-
don and places adjacent, interested, in the high duty on Coals,
was convened yesterday at the City of London Tavern, Bishops-
gate-street, to take into consideration the very heavy tax' of
14s. 4d. per chaldron on coals entering the port of London, and
to petition Parliament for its repeal. The hand-billii and ad-
vertisements announced the meeting for one; but added, that
the chair would be taken precisely at two o'clock. At the latter
hour, however, there were not (except the re.porters from the
Morning Papers) more than a dozen persons in the room. At
about a quarter past two, the number had increased to 50 or
60. At this time Sir Charles Price, Baronet, entered the room,
followed by Aldermen Wood and Brydges ; Mr. W. Williams,
M.P. ; Mr. T. Wilson, M.P. ; Mr. Perkins; Mr. Blanchard;
Mr. Smith; and.a few other Gentlemen.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman Woos, Sir CIIAS. PRICE
was called to the Chair. .

The Hon. Baronet having taken the Chair, stated, that in
consequence of a mistake in the bills, announcing the meeting,
lie had to regret the absence of very many respectable indi-
Viduals of Westm;nster and the places adjoining, who would
otherwise have attended. However, notwithstanding the thin-
ness of the present assemblage, it was thought proper, as
public notice had been given, to oo on with the business of
the day. The Committee which had' been appointed at the
general meeting last year, had not been inattentive to the
duty which had devolved on them. They had again commu-
nicated to his Majesty's Ministers their intention of once
more presenting a petition to Parliament for a repeal of the
very partial and oppressive duties which were imposed on
coals imported into London and its vicinity ; and considering
the present flourishing state of the country, and the intima-
tion made from the throne that some taxes would be re-
mitted, they entertained a hope that their application to the Le-
gislature in this instance would not be without effect. Indeed,
it was impossible to anticipate any fair objection to their claim
on the present occasion. The_ ground upon which they went
was, the very partial and oppressive nature of a tax which fell
so heavily upon the citizens of London and Westminster, and
the neighbouring counties, from which all the other counties
were free. The inhabitants of those places he had named had
already paid some millions in this way towards the general ex-
pences of the country, and he thought it was but fair that if itl
was, found necessary that such a sum should continue to be
raised, the burden of it should be equally borne by all parts of
the country for whose common benefit it was imposed. In the
year 17.92, an application similar to that which this meeting was
now called upon to sanction had boen made to his Majesty's Mi-
nisters. They were then requested to relieve London and the
parts adjoining from the exclusive duty. In reply to that appli- ,
cation,Ministers had expressed themselves not unwilling, to re-
move
the tax, but unfortunately circumstances soon after occur-
red
which for years prevented their carrying their intentions into
effect. In 1818, another application, of a similar nature, was
made to Ministers. 'They slid not refuse to attend to it,
but they were so circumstanced (with applications for the re-
peal of other taxes), that this could not have been removed
without a tax to supply its place, and they did not know where
to place a tax fir its substitute. Now, however, the ease was
different. Some taxes had been removed, and a hope was
held Out, at the Opening of the present Session, that others would
be repealed in the course of it. Under these circumstances he
hoped that Ministers would consider the Situation in which the
citizens of London were placed, and not act upon the principle,
that because they were already bound by the Act of Parliament,
they ought to continue to. bear BO oppressive and unequal
a burden. The meeting had now every reason to look forward
for aid from the Legislature, and to hope that at last it would
do that which was only an act of justice in their favour. A series
of resolutions would now be submitted to the Meeting, and a
petition to the House of Commons founded upon them. The
petition was couched in strong but temperate language, such as
was thought proper to assert what was considered to be their
right to at least equal taxation ; and he trusted ,the justice of
its prayer would procure it many supporters in Parliament._
Thaillouse of Commons had already received several petitions
froth other quarters in favour of the same object. He would
now only add, that this was a new petition, and would require
fresh signatures. It would, he trusted, be very numerously
signed, before its presentation. He would not delay the meet-
ing by any other remarks, as there were other gentlemen who
would enter more fully into the business of the day.
the Hon.
Baronet r. Smintrthitesaciiical,irt,baitt
after what
not be leheadnetc.aelslseahryfrfohmr him to oc-
cupy the attention of the meeting at any length. They were
not met there for the first time on this subject. They might be
said to be a continuation of the meeting of the last year, assem-
bled for • the purpose of carrying.into effect the resolutions en-
tered into at the time. They were not successful in their en-
deavours last year, but it Appeared that Ministers were waiting
to ascertain what were the feelings of all the parties concerned.
Since then 'there had been Petitions presented-from most of the
places whose inhabitants were affected by the tax, from which
it was manifest that the feeling against it was very general.
It was a most unjust principle that one part of the community
soultl be burdened, an oppressive tax, from which all
the
eothera
were
aoxe with
exempt. .It
appeared from calculations made
at the time, that in the year 1818,
London paid upwards
of
.500,000/. duties on coals, from which other places were
exempt. It further appeared, that by a• population of about
4 millions in London, and several counties adjoining, there was
paid in the same year the sum of 2,461,0001. in poor-rates, and
a sum of 1,049,000 e coal-duties,. while a population of between
• 5 and 6 millions.in several other counties, paid only 1,700,0001.
poor-rates, and no coal-duties whatever. • There were nearly
500,0001. duties paid by the agricultural counties of Middlesex,
Hants, and Wilts. The injus-
Kticeenot,f
sSuucr rh eayn,
tSI
nu e s euxa,l Ddivision
of taxation must be apparent
at first sight. He would notl however, dwell upon this topic
farther at present, but would call the attention of the meeting
to the resolutions agreed to at the meeting last year. then
read the following resolutions.
" 1. That fuel being not.emy a necessary of life, but a
powerful trade, and most useful in agriculture,
al
addition
to the misfortunes of poverty,
iytax
thereo instrument
is
a o of
and a burden upon industry.
"2. That any tax which falls exclusively upon some mem-
bers of a community, and to which the other members of the
way contribute; is unjust in its
principle.
econminnity do not in any
London, and of 6s. per chaldron upon
coalsin `p`
imported
d.nTphionar
tttoe taht
heocpo
intooarsatt
nodyfu tyother e 9s. 4d. per chaldron upon coals
i
port, adds most heavily to the
burdens of those .who can only obtain sea-borne coal; whilst
those who can obtain coals without having been sea-borne, are
wholly exempt from any Such burden, and therefore it is
part of the present duty upon coals
partial and unequal.
car"ri4ed" 'that
ttwtihsee ltaorgaelrl ports in England, was originally im-
posed for temporary purposes; and a large portion of the pre-
sent duty upon coals, brought coastwise into the port of Lon-
don, was imposed for purposes of a local nature, which having
long since been answered, is now applied to the general service
of the nation.
" 5. That having
.borne this unequal burden whilst our
country was engaged in struggles in which its existence as an
independent state was at stake, we hope, in this period of peace,
when we have been informed. by a Royal Speech, that his Ma-
jesty trusted that the House of Commons would he able, after
ff
providing for the service *of the year, and without affecting
public credit, to make a further considerable reduction in the
burdens of his people, that we may be relieved from the coast
duty on coal.
" 6. That the tax tern fuel is so impolitic in its nature, that
we will 'not seek -rebefetioni its—injustice by attempting to
transfer any part of its burden upon any class of our fellow-
countrymen who are not now subject to it ; and we deprecate
every plan of equalization of the present ditty, or the imposi-
tion of duty on coals which are now exempt from it, and we
will seek only for an unqualified, repeal of the existing partial
tax.

7. That small coal exported to foreign parts is now subject
to an export duty, equal to 3s. par London chaldron, whilst
the coast duty on the same coal, if brought to London, is
9s. 4d. per chaldron, and if carried to any other port is (is. per
cbaldron ; whereby the manufacturers at Hamburgh, and
other places on the Continent, purchase such coals at a cheaper
rate than the manufacturers in this city."
He (Mr. Smith) would now beg to propose that these reso-
lutions should be taken as the basis of their proceedings onthis
occasion. The miners and smelters of copper in Cornwall were
allowed a drawback on the coals they consumed in such works.
This was not done with a view of any particular favour to Corn-
wall,
but because it was considered that the articles they manu-
factured could not be produced without such an allowance.
Now he could see no reason why the ironsmiths should not be
exempted as well ; or why a coppersmith in one place should
not be entitled to the same indulgence as a coppersmith in another.
The effect of this tax was not only felt by one or two trades,
but every species of manufacture in this part of the country
which required culinary preparation. The effect was, that
the price of such articles as well as the price of labour had
been considerably increased. The Scotch people, about
30 years ago, had obtained, and very justly, a relief from the
coast duty, and in lieu of it a more general tax had been im-
posed. Why should not the same principle be applied here ?
Mr. Alderman Bittpc-sia a conled the motion, and he did
so, he observed, purely from a teeing of justice towards his
fellow-citizens. Considering the great number of poor in Lon-
don who consumed coals, and the great pressure with which
the high duties fell upon them, he thought it was very hard
that such a pressure should be allowed to continue. Indeed,
he did believe that it was not the wish of his Majesty's Mini-
sters that such a tax should be continued. They had taken off,
some taxes of which the public had already felt the benefit,

and they were disposed to take off others, if circumstances per-
mitted; but he knew of no tax, for the removal of which there
were so many just claims, as that on coals. He trusted that all
present would enter into the spirit of the resolutions read to
them, and that Parliament would at an early period take the
subject into their serious consideration.
On the motion being put,
Mr. HUNT (Henry Hunt) here begged, that as he had not
distinctly heard the resolutions of the last mesting, which had
been just read, they might he read from the chair.
They were read accordingly.
Mr. HUNT then observed,. that he would take the liberty of
saying that one of the propositions contained an inaccuracy,
and the meeting would commit themselves by adopting it. It•
was stated that the original duty was laid on fOr a temporary
purpose ; but if he understood it correctly, one part of the duty
was granted by one of the Charles's for the support of one of
his bastards, and that another was for the support of the
Orphan Fund.
The CHAIRMAN here remarked, that Mr. Hunt was mis-
taken—the duty ,for the ,Orrhan Fund was paid in London,
besides the other duties of 9s. 4d. per chaldron.
Mr. PERIZII.79 said that the grant to which the gentleman
(Mr. Hunt) alluded was called the Richmond shilling, and paid
at Newcastle, upon every chaldron of coals (equal to two Lon-
don chaldrons) shipped filim thence. Some years ago that duty
was purchased by Government from the Duke of Richmond,
and the purchase-money was laid out in buying for him the
estate of Goodwoodpark, in Sussex. !Besides the duty of
6s. per chaldron paid in London in common with other places,
London had to pay three shillings and four pence exclusively.
In this heavy pressure upon the trade in coals from Newcastle
to London, the interests of the navy, for which so great a nur-
sery of able seamen was found in the colliers, were neglected ;
for if the duty was less, it was clear that the trade would be
increased.

Mr. BLANCHARD said, that besides the increased duty on
coals brought to London, there was another inconvenience to
which the citizens were put, in being prevented from bringing
their coils from any part of the kingdom they pleased. They
were obliged to bring them by 'sea, and to resort Only to two
rivers, the Tyne and the Wear. The collieries in that quarter
being in a few hands, our supply
.came he believed, from not
more than 7or 8 persons. Ile might he wrong in the numbers
he had mentioned, but certainly they were but few. The con-
sequence of this was, that they met every month, to determine
what quantity should be sent up to the London market.
The Camila:are asked what this had to do with the object
for which the meeting had assembled ?
Mr. H UNT.—I think it is extremely important.
Mr. BLANCXARD said he had intended to found a resolu-
tion upon it; for in consequence of it, we were now obliged to
pay the same price for coals as we did in the height of the war,
and he thought it was for the committee to inquire from what
other sources we might be supplied, in case the present law
respecting duties on coals should be repealed.
The resolution was put, and carried unanimously.
Mr. &KITH then moved that a petition, founded upon the
resolution, should be agreed to.
The petition having been read from the Chair,
31r. HUNT said, that he did not mean to object to the pe-
tition, but he regretted that it did not go farther. He regretted
that it did not allude to another class which was not less heavily
pressed by the coal tax than those already mentioned. It was
said, that the manufacturers and the aristocracy were af-
fected by it, but it was silent on the subject of the poorer
classes, who were most severely. ppressed by the operation of
the tax. This, if properly set forth in the petition, might have
an effect on the Chancellor of
..the Exchequer • for as to the
Members of the House of Commons, as they called themselves,
it was nothing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought
proper to repeal the tax, it would be repealed ; and if not, it
would continue. He felt that a relief had been given by
taking off half the window-tax, but then that was made up
by a surchage on houses. That was the way Ministers re-
e contended this was to
this very small meeting (there were at this
plt ihee
the
e teel .
question.from— r
it a e
sx alotnfi o n„. (
2To le
si e
tyi
o,t
noo., k,
)Iffila penny, and laid on two-
time about 150 persons in the room), and he was surprised that
where the interests of so many hundreds of thousands, he might
say of so many millions were concerned, there should be so
small an attendance. He should have thought that if proper
means had been resorted to on this occasion, they would have
found nearly the half of London endeavouring to cram them-
selves into that room to support a proposition for the abo
unequal and oppressive tax. Why had there
ciesmmon Halls and Wardmotes assembled to pe-
titionon this occasion ? Perhaps the Worthy Alderman
(Wood) would explain to the meeting why some such steps
had not been taken. Perhaps it was that some men in
Pewee, who were not so great out of the city as in, did
not wish for such interference. Perhaps some of those had
near relations chief coal-meters—(Cries of " Chair, chair,"—
which Mr. Hunt appeared to mistake for" Shame, shame.")
Why cry " shame ? He was not in the habit of saying any
thing that he would be afraid to speak out in a much larger
meeting titan that which he now addressed. He would speak
out : the chief coal-meter was the brother-in-law of the Lord
Mayor. He (Mr. IL) was not to be intimidated from speaking
his mind. He had spoken it in that room when he was threa-
tened with assassination, and the public had seen how the indi-
vidual to whom he had alluded had been since rewarded with a
consulship. There was a general complaint of the want of coal-
meters, and the respectable coal-merchants, Messrs. Davey and
Sawyer, with whom he dealt for the coals he consumed, often told
him that a ship with the particular kind of coal he wanted, was
in the pool, but that they waited to have a meter appointed to
it. In conclusion, he said he had no doubt, that if a resolution
was passed by the Committee to that effect, this important
question would be generally taken up, with a zeal proportioned
to the magnitude of the interests which it affected.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that being personally called
upon, he begged to state t'- the meeting that there had been
ward-meetings on the present subject, at which petitions against
the tax were agreed to. This was the case with his two
wards, and be had no doubt it was the same with some
others. As to the thinness of the meeting, he believed it arose
from a mistake in the placards and notices which had been
posted up, and which mentioned that it was to be held " to-
morrow, without putting the day of the month in sufficiently
large characters to be equally distinguished with the " to-mor-
row." The fact was, the subject was generally felt to be of great
impertance, and he had no doubt that the petition would be very
numerously signed. As the name of their worthy Chief Magis-
trate had been mentioned connected with the coal meters, it was
but justice to him to state, that the duty of Mr. Reeve, a very
respectable individual, who was at the head of the land coal-
meter's-office, was to see that the consumers had their proper
measure from the venders. He (Mr. Reeve) had nothing to do
with the sea-coal-meters' department. His duty was more
important to the public than that of the sea-coal-meters,
for they had only to superintend the measure from the
ships to the coal-merchants, and they always took care to
see that they had their proper measure. But with respect to
the present Lord Mayor, he (Alderman Wood) could assure
the meeting, that when in the Common Council he proposed
the appointment of twelve additional meters, the Lord Mayor
was anxious that forty or fifty should be appointed ; for he
stated, that he had received many complaints of the incon-
venience arising from the want of a sufficient number to work
the ships at market.—( Hear, hear ! )—.As to the 3s. duty, he had
stated, in the presence of Lord Liverpool and the Chancellor of
1 the Exchequer, that the city had been robbed of it. It was im-
posed in the year 1710, for the purpose of erecting 50 churches,
of which only 11 were built. Soon after Government took
500,0001. from the money raised by it to pay lottery.tickets. At
length, being unwilling to bring an annual account of this trans-
action before Parliament, they carried the whole amount over to
the consolidated fund, to which if had since been paid. He now
repeated what he had before mentioned -upon the grant of
150,0001. for the building of London Bridge—that if the whole
of the sums paid by the City . on account of this duty
were calculated, and compound interest allowed, the sum
would not be less than ten millions of money at the pre-
sent day. The grievance of the whole duty was felt, not only
in London, but in the western countries, where lime was so
dear in consequence of the scarcity and high price of coals,
that it cost about Bs. peracre in many places to lime ground which
was not worth more than that sum. Another effect of these
duties was, that large quantities of small coal were burnt at the
pits mouth, which, if there was no duty, would be sent to Lon-
don and other ports, and would be purchased as useful for many
purposes. The Honourable Alerman, after adverting to
the inconvenience of the Citizens of London not being al-
lowed to bring coal from Staffordshire and other places, con-
eluded by observing, that unless the representatives of those
places which were affxted by the high duties on coals went
privately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (foe that would be
Just as effectual as stating their sentiments to him publicly),
and declared, that they wished for the repeal of those duties,
petitions would be ineffectual. For his own part he would do
every thing in his power to support the prayer of the petition,
but he knew that what he shouhl say
.on the subject would have
no effect unless supported as he had just stated.

Mr. HUNT said, he admitted he was in the wrong in what he
stated about the land coal-meters.
The petition was then put, and adopted. The other resole-
dons were then put, and agreed to.
Mr. T. WILSON, M.P,. expressed his willingness to sup-
port the prayer of the petition whenever it should be presented.
On the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, M.P., thanks were voted
to the Chairman.
Sir CHARLES PRICE in returning thanks said, that it was
not his intention, as the Gentleman before him (.111r. Hunt)
seemed to think, to have omitted the oppression of the tax on
the poor. He had condemned it as unjust to all classes, but
he considered it peculiarly so as applying to the poorer classes.
The meeting then adjourned.