The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-25 00:00:00

THE COAL MARKET.

The:Chairman of the Coal, Corn, and Finance
Committee (Mr. H. A. Isaacs) brought up and
moved the adoption of a report from them, recom-
mending that the returns of coal brought to Lon-
don should in future be published under the con-
trol of that committee, and that £4OO a year be
granted to Mr. James Revat Scott, the clerk and
registrar of the coal market, as an equivalent in lieu
of the profits arising therefrom, which profits during
the last year he said had amounted to £413.
Mr. COCKERELL bare testimony to the public
value which the returns in question had acquired
in a statistical sense from the skill and pains exerted
in their preparation by Mr. Scott, the registrar ;
but he submitted that it would not consist with the
dignity of the corporation to sell such returns at a
profit, and that if it undertook their publication it
must give them away.
Mr. H. Lowman Taylor dwelt upon the fact that
Mr. Scott, as registrar, already received a salary of
£730 from the corporation, irrespective of the pro-
fits arising from the publication of the returns. He
criticised in pungent terms the report of the com-
mittee recommending the proposed change, insisting
that the report had been prepared by Mr. Scott
himself, and that the proposal was one of the most
transparent jobs ever sought to be perpetrated, and
that it had been propounded to the Court for their
adoption in a barefaced and shameless manner.
The LORD MAYOR (interposing) called Mr.
Taylor to order, ruling that the expressions he had
just used were not justifiable.
Mr. TAYLOR, resuming, said if he had said any-
thing out of course he would withdraw it, and call
the recommendation a "little job." (A laugh.)
He remarked upon the circumstance that at one
time the profits from the publication, as an equiva-
lent for which it was now proposed to allow Mr.
Scott, the clerk and registrar, £4OO a year, did not
exceed £l3O, and he said that Mr. Scott employed
the staff in his office to get up the information em-
bodied in the returns, and pockemd all the emolu-
ments himself. Ho moved an amendtneat to the
effect that the Court could not recognise as part of
the salary of the clerk and registrar of the coal
market the proceeds arising from the publication of
lists for the information of the coal trade ; but
were, nevertheless, of opinion that whatever bene-
fit accrued from the publication of any list or in-
formation to the trade, the business of which was
performed in the office, should be apportioned to
the staff in proportion to the amount received, and
that no officer should appropriate the entire net
proceeds to his own use.
Mr. HARRIS commented upon the public services
rendered for many years to the corporation in the
management of the coal duties by Mr. Scott, the
registrar, and by which they had been largely aug-
mented.

Mr. LkWLEY also in the same spirit observed upon
the additional duty which had devolved upon the
registrar, consequent upon changes in the collection
of the coal duties, especially on coals brought to
London by rail, which rendered necessary extra-
ordinary vigilance.
Mr. Deputy Far hold that the question was not
the manner in which the registrar discharged his
duties, but whether the corporation was to enter on
what he (Mr. Fry) called the objectionable course
of publishing the returns in question at a profit. He
counselled the Court to allow the present arrange-
ment to remain as it stood, reminding them that Mr.
Scott could not be prejudiced by its continuance,
seeing that it was only through his office of registrar
the materials for such returns became available.

The motion for commuting the profits from the
publication into a fixed sum of £4OO a year, to be
paid to the registrar, was strenuously opposed by
Mr. De Jersey, and supported by ➢ir. Deputy White
and Mr. Medwin, the latter of whom stated that the
registrar was content to continue the existing ar-
rangement if he could be allowed to do so, and

The Chairman of the committee read a letter from
Mr. Scott to that effect, and stated that he (Mr.
Scott) had nothing to do with the proposed change.
On a division the amendment of Mr. Taylor was
carried by a majority of 22 in a court of 118 mem-
bers ; but on its being submitted for adoption as a
substantive motion,
Mr. M'GEoRGE moved an amendment to refer the
report of the committee back to them for further
consideration as to the duties and emoluments of
Mr. Scott, and of the clerks in his office, and also in
reference to the details in connection with the pub-
lication in question.
The amendment of Mr. M'George was carried by
a large majority.