The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-05 00:00:00

thought it desirable to bring it forward the third time,
and therefore he ( Lord H. Vane) had taken upon him-
self to direct the attention of the House to the sub-
ject. The circumstances were different now to what
they had been when the subject was last before the House.
Then there was a deficiency in the revenue, now there
was a surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
thought it right to propose reductions in the duty
payable in other articles, and he thought that the
coal trade had a claim upon the Government for relief.
If he could prove that the coal trade was suffering under great
depression, he thought that he was entitled to call upon the
House to mete out the same measure of justice to that trade as
to others. The fact on which he rested his ar-
gument was the injurious operation of the tax, not
only upon the ceal trade itself, but in the displacement of labour
in the collieries, and in the effect which it had upon the ship.
ping interest. The returns which had been presented to
the House showed that there had been a great diminution
of the export trade in the last year, and there had been
a consequent diminution of employment and wages. The
decrease of exports had been more than 100,000 tons in 1843,
as compared with 1842, although in the same period there had
been an increased consumption of coal upon the Continent, and
there would have been an increased demand for ours,
if it had not been fer the duty. The coal
that was exported in that year consisted altogether of small
coal, upon which there was no profit. But the effect of the
tax was to prevent the exportation of large coal, upon the pro-
duction of which the greatest amount of labour was employed.
In consequence of the duty there had been a great falling off in
the exports, notwithstanding the great and increasing demand
for the article from the mere general use of gas-lighting, the
extension of railways and steam navigation, and the greater de
mand that was found to have been created in the Mediterranean.
In 1841 the export to Russia was 75,595 tons; in 1843 it was
114,605 tons, being an increase of 39,000 tons. But this in-
crease was owing to the treaty of navigation. The export to Nor-
way, in 1841, was 15,207 tons; in 1843 it was 18,233 toes, being
an increase of 3.026 tons. This was owing to the establish-
ment of certain works; and this could, therefore, be only a
casual increase. The expert to Denmark in 1841 was 148,724
tons; in 1843, it was 134,425 tons, being a decrease of 14,195.
The export to Prussia in 1841 was 115,000 tons ; in 1843 it
was 147,000, being an increase of 31,000 tons. But this was
a special case. In Germany the export in 1841 was
169,000 tons ; in 1843 it was 147,000, being a decrease
of 32,000 tons. In Holland the export in 1841 was
171,000 tons, in 1843 it was 149,000, being a decrease of
24,000. The export to France in 1834 was 59,692 tons; in
1841 it amounted to 451,000 tons, being an increase in 8 years
of 39!,313 tons, or an increase each year of 48,000 tons.
With regard to Spain, to Italy, and to Turkey, he would admit
that there was a slight increase, but that was owing to accidental
circumstances. Unless the duty were reduced altogether there
could be no doubt but the export of coal would diminish every
year. He would net trouble the House by entering more at
large into statistical details. but he would state that
he had received communications from persons well
informed on the subject, from master colliers, from
the owners of mines, who declared that in consequence of
the diminution of export which was occasioned by the im-
position of the duty it was out of their power to
give full employment to the colliers, who were conse-
quently deprived of one day's labour in the week.
He thought that he could claim the support of the
Hon. Members for Newcastle, Gateshead, Tynemouth.
and Shields, and others connected with the shipping interest.
He had stated that there was a considerable displacement of
labour arising from the non-employment of colliers one day in
the week. It must he recollected that this was a most hazard-
ous kind of labour, and that it demanded a high rate of wages.
This duty operated most injuriously to the working classes
in the collieries, and of course the injury recoiled upon other
classes. Was it good policy to continue a duty which ope-
rated so prejudicially to the commercial interests of this coun-
try? They were bound to take into their consideration the
suffering of the working classes in consequence of the depressed
state of the trade, and by every argument of justice and of
policy the Government was bound to take off the duty, and to
give to the coal trade the same advantage which they had given
to every other trade. The revenue derived from this duty was
so small, that there was no necessity for its continuance, whilst
irremediable mischief would be inflicted it were not removed.
He did not believe that it was the intention of the Government
to continue it for more than one year, and was it worth
while to continue a tax which was productive of such
injurious effects? If the duty were removed, it would
have a tendency to settle the unhappy differences
which existed between the working people in the coal districts
and their masters. by enabling them to give their work people
employment. On these grounds he trusted the Government
would give up the duty, or, if they refused, that at least the
House would give him a considerable degree of support.
• Mr. HUTT seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that
whatever difference of opinion might exist on the subject, the
House would agree with him that the Noble Lord need make
no apology for bringing forward the subject, for he had never
heard a more clear and lucid statement than that made by
the Noble Lord.,—(Cheers.) It was, however, unfortunately,
his fate to differ in opinion with the Noble Lord on the subject.
It was not out of any want of respect to the Noble Lord that
he should abstain from adverting to his argument on the state
of revenue, and on the small amount which the duty brought
into the Exchequer, because the same argument would apply
to every other case in which the produce of any duty to the
Exchequer was small. The Noble Lord had advocated the abo-
lition of the duty on the ground that it had had the effect of
producing the displacement of labour in the coal districts of
this country. Now he thought that if he could satisfy the
House that the amount of coal raised since the imposition of
the duty was equal to that which had been raised before its
imposition, they would agree with him that the Noble Lord
had not made out that the imposition of the duty had occa-
sioned any displacement of labour, and if the quantity of coal
exported amounted to vary nearly the same quantity to which
it had amounted prior to the period at which the duty was im-
posed, he trusted they would agree with him in opinion that
the duty had not acted prejudicially. The Noble
Lord stated that a diminution of export had taken
place in 1840 as compared with 1842 ; but he
admitted that an increase had taken place in 1843 as compared
with 1841. Now, in 1842, in consequence of the announce-
ment of the intention of the Government to impose the duty
an effort had been made and an immense increase in the
export had taken place in the former half of that year, which
as compared with the latter half of the same year showed an
increase of some hundreds of thousands of tons. The fair
comparison therefore was between the years 1841 and 1843,
and in the latter year there had been an increase. In order
to show that any diminution which had taken place in the ex-
port of coal, was not attributable to the imposition of the duty,
he would bring the matter to this test. He would take those
places in which there was no variation of the duty. The
quantity of coal exported to the colonies was, in 1841, 344,000
tons; in 1842, 353,000 tons ; and in 1843, 307,600 tons. The
export of coals from London had in 1843 declined to a very
large amount as compared with the two preceding years. The
Noble Lord adverted to the depression of the shipping interest;
of course the falling off in the exportation of coals would
affect that interest, but in France, for instance, that exporta-
tion had increased. The export of coal to France was greater
since 1842, than it had been in 1841. With respect to
Russia, the coal trade with that country had considerably in-
creased ; the Noble Lord attributed this to the fact of coal
having been sent to Russia in former years in foreign ships
which had to pay a heavy duty, whilst latterly, in consequence
of the reciprocity treaty, coal had been exported in British ships
which had paid a lower rate of duty. The quantity of coals
exported to Russia in 1842 was 83,000 tons, whilst in 1843
116,000 tons had been exported to that country. In 1842 we
had sent abroad 148,000 tons of small coals ; in 1843, 456,000
tons. The Noble Lord seemed to say that the depression in
the shipping interest was confined to that department of it
engaged in the coal trade; but was there not generally a lower-
ing of all freights in all branches of trade ? And if that
were the case what grounds were there for referring the de-
pression of the shipping interest generally to the duties on
coal ? With respect to the colonial shipping interest, a
greater quantity of coals had been exported into Canada last
year than on any antecedent years. When he had the honour
to submit to the House the financial arrangements, he stated to
the House the grounds upon which it was impossible to extend
the further remission of taxation during the present year. The
propositions he then made were, he thought, received with ge-
neral and cordial concurrence by the House ; and perhaps he
might have made a better selection of articles on which duty
was to have been remitted.; but, as regarded the coal duties,
he must say that since the measure had been laid before the
House he had received assurances from shipowners that the
measure would be beneficial to that class. From gentlemen
extensively interested in the coal trade, he received assurances
to the same effect. Although it was painful to him to resist
any motion having for its object the relaxation of duties on so
important an article as coals, yet it gave him some satisfaction
to think that at present there was no need for further inter-
ference, and that the present measure was working beneficially
for the country.
Mr. GRANGER supported the motion of the Noble Lord.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer went upon entirely different
grounds from those upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman at
the head of the Government argued last year. That Right
lion. Gentleman said that he could not conceive a more legiti-
mate object of duty than the coals exported into foreign coun-
tries ; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned
that ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would
not discuss the question of the expediency of remitting the
duty, but went upon the supposition that the duty was bene-
ficial. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman say, too, the Go-
vernment measure had raised the price of coals in foreign mar-
kets ?—there could be no doubt butithat the duty depreciated
their price, for coals were lower in the markets of France and
Russia. Then the fact was the duty had been paid by the coal-
owners and by the shipowners—those classes who were most
able to hear it. The coalowner must export because his capital
was invested in coal, and' the shipowner must carry at a
redused freight because he had no other means of employing
his vessels. In 1833, the quantity of coal sent to foreign
countries was 449,665 tons; in 1841, 1,500,000 tons; and if
it were not for the injudicious tax imposed by the Government,
the exportation would have continued to advance in the same
ratio, whereas, even according to the admission of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, it had not increased in anything like the
same proportion. He thought they might justly appeal to the
Government, for the abolition of the duty on the export of
coals, seeing that there was now a surplus revenue in the Ex-
chequer, and it was on this ground that he should support the
motion of the Noble Lord.

Mr. NV ARB UR ON did not intend to defend this tax on
revenue principles, although he thought it might be defended
on those principles. What he contended for was this, that it
the matter were fully inquired into, it would be found that
only a certain'quantity of coal existed, and therefore it was per-
fectly justifiable to regulate the sale of that article, so as to
ensure the first supply of it to the inhabitants of this country.
In a Committee of that 1-louse, a Mr. Taylor had stated that
there was enough coal in Northumberland for 1,727 years'
supply ; but he (Mr. Warburton) believed that that gentle-
man had under-estimated the consumption; for he believed that
more than twice as much was consumed, as was estimated by Mr.
Taylor. (The Hon. Gentleman here read from the evidence
which was taken before a Committee of the House of Commons
in the year 1830, on the subject cf coal mines, to show that
many of the coal mines in the country would be exhausted in
about sixty years from the present time.) These were the best
coals, it would be remembered. On this evidence then, he
contended that no facilities should be given up for the exporta-
tion of coal from this country. At. present the foreigner could
purchase coal at Newcastle for about 18s. a ton, while the home
consumer had to pay at least 70 per cent. more, or near 30s.
per ton. Those gentlemen (the coalowners) did not come be-
fore the House with clean hands.—(Hear.) Let them do
away with their own most odious, most extensive, and most
oppressive monopoly..—( Hear, hear.) The best coal selling
in London at 30s. a ton could be had at St. Petersbuigh 50 per
cent. less. If the monopoly could be removed a cheap bargain
would be made for the country with coalowners. But until
that could be effected he thought that the Government would
act most wisely in maintaining the present duty, so as to
equalise the price at which the best English coals could be had
in English and in foreign markets.—( Hear, hear.) He should
therefore give his support to the proposition for the continu-
ance of the tax.

Mr. HODGSON HINDE said that, in giving an opinion on
this subject, he thought it right to state that he was not a coal-
owner. An Hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the
coal field wouldlsoon be exhausted unless there was some restric-
tion upon the exportation. The same argument would apply
to the laying an additional duty upon the coal supplied to Lon-
don.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The House should bear in mind
that other nations were rapidly rivalling us in the production
of coal, and the supply of foreign countries. It had been said
that there had been as great a decrease in the export to the