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

colonies, upon which there was no tax, as in the export to
foreign states. But the decrease in one direction had been
more than compensated by the increase in others, and where
there had been a deficiency in the supply from England, that
had been made up by coat from other countries. With regard
to the effect of the tax in depressing the shipping interest, that
argument had been answered by an Hon. 6entlem in opposite,
by referring to the distressed state of the shipping interest gene-
rally, without reference to the coal trade. But lie did not
think that was sufficient to show that the distress of the gene-
ral shipping trade was not aggravated by the dintini,hed em-
ployment in the export of coal. If the tax were continued to
1850, it would be an incentive to other nations to open up new
seams of coal for their own uses, at whatever expense that
might be done. He gave his cordial support to the motion,
and thanked the Noble Lord for bringing it forward.
Mr. H UME looked upon the coal monopoly as most dis-
graceful and pernicious. A few years ago (in 1836), he em-
ployed a whole year in endeavouring to expose that
iniquitous monopoly, but he understood that it was now as
powerful and as much combined as ever.—( Hear, hear.) He
believed that the brokers of London were as much to blame as
the coal-owners, for it was they that fixed the price at which '
coal should be sold ; and the consequence was that, at times
180 or 200 ships would be lying in the river until the coals
should reach a certain price fixed by the brokers. There were,
he understood, from 200 to 300 sail of colliers in the river,
waiting until the price should rise, although, if they chose to
unload, they would readily find a market.—( Hear, hear.) He
had done everything to support the Stockton and Tees, and
other railways, with the hope that they would facilitate the
supply of coals in London. But the fact was that the pro-
prietors of those railways had joined the monopolists. It had
been proved that 4,000,000 of tons could be raised annually,
but the proprietors would allow no more to be raised than would
be sufficient to supply London at a fixed price. And it was
only against London that this monopoly was directed,
for there was no restriction of the supply for the north of Scot-
land or the south of England.—( Hear.) There could not be
a more detestable conspiracy than this, although it might not
be so easy to obtain a conviction of the parties as it had been to
convict O'Connell and his coadjutors.—( Hear and a laugh. )
However, he had opposed the imposition of the duty ; and what
he said at the time was borne out in the result. Before the
duty was put on, the quantity of coal exported to France was
50,000 tons, and from 1834 to 1843 the sh pping at the three
ports of the Tyne, the Wear, and the Humber, employed in
the export of coals had increased 2,703 ships ; and now a large
portion of those ships were rotting, and other countries were
supplying France.—( Hear, hear.) The commercial navy was
the great defence and support of this country, and it was pain-
ful to him to see it so much injured by a Government which
had the power to foster and improve it.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought the Act ought to be repealed.
Mr. F. BARING had seen nothing in the returns laid on
the table that had changed his opinion of the extreme inex-
pediency of laying on the tax.
Mr. LIDDELL concurred in the propriety of the tax, but
trusted that it would be removed. At the present moment
the pits were not being worked, and the stocks were becoming
exhausted; the price of coal, too, it shetVd be remembered,
was still further reduced by the numerous tells and charges to
hich it was subjected in the port of London. It hail been
prominently put forward this evening that th- coal-owners had
a monopoly of the article. They were charged with being
monopolists ; but it should be recollected that there was a
constant competition in the market between the colliers of
Northumberland and Durham, Scotland, Wales, and all the
inland collieries. What monopoly could be sustained in the
midst of so much competition ? There were three kinds of
coal known in the market, which were principally supplied by
the collieries of Northumberland and Durham. The first was
household coal, at an average price of 20s. and 21s. per ton ;
steamer coal, which was from 15s. to 18s. a ton ; and small
coal from 13s. to lbs. a ton. He did not think these charges
were sufficient to justify the injurious expression of monopoly,
when out of it had to be paid the cost of all the raising, car-
riage, &c., to which it was subject. The House had the means
of satisfying itself on this point; no disguise was attempted on
the part of the coal-owners. They might summon
all their agents to give evidence on the subject.
There were, indeed, some regulations come to, by mutual
understanding, for the governing of the trade, but those re-
gulations existed in other trades also. Yet it was not called
monopoly. Why, then, were they to say to the coal pro-
prietors that they should not make such regulations? He was
convinced that the more this question was understood and
examined the less foundation there would be found for the
charge. He hoped he had in some degree answered the charge
as to monopoly. There was another subject connected with
this question, which he should not have thought proper to
notice did he not see the Hon. Member for Finsbury present.
The Hon. Member had presented a petition yesterday, from
the working men who had struck in the collieries, signed by
30,000 or 40,000 men, embodying certain representations.
But, except by one feeble link, the subject was not connected
with that before the House. The coal-owners, in the face of a
declining trade, were loaded with an impost to which they had
been unaccustomed. The men, in spite of the dan-
gerous nature of their occupation, had many comforts, and
even luxuries, not possessed by the labourers in other
parts of the kingdom ; and he hoped if they were not
ill advised, that the time was not far distant when these un-
happy disputes would find a termination. He thought the
Hon. Member for Finsbury ought not to have presented such
a petition without due notice, or without being prepared to
make some substantial motion. The subject had been entirely
exhausted by the Noble Lord who had brought it forward, and
by the lion. Gentleman opposite who had spoken upon it.
He should not, therefore, go further into details, but conclude
by again conjuring the Government to give its attention to the
subject, and not to persevere longer in attacks so obnoxious
and injurious; and he trusted those who did support it at a
time when it was believed to be necessary, would not again
sanction it with their support.
Mr. T. DUNCOAIBE said it was not his intention to have
brought the prayer of the petition he had presented further
before the House ; but he must confess that there was one
ob-
servation which had fallen from the Honourable Gen-
tleman to which he must allude. In trying to explain
the causes of the present price of coal, he had said that it was
enhanced by the roughness of the colliers.—(" No, no," from
Mr. Liddell.) The Hon. Member might not have meant to
have used the phrase, but he certainly did do so, as he (Mr.
Duncombe) had taken down the words. Now, looking at the
number of men out on the strike-20,000 or 30,000—he
thought there never was a set of men who conducted them-
selves more peaceably, or in a more praiseworthy and meri-
torious manner. During the eight weeks the strike had lasted
they had shown the utmost respect for property, and the rights
of property. He was not going now to bring the question of
the strike before the House. He could well understand why
the masters were not prepared to go into that question. He
knew there had been great misrepresentations abroad with re-
spect to the men, and if the House were to go into the ques-
tion at all, he would undertake not only to satisfy the
House, but the public also, that the masters were
the men who had struck, and not the miners.
This had been no question of wages. The question had been
entirely one relating to the personal safety of the men, which
had been neglected by the masters. In addition to this
neglect, certain bonds had been introduced by the masters this
year which had never been known to the men before. To
these bonds the men objected, and he thought most justly ob-
jected; and if they would read the petition they would find
that the men were ready to submit the whole points in dispute
to the arbitration of honourable and disinterested men. Could
there be a fairer proposition than this, and would the masters
meet them on that point ? If they would not, then were they
in the wrong, and not the men.—(The Hon. Member here
read the proposition in the petition, offering to settle the
matter in dispute by arbitration.) The men also demanded
that they should be paid by the weight of the coal raised, and
and not by measure. The Hon. Gentleman said it was only
a feeble link which connected the petition with the question
before the House. Why surely this was a material portion of
the whole question. He agreed that this was an interest much
too important to be treated with levity in that House.
There were 15,000,0001. of capital invested in the coal trade.
There were from 35,000 to 40,000 employed in it, and they
were out on strike. They mentioned that their demands were
not exorbitant. They wanted protection, and they asked to be
paid for their labour by weight instead of measure. They
stated that being paid by measure they were often defrauded
and imposed upon by the masters. The measures given them
often contained beyond what they were told they did, and after
working a certain time they often found that instead of raising
' twenty-one pecks of coals, for which they were paid, they
found that they had raised twenty-six or twenty-seven pecks.
He said then that they had a right to demand that their labour
should be weighed. Coals were sold in the metropolis by
weight. The Act of Parliament enforcing that regulation was
passed to prevent the frauds that were discovered in the trade,
and had proved a great protection to the public. Then he
wanted to know why, if they sold coal by weight, they should
not pay the miner by weight also. But this it seemed the mas-
ters would not agree to.' The men asked for legislative inter-
ference, but they did not wish Parliament to fix what wages
they should be paid. But they asked the Government to ap-
point inspectors of the mines to see that the works were made
safe. In consequence of the had regulation of the mines suffi-
cient lights were not afforded them, The consequence was,
that they were obliged to send up foul coal to the surface. For
this they were heavily fined, so much so, that often after
working a week or fortnight they found that instead of re-
ceiving wages, they were in debt. Now a better regulation of
the mines would enable them to have better light, and the foul
coal would not find its way to the bank. There was another
grievance under which the miners laboured. Their wages
were not paid every week, but once a fortnight, and one
week's wages were always kept in hand. Why not
leave these points to the arbitration of disinterested men ?
He wished to see an amicable arrangement made between the
employers and the men, and he believed that an arrangement
might easily be effected if the masters would not stand aloof,
refusing to deal with any but the men belonging to their own
collieries. Were not the masters in union as well as the men
—in union not only against the men but the public, and com-
bined to keep up the price of coal to the detriment:of the con-
sumer ? There was the monopoly in the City of London,
which the Lord Mayor was endeavouring to put down. The
Lord Mayor would not allow more than three days for the col-
tier ships to unload, so that they could not wait till prices got
high, and if they wanted to continue longer they must go down
the river and come up again. He believed the Lord Mayor would
abate this combination of the masters against the public, and he
hoped he would succeed. He would certainly vote for the re-
peal of the export duty on coal. He heard no reason advanced
to induce the House to continue the duty. It was most inju-
rious to the masters, and consequently to the men, and it was
injurious to the consumers. He did not think the duty was of
sufficient importance as an object of revenue to induce the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue it, and, therefore, he
had the greatest pleasure in voting for the motion of his Noble
Friend.

Sir G. CLERK would endeavour to recal the attention of the
House to the real subject before it. It had been said that
there was now no reason for continuing the tax, as the grounds
upon which• it was imposed no longer exited. Now he ( Sir
G. Clerk) denied that there was any change of the grounds
upon which the tax had been imposed by his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He confessed that
he thought there was a good deal in what had fallen from the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Kendal. The coal which
was near the surface was of a butter quality than that which
was deeper, and the expense of working it was less. As they
went deeper the mines became more difficult to work, and
therefore it was perfectly clear that in the course of time a rise
in price must take place, and the consumer would have to pay
more for his coal than he paid at present. A great increase
had taken place in the export of coals, and though he did not
agree with those who thought that their coal-mines would be
exhausted in a few years, yet he thought it ought to be taxed,
though not to such an amount as would prove prejudicial to the
coal masters. His opinion was that the export of coals would con-
tinue to increase, though not in the same ratio as before the tax
was imposed. If coals were exported at that rate, which some
Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, it would be absolutely
necessary to impose a check in order to prevent it. One
object which the Government had, in imposing a tax, was
that it would give an advantage to British vessels over foreign
vessels, becatii.e there was a differential duty of four shillings,
in favour of British vessels which carried out coals. There
was no injury, inflicted on the coal interests v. hich should
induce the House to abolish the duty which had been imposed,
as he thought most properly, on coals by his Right Hon.
Friend.

Lord lIOWICK said that having, on a former occasion, fully
stated his opinions upon this subject, he should not, on the
present occasion, occupy the time of the Hou•e at any length.
But as he represented a constituency which was deeply in-
terested in getting rid of this tax, he thought it ri:4lit to make
a few observations ; and if he wanted a proof to show how
much at a loss her Majesty's Government were for a defence