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

IMPEitiAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 4.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would, on the 2d of
July, move for a copy of the pretest of the jury who tried
Alexander Walker at the Glasgow Assizes.
Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that he would, on this day week,
move for a return of the fees paid to clerks of petty sessions
and assizes.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he would postpone
his motion on prison discipline till the 2d of July.
Mr. 'F. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Isle of
of the island was undisturbed.
Guernsey, complaining of the disturbances that had taken place
in the island, and praying for interference.
Sir J. GRAHAM understood that considerable excitement
E TRIALS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for a copy of the judgment
and the committal of Mr. O'Connell and his co-traversvrs.
had prevailed, butitßhaitstahl esoiyAal
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure tlae Hon. Gentleman
that he was as anxious as he himself could be that this return
should be presented as soon as possible ; but he trusted the
Hon. Gentleman would not press the Government on the sub-
ject inconveniently.
Mr. T. DUN COMBE said he was informed by persons
fully acqu-inted with short-hand writing that the notes must
have been furnished within three weeks after the trial.
Sir J. GR A HAM said the short-hand writer was in the
employment of Mr. Gurney, and being detached from the esta-
blishment here, of course he could not receive the same assist-
ance as he would have in town. He possessed the entire con-
fidence of Mr. Gurney, and he believed there would be as little
delay as possible.
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved for a copy of a dispatch from the
Earl of Aberdeen to the Earl of Westmorland, with respect to
the commercial relations between this country and Prussia, with
any answer to such dispatch from the Court of Prussia.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that in the present state of the
correspondence, he thought it would be highly inexpedient
that the correspondence should be produced. It was still
going on, and its character was somewhat changed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the correspondence was
still proceeding.
ONE GL A ushr said perhaps he might as well state toe would not press for its production.
Al r
the Noble Lord what would otherwise be stated in debate.
With regard to what had appeared in the newspapers, he had
no reason to believe that it was not substantially accurate;
although the dispatch. of Lord Aberdeen had probably passed
through a double translation—first into the German language,
and afterwards into the English. There were subsequent com-
munications, however, which would be necessary to make in-
telligible what had found its way into the newspapers. But
the ground upon which the Government did not think it ex-
pedient to lay those papers on the table at the
present moment was,. that subsequent.- to the dispatch
dated the 19th of. March, received from Baron
Bulow communications had been received, which were con-
ceived in a different spirit, and tending to different results.
With respect to the iron duty and other matters, it was thought
best that the correspondence should be suspended until the
final issue of the communication was known. The Govern.
ment did not wish to be parties to the publication of a corre-
spondence which partook, he would not say of a hostile, but
of an argumentative character.—( Hear, hear.) Ho would
have no objection whatever to the production of the corre-
spondence when it was brought to a close.
Lord J. RUSSELL then postponed his motion until this
day fortnight.
Dr. BO\VRING said, that not being aware of tke Noble
Lord's intention with reference to this question, he had given
notice of a similar motion; but he would now withdraw his mo-
tion, and leave the matter in the hands of the Noble Lord.
Sir C. N APIER said, seeing the Gallant Admiral (Admi-
ral Bowles) in his place, he wished to know if it had come to
the knowledge of the Admiralty, t hat't he Commander-in-Chief
in the Mediterranean, had taken the mess place from the
officers of the ward-room, and sent them down into the gun-
room, and had removed the gun-room officers into the cockpit,
and taken the ward. room for his own accommodation ?
Admiral BOWLES said he hoped his Honourable and
Gallant Friend would give notice of this questisn.—(Hear. )
Being a young member of the Admiralty, and having only sat
for one week in the House, he hoped his Hon. and Gallant
Friend would give notice of any question he intended to put
to him.

Sir C. NAPIER had only put a question on that which was
matter of public notoriety.
PARISHES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
M. EDWARD ELLICE wished to ask the Lord Advo-
caul if it was intended to proceed with the Bill for the division
of parishes in Scotland during the present session ; and if so,
when he intended to bring it. forward?
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the time when the
meastre was to be brought forward must depend upon the
progress of the public business. He hoped to be able to pro-
ceed with the Bill on Friday, but it should be recollected that
it had been originally put off at the request of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite.
- -

- -
EXPORT DUTIES ON COALS.
Lord HARRY VANE moved that this House do resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into con-
sideration so much of the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 47, as relates to
an export duty on coal, with a view to its immediate. repeal.
He was sure that the House would believe that there
was nothing further from his intention than to take this motion
out of the hands of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland.
who had exhibited the greatest zeal with regard to this subject
in 1842. His Noble Friend had also brought forward the sub-
ject in 1843, but having brought it forward twice, he scarcely

thought it desirable to bring it forward the third time,
and therefore he (Lord 11. 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 coal 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 for 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 filling off in
the exports, notwithstanding the great and increasing eemand
for the article from the more general use of gas-lighting, the
extension of railways and steam navigation, and the greater de
wand that was found to have been created in the Mediterranean.
In 1841 the export to Russia was 75,595 tors; in 1843 it was
114,605 tens, 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 export to Denmark in 1841 was 143,724
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
160,000 tons ; in 1843 it was 147;000, being a decrease
of 32,000 tons. In Holland the export in 1811 was
171,000 tons, in 1643 it was 149,000. being a decrease of
24,000. The export to France in 1834 was E 9,632 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 43,000 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, finite
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, Tynemout h.
and Shields, and others connected with the shipping interest.
He had stated that there wag 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 wagea.
'1 his 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 frore 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 pro iuctive 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. Or 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. H U FT 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 aiiology for bringing forward the subject, for he had never
heard a more clear and lurid 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 very nearly tle 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 hail taken
p!ace in 1810 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 wae, in 1841, 344,000
tons; in 1842, 353,000 tons ; and in 1813, 307,600 tons. The
export of coals from Lend, n 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 e.cporta.
lion had increased. The export of coal to France was greater
s:neo 1842, than it had b,en 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 lattei ly, 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 sma►l 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. Fron► 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.
Alr. 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 }ear. That Right
Hon. 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 butthat 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 bear it. The coalowner must export because his capital
was invested in coal, and the shipowner must carry at a
reduced 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, 1,800,000 tons; anu if
it were not for the injudicious tax imposed by the Government,
the exportation would have continued to advance in the seine
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. WARBURTON 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 if
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 House, 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 of coal mines, to show that
many of the coal mires 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 les. a ton, while the home
consumer had to pay at least 70 cer 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. Petersburgh 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.

Air. HODGSON HI NDE 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 would:soon be exhausted unless there was some restric-
tion upon the exportation. The same argument would apply
to the laving an additional duty upon the coatsupplied 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

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 coal from other countries. With regard
tothe effect of the tax in depressing the shipping interest, that
argument had been answered by an Hon. Gentleman opposite,
by referring to the distress, d state of the shipping interest gene-
rally, without ref. rence to the coal trade. But he did not
think that was sufficient to show that the distress of the gene-
ral shipping trade was not aggravated by the dirrini,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 11;s cordial support to the motion,
and thanked the Noble Lord for bringing it forward.
Mr. HUME 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
iniquious monopoly, but he understood that it was now as
i owerful 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 Ftockton 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
Leen proved that 4,00(t000 of tons. cold(' 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 coaaljutors.—( 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 1534 to 1843 the slopping 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 mot being worked, and the stocks were becoming
exhausted ; the price of coal, too, it should be remembered,
was still further reduced by the numerous tolls and charges to
n hid' it was subjected in the port of London. It had been
prominenily put forward this evenit g that the coal-owners had
a monopoly of the article. They were charged with being
monopolists; but it should be recobected that there was a
constant competition in the market between the colliers of
Northumberland and Durham, Scotland, Wales, and all the
inland collieriee. 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 en average price of 20s. and 21s. per ton ;
steamer coal, which was from 15s. to 18s. a ton; and small
ccal from 13s. to 15s, a ton. He did not think these charges
were sufficient to justify the injurious expression of monopoly,
when out of it had to be vaid the coat 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
uederstanding, for the governing of the trade, but these 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 the, should not make such regulations? He was
convinced that the snore 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 lion. 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
lion. 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 f 0 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. DUNCOMISE 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 lion. Member might not have meant to
have used the phrase, but he certainly did do so, as he (Mr.
Duncombe) had takers 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 mess 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. lie was not going now to bring the question of
the strike before the Ilouie. He could well understand why
the masters were not prepared to go into that question. He
knew there had been greatmisrepresentations abroad with re-
spect to the men, and if the House were to go into the ques-
tion at all, he would unde.take 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 bends 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 he
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 alter
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.
Ile 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 wiry, 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 tie mines to see that the works were made
safe. In consequence of the bad 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, se 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 hare 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-
lier 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 fur 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 existed. 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 better 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 he 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, becau,e there was a differential duty of four shillings,
in favour of British vessels which carried out coals. There
was no injury' inffcted on the coal interests which should
induce tha House to abolish the duty which had been imposed,
as he thought most properly, on coals by his Right Hon.
Friend.

Lord HOWICK 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 House at any length.
13ut as he represented a constituency which was deeply in-
terested in getting rid of this tax, he thought it right to make
4 few observations ; and if he wanted a proof to show how
much at a loss her Majesty's Government were for a defence

cf this impolitic tax, that proof was clearly afforded ti the bal
consistent arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman s'sb!,,
" it
'ust sat down. The Right Hon. Gentleman, it appeareuels
him, seemed, from the latter part of his speech, to be, ",'!.
desirous to give time to his friends to come to the divistehe°
(Hear, hear.) In the latter part of his speech he said that lot
tax inflicted no injury on the coal trade, while in the first teo
of his speech he said there was much force in what had fa'lt.6o
from the Honourable Member for Kendal os to
s„
danger of the supply of coals being &all 751,1
Their argument must be one or the other. If they iloPe
od
this tax to husband the supply of coal, then there was eTE
I to the latter part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech.
they rejected this argument, the question must then be eef,,
sidered with reference to the effect of the duty on the trade. t
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman must have gret'd
' confidence in the gullibility of the House, to come foswed
with the argument that the coal mines were in danger/0r
being exhausted.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mernhe
Kendal, who had a sort of monomania on this subject—fhd,
hear)—was the only Member who took that ground. I°
dition to the supply in the North of England, the best ;for
logists told then that the Welsh field contained a sualf If
2,000 years ; and, besides this, they must not forget the col
to be expected from Scotland and Ireland.—(lleal\hroght
Now as to the trade being injured by this tax, he really t"°-`
is
that her Majesty's Government had confessed that the eas:e dif,
against them.—( Hear, hear.) The fact was clear and j°1)18
potable, that they had had a trade thriving beyond all exatee ,
, —a trade created by the repeal of an impolitic tax uP°6O,,IS
ports. For eight years this trade was growing faster the
faster. The Government were warned what would be ,of
effect of imposing the tax ; it instantly caused a falling top
the trade ; and Hon. Members knew that there was only er„t•el
between the fading off and a total stoppage in colineci-tios
matters. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Kendal, had re,
ferred to the regulation of .‘ vends," and had defended thatob,
gulation. For his own part, be would only say that be
jetted to all combinations, whether by masters or works:o
He was perfectly persuaded that great injury had ig•
inflicted by the coalowners upon their own had
terests by the injudicious course which they titioa
pursued. They had brought upon themselves the color, they
of the coalowners in the neighbourhood of the Tees, an" ts
were now bringing open themselves the competition of See,
land and Northumberland. Its Northumberland, a verydosteriiset
able coal field had been discovered, and the coal of that ers
would very shortly be brought into the market. They wasi,
profiting by the mistakes which had been made by the, rt. tee
owners of other parts of the country. Large contracts 10
exportation of coals had, however, been thrown out in tbeitioo
mediate neighbourhood of Northumberland by the We's
of this tax, and he contended that it was not just to plod
on that account, those who were no parties to the reg
" vends." Allusion had been made to the unfortunate sure,
which now existed among the pitmen of the north. He
a.•
garded with the deepest anxiety the dispute between the lt!,et
ters and those whom they employed ; but he must confess oho
he deeply deplored the circumstance that his Hon. Frienebod
Member for Durham, and the lion. Member for Finsbury,
thought fit in that House to discus's these painful differen,7o,
He thought they had no right whatever to interfere inLo`
matter, and, as the House had no right to interfere, he (frog
Howick), as an individual Member of it, would abstain "-tot
that
doing so. He would only express a most earnest hope rwi.
both sides there would be a strong desire for an amicable 'es es
nation of those disputes. With these few observateouse.
begged most cordially to support the motion before the g' ed.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHLRY said he should not haifoe•
ulatiole
dressed the House, if it had not been stated by the ith
Member for Sunderland that it had nothing at all to e°, l'ere
the differences between the coalowners and their wor.lloo,
A case had come before him, within the last week whiella le
upon that question. There were 50,000 sailors emploie eta'
the coal trade ; a number of these men who had beendutot
ployed in bringing coals to the port of London cornplaine
they hail made an agreement with their masters for 'tore
voyage from New castle and back again. They arrived The
last April, and had remained here up to the present daY• f tee
coals were not sold, and in looking at the charterpartY,eo re'
masters and coalowners, he found that it raid, " if Yei,
main in Lend tn after three market dal s you," that oket
owners of vessels, " shall have lid. per ton for each 112,iviag
day." The owners were thus secured from loss by re,''?„..ll.
4id. a week. But the poor men who had cantracteo,4,o6
were placed in the position which he had stated to the
La, g
He would be glad to know whether the House had ntall sto
do with such a case as that'—( Hear, hear.) Whet lies°
become of these men, many of whom had wives and fael'totle,'
home with eight or ten children ? Now, with respeeloiesal
question before the House, he begged to say that the saui.opcs
which in London cost 20s. per ton, could be bought in test
for 15s. Why should the French manufacturers have tbal
advantage over our own ?—( Hear' hear.) He confess Ths
he was rather for increasing than diminishing the thity'r tball
Frenchmen, he concluded, should net have coals cbeerbe doff
ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that, if
were continued, Belgium would supersede our o°ll„,e7'
owners. Why did she not supersede them in al-oeete'
(Hear, hear.) He was anxious that the id cer_j
went should not give way on this question—they 911°uoteriP
tainly have his cordial support.—(Cheers from the' i'
benches.) Goes
Mr. HUTT said that if the men whose case the 1100'0 etv,
tleman commisserated found the terms in question sews,
favourable to themselves, they would take care not t° 'lOO
to such terms in future. With respect to the question
ed
the House, he had hoped that this tax would have bee% spill
in the same manner as the augmentation of the fr''therr
duties. The tax was imposed in distinct opposition tot io re:
commendation of the Committee ; and the argunten_ glet°
Terence to the exhaustion of the mines had proved aid tee
tbe
fallacy. He must protest against what had been sawootellt
Hon. Members near him on the subject of the t° apoiso
of the coalowners. They had attempted to raise a ellorkahle
that class of persons, and the author of that very I,*e_, to s";
and entertainirg production " Coningsby," said to!'ibae,rt;
upon popular feeling there was no better instrunien,freiesb,
raise a cry.—( Hear, hear.) A monopoly created by letbsoio.F.:
enactment was a gross abuse, and he would go as far a 7. nortitTA
in denouncing it. It was a robbery committed on oat
of the community for the fancied benefit of another. s'aioetioti
ask the Hon. Gentleman if the monopoly of the °elect& arisie,
was a monopoly of that description? Was it the s,"
special legislation ; or was it not rather a monopolYhospe.;
from the very institution of private property ? The e°3o tile;
had a right to dispose of their property in the best illarod hest
could find ; they had a right to sell it when, wheree! , it ,
they liked, and they had a right to abstain from sel"e'eetliel
to
01l
ilaf7t,hee! tehryough
againstt -o p Lee
elotaroawsnaernaqctosnt impolitictbsta eoeur:etab;
would ask why this cry was specially directed against "e%ist '-
owners ? Did not the same species of combination „stes:
every other department of trade? Did not the iroll;%,
tbb
assemble together in some large town, and agree to 3:t ott
price of iron ? Pid they not hear the same staternervel
.10
regard to the manufacturers of copper, of tin, of soar'heil
TheY
various other articles, the produce of industry • thel, el
business to single out the coalowners in particular'
asteoislind
no right to denounce any of these parties. He was _ bers °se
to find those who set up for transcendental philos
economists rnal.ing the coalowners the subject of atts oP„
e"'
tb
charMacter.---( Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") ere
r. HUME rose to explain. He would with regard]eltt,
question of the coalowners' monopoly, refer his 11°,61fore
to the evidence given before the Committece-sk 00re'
Hon. Gentleman was interrupted by loud cries Of
hies.
order ! " " Chair. chair 1") Nal°
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member Must cot
self self strictly to an explanation. who this
Mr. WALLACE agreed with his Hon. Friend eoo, of had
been permitted to go on just now in his dentinciatjt, wd cot
monopoly, which was one of a most injurious kies astone:hiS
been carried to the utmost possible extent. He wad ratie'ess
to find the Noble Lord the Member for Sunclerlane
the gr.
ego
Hon. Friend below him for laying before the 11°51'hoo. Fro'
antes of 30,000 of the labouring population. 111, the °lot°
had done his duty by directing the attention to called pd
that subject, and their interference was eertainlYtea wbee•oci
such a case as that which his Hon. Friend had sta.na ego;
parties were rich and powerful on the one sit' °;y his aged
powerless on the other. The statement ma'ewere Pr:intheir
Friend that this immense body of working iv" iresso f the
to submit the questions in dispute between then-0%60e °ote
masters to arbitration, was well worthy the ailed iotrod.e 010
Government, His Hon. Friend on his left ha of (blot?,
law for providing for the settlement by arbitrationmenefsbedo
between masters and men in one branch, Orcerted 1;0.0
but the meaning of the Act had been so tbo full or
lawyers in Scotland, that the people had not had beg be, ofororic
of it. As a representative of a considerable ou"of this it die'
owners he must protest against the continuance 0015,05
duty on coals as most unjust and injurious, caes,i the
800,000 tons of coal to lie wasting at the bsontdttooloctutep.ootituettdbfa'74.eool,
stead of being brought to the surface
coal was not even suffered to be brought up
sent to London, and that was one of the effee,t,sobje go
He should cordially vote for the motion of the '''oes the
Strangers were then ordered to WithdraWf
divided, when there appeared— 74
For the motion ................................. Ito
Against it
reef
Majority against the motion .....
THE COMMERCIAL MABiDtniiiteesitioef;
Mr. LYALL then moved for a Select C°'
ereial °OO Pot
quire into the state and condition of the cornri-reportept
this country, and to take into consideration a „,
e sio
best mode of eneouragizg and extending the "s
British shipping. tO 01
Dr. BOWIUNG moved, as an addition to °the 'fill° el
lion, that the said Committee do examine int°_,d ell-Fog/0e
taxes on the materials used in the building as sbjps,: teo
British ships; alto into the effect on wages an %pen- 11°
the e the os
our restrictions on provisions (in respect to far
to
vigating British ships), and to consider and ref; far as lit 41
on the expediency of removing the same, tnoe__ core .00
be found to prevent the British shipowner fr ro
, Oise'
too, te•
cessfully with the foreign shipowner. . bet 0° too
Mr. GLADSTONE supported the motion, the_io
to guard against misrepresentation of the wletee,f, eei:t!bajoire-re
ment. It had been industriously circulated
.°itig. sent
that the reciprocity treaties were about
GOO r`'n'oece,9-0
Now, so far from this being the case, the
_web!
the
;
most anxious to adhere to them. It was ails bos iw g
to adhere to them—there was no alternative,
heat) 0 to
jog
war, which they must all deprecate.—(lle!re.ocurre° Oles
Sir C. NAPIER gave his cordial Fo. The f sots
motion of the Hon. Gentleman oppositeutober ehopettof
interest had declined. In 184' the 54, out
vessels registered was 77 ; in 1841, only n W
ith
fully' Committee would consider the subject
reference to party objects.—( Hear, hear. )N wor
After a few words from Mr. CHAPAIAL'i: that the
be
e loc.
Mr. II AWES proposed, as an ament., e_ addeue foto,' Id
"to inquire into the causes of distress, ,7,3cy d prop,
theMwro.rGdsL%et‘pieShTtOheNHEodnouAbitee,nl
btleser efoxrPetaalo,'redest,lltfliaiotartadooilichtd
:interes's's. _ for
wouldint o th the
leadm o tti o
h eHe belief thoughtthat
rtlei(aitprtoheei
the distress which existed in the shipplq,
_toobjeq,moce to
lead the Committee into an inquiry into 21.!?!.ed thesr,.
Mr. HUTT recommended his Hon. Vo"by 1. "site
Lambeth to withdraw his amendment'na_ „posit sOto
wished to ask the Right Hon. GentletO ron ei;;litod pot
17"-
that a return relatinot to the tonnage duties,
t3wtereatie,e /Ind ere
JO'
lof dif
produced. ffre.c
Mr. GLADSTONE said it required_,A:bose e.
hey VFW' t 10
foreign ports, which he had moved for last year.st
deal
„,031,
to make the returns required. rsb'e ss'h
as early as possible. would be dig; os po-
Sir WALTER JAMES said it
as
.u,,
__,dasio the Teo.
58
the inquiry before this Committee,ae" that.
p._, joefois
Mr. WAWN could assure the 11
."th, ,'l;be
't,rustecirtb: betieef'
tett°
c°s'et ogrrios intoestiaty,
f the rg -b° e
if
inww
ahitsi
tc
eih
en hy
would
o,aisdtg
suggest
el
olsitroansbofimue res ttroactmer,eedpayrnedsisoee
erbn
ha_a
ddi
different
caec 0
ci
Lord PALMERSTON did not
o
would bc In an eb
id
re'
troduced, the Committee w ducal a the not
ociy that
question of the policy of reciprocity
_as obvious `heir der•elier,ed,.
the proposition of his Hon. Frricepcoitllyti:acdtaties,
,0
ever,
or
to
otlfetmhaonseetprpeoatsiietes:
Hltehtandobue:
is at iv,
that if the words proposed b hisYblic out of do; the CO!'cteteirf
sou
be soy ohite el° ios
that such was the in ofintkiethrere ld ho th' coil ...a
would st
itt
e e thinko
the tihmo
open that question. The Rightni:lectinie.:Gt Fie:rsda'y
,tiPiPed,todjis?
the introduction of the words.
mutton 6f thte t if Ile theeYre tositlf
was necessarily involved in the
thought hey ecee Alts
NeniotohwCerol mitehm(eLiCtotoremde P. did not think
navY, ,y MU. tisleP
into the state of the mercantile
,_ it. t t
opposite. He (Lord Palmerston) and t _st of F tbm
cause 1 t
It appeared t: io4o'
ilotowehnactouwraasgethaend romQoie
quireinquire

tl,
,aro *°;ent'
7n. th'
( gere ler

to il
,ce, _col
isorloe
gt pt c

to,
)411.:}tilof
rec/
of
ar ,
°f '34
the
ootil
tbel
4
etl'

5e °l)rd"
tr°Pe„i'jj
catvi:li
11d°'

for
,rober tc)
11° 4
it
h 5, vet
11'

ii''
of tie
be °l3

, to
,Die•
roo lace
l'eo
irate