REPEAL OF THE DUTY ON SEA-BORNE COALS. (Hansard, 14 December 1830)

§ Lord Wharncliffe

rose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London, for the repeal of the Duty on Sea-borne Coals. That subject had come before their Lordships in two successive Sessions; and a committee of the House of Commons had been occupied with it. He was desirous to press upon his Majesty's Ministers, that if they found themselves enabled to diminish any part of the public burthens, the tax of which the petitioners complained especially merited their consideration. He would not hesitate to say, that no other tax was more unjust in principle, or more mischievous in operation. It enhanced the value of an universal necessary of life to the counties, which, being most distant from the place of its production, would receive it with greater difficulty, and at heavier expense, than those counties which were altogether exempt from that tax, to which they were subjected, and which to them amounted almost to a prohibition from the use of that necessary. The characteristics of the duty on coals were, that it was a tax upon industry—and upon a necessary of life— and at the same time unequal and partial in its operation. He did not know by what principle the imposition of this impolitic tax had been regulated. Perhaps it was for the purpose of enabling the English to compete with the Scotch collieries, that coals to any part of Scotland were exempt from the duty, whilst those to any part of the eastern coast of England paid 6s. a ton. Coals carried to Ireland paid much less than those which were conveyed to the western and southern parts of England: and Wales seemed to be equally favoured. He could not explain the principles on which these arrangements had been made. It had been said, 1116 that if those duties were taken off, the public would gain nothing, and the amount would go into the pockets of the coal-owners. But of that there could be no danger, the competition of the coal-owners themselves would prevent that. With regard to what had been said respecting the combination of coal-owners to keep up the prices, the noble Lord explained, that they took care to ascertain the extent of the demand in the southern counties, and to regulate the supply to that demand. Such an arrangement was necessary for the protection of the proprietors of the lesser collieries, the produce of which was as important to the southern market as was that of the great collieries. The proprietors of those collieries had offered to farm the duties of the Government, or to pay a rent out of their own pockets, equal to the amount of the taxes. That proposal had been laid aside, from a variety of objections. One great objection to those imposts was, the excessive delay which they occasioned on the transmission of coals. From the time that coals arrived in the Pool until they reached the. house of the consumer, the dues exacted exceeded their cost to the moment when they were put into the ship. The original cost per chaldron was 13s., which was paid to the coal-owner and the mine-worker; the freight to London about 10s. or 12s.; and the various expenses after their arrival in London amounted to 26s. The charge for clearance in the Port of London was most extraordinary, amounting to 26l, while a timber vessel, requiring a great deal more labour to unload her, was unloaded for 8l. Other charges in the Port of London were most exorbitant; so that, of the 50s. which was the average price of a chaldron of coals delivered in London, the consumer paid 25s. for expenses incurred after the vessel entered the river. Though he was far from wishing to call upon Ministers to express a decided opinion, yet he should be happy to hear from them, that they were not unmindful of this, among other burthens upon the people.