| William Brind coal meter |
| See election as coal meter in 1804 |
London Coal Exchange in 1808.
Sea-Coal for London
History of the Coal Factors in the London Market
Raymond Smith F.L.A., F.S.A.
METERS AND THE TURN SYSTEM
PART 1, 1800-1834*
|
THE aim of every shipper in addition of course to a good market was a quick turn-round. There were many obstacles in the way, apart from wind and weather: Customs and City dues to be paid, and after the sale, meters and delivery. It was the urgency for clearance that led to ships' papers being sent in before the ships were even in the Port; as it was the urgency for clearance that made possible the exaction of 'dispatch' money from shippers for quick delivery. The race for the market was a race in which there might be a hundred, two hundred, or even more starters. But before the cargo was sold there might be days, and even weeks, of waiting. And delivery might easily take three or four days or more, with scores of lighters milling around the ships in the Pool perhaps two hundred ships and over. A fleet up for market can be compared to a crowd waiting for a bus. Some degree of regulation is needed if a mad rush is to be avoided which might lead to injury and loss, or even to disaster; even if the regulation is merely a voluntary one, self- imposed, and arising out of a sense of fair play and good manners. But there are always people ready to jump a queue, given a chance. As road traffic has to be controlled by police and traffic lights and traffic regulations, so the river traffic had to be controlled. The beginning of a turn system on the Thames can be traced back to 1638-9, when a Society of Coal Merchants (i.e. shippers) was incorporated and endeavoured to regulate the coal ships in the river. This was short-lived, for the Society faded out in 1640. Ninety years later came the system devised by shippers and factors in 1728; a voluntary one, self-imposed, and set up in the interests of all. That this too failed was no fault of its projectors: the legislature frowned on it as a combination to increase the price of coals. It is difficult to see how it could have succeeded without some method of registration and mooring for colliers and other vessels unloading in the river itself.
|
| * General. The records of the Society. The references 'R.' below are to the memorandum by Charles Rowland, assistant harbour-master, in the Report of the select com- mittee on the Port of London, 1836, pp. 162-78. |
|
196 SEA-COAL FOR LONDON But there was no official regulation of shipping on the Thames before the passing of the Act of 1799. It is true that it was the practice for ships to lie in tiers in the river, leaving a space for through traffic, by 1796.1 Indeed, long before that, Saussure2 had recorded in 1725 that
But this was a trade custom; whatever strength it had, depended on prescriptive usage, not law. And though a legal turn system obtained on the Tyne as early as 1766, the Thames oddly enough had to wait until the early i9th century.
The Port of London as legally defined began at Gravesend, and for all practical purposes as far as colliers were concerned, ended in the Pool. The problem was therefore, administratively, to link Gravesend with the Pool, and economically, to secure a quick clearance. It took over thirty years to work out a solution. The story of that solution is the story of the meters' list and the harbour-masters' regulations. The meters' list was based initially on the Custom House entry, for that was the first step towards the sale and delivery of cargoes. The story therefore begins in 1800, when the first operation of the meters' list is recorded. The second stage was in 1807, when the first harbour- masters' regulations were made. The third was in 1811, when the factors set up their 'night office' lor the reception of ships' papers. The fourth, when a link was formed between the harbour-masters' regulations and the market. The fifth and final stage was reached when an office was instituted by factors at Gravesend for the entry in rotation of ships' papers, and ships were entered at the factors' office in London in that order and sold and metered in that order; and on the harbour-masters' instructions ships berthed in the river were allowed in the Pool for delivery in rotation, according to a list furnished each market-day by the Meters' Office.
(i) To 1830
The 1800 Report is witness to the fact that attempts to secure the advantage of a quick turn-round on the Thames by unlawful means were persistent and widespread. Papers were sent up and meters secured sometimes even before the ships sailed from the north. It was
|
| 'R. p. 164.
2 Saussure (C. de), A Foreign View of England . . . 1902, p. 95. |
|
METERS AND THE TURN SYSTEM, 1800-34. 197 in order to circumvent such practices that, il' the Meters Office had reason to suppose that a ship was not at her moorings in the Pool, a meter could be refused. This was said to be a ruling recently ' adopted as a regulation for the ships working in turn'.1 If an attempt were made to mislead the Meters' Office, the ship would be put at the bottom of the list. No details of the mechanics of this turn system appear till 1824; but entry of the ships' papers in the Meters' Office was the last step in the procedure necessary to their unloading. The first step was the delivery of the papers to the factor concerned; it was the factor's business to speed the papers from the Custom House to the Meters' Office. This could be done fairly easily when the Custom House was open and business was quiet. But some method had to be found for coping with papers coming in when the Custom House was closed, or when ships were anticipated in large numbers on the arrival of a fleet. The method adopted by the factors in 1811 is revealed I '' following Press cutting dated 20 February:2 We the undersigned Coal Factors of the City of London respectfully beg Leave to inform our Friends and Correspondents, that the present Prac- tice, when Fleets arrive, of sending the Cockets to a Public House (when the Clerks of the Custom. House are not in Attendance), that they may be entered in a Book, and by which the Turn for Meters has been hitherto regulated, not answering the Purpose intended, has been the Source of many Complaints. Having confidence in Mr. William Topper, of No. 24 St Mary Hill, near the Goal Exchange request our respective Friends and Corres- pondents, will direct their Boys to take the Papers to him at all Hours of the Day, when there is a large Fleet of Ships together, and Meters ex- pected to be scarce, that they may be regularly numbered, who will give the Boys their usual Fee. In the common Hours of Custom House Business, viz. from ten o'Glock till Three, or when no Scarcity of Meters is apprehended, they beg Leave to request the Papers may be sent to their respective Offices, as usual. Appended are the names of 21 houses. James Bentley describes the old custom of sending boys up with the ships' papers :s
|
| ¥ Report on the coal trade, 1800, pp. 47-8.
2 Bell Colln. 7, 649. 3 1836 (coal trade) report, Q. 86a.
|
|
198 SEA-COAL FOR LONDON
After entry at the Custom House had been effected the ships' papers had to be taken to the (sea-coal) Meters' Office for a meter. The papers were the Custom House warrant, the fitter's certificate, the buyers' turn-paper, and the document for the Lord Mayor's dues of groundage and bailage. The procedure in the Meters' Office in 1800 was doubtless the same as it was in 1824. The ships' papers were in 1824 arranged in numerical order 'agreeably to the entry at the Custom House', and then copied in a book called the meters' list. The ships were supplied with meters in the order of the list. The Meters' Office was open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. 'Dispatch', it was then said,1 'so eagerly solicited by the Coal Buyer, and admitted by all as so essential to a Collier, forms certainly an important feature in this enquiry. . . .' Merchants were obliged to buy, though ships could not be metered in less than 12 to 14 days. The rate of unloading was fixed by 47 Geo. Ill c. 68 at 42 chaldrons a day. Unloading also depended on the number of meters and craft available, and the hours meters worked. The meter's day was com- puted to be from sunrise to sunset i March to 30 September, and from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. from i October to 28 February. Lightermen could facilitate delivery if they would, but they had a practice 'very detri- mental to it, namely . . . the power (sanctioned by their employers) to detain a vessel when only a few vats remain to clear her, unless the Captain submit to a demand of twenty shillings or more; in these cases the least possible delay is one day, but when they happen on a ,1 Saturday, which of course they do, and not unfrcquently, two days' detention of the ship and Meter is occasioned by this very unjust and improper practice'. Harbour-masters were appointed by the Corporation under the Port Act of 1799 (39 Geo. Ill c. 69), and after the construction of the great system of docks, the Corporation in 1807 made a series ofbye- , laws for the good government of the harbour-masters and the safer I navigation of the river. These bye-laws stipulated that colliers should lie in specified moorings, in tiers of not more than 15 ships each.2 In January 1814 the Port Committee of the Corporation 'ordered the harbour-masters to let all colliers sold and metered into the Pool ac- cording to the wishes of the coal trade'; and in 1821 the harbour- '
|
| 1 Corporation of London, Report on the delivery and price of coals, 1824.
2 Corporation of London, Port of London bye-laws, 1807. |
|
METERS AND THE TURN SYSTEM, 1800-34.199 masters proposed a flag to be hoisted as a signal for stopping colliers at Blackwall until there was room in the Pool.1 Between 1806 an- , ,^. the coal trade had increased by about 2,500 sail representing 642,000 tons; 'the whole trade at this period amounted to about 7,000 vessels of 1,900,000 tons'.2 The crowded state of the river and the urgent need for accommodating shipping, or disposing of it in more convenient fashion, again impressed itself on the City and on the House. Public opinion on the question of control of collier shipping in the river was divided into two main camps. There were on the one side the theorists, who having regard to the success of the dock system in shutting out of the main stream a great mass of shipping, wished to apply the same system to colliers; and on the other side the men in the trade itself, who held that no system could be so effective and speedy, as that proved by experience, namely the delivery of colliers in the river. In 1832 the great problem still facing the Corporation was how to provide for the increasing number of ships, especially colliers, coming into the Port. Controversy raged over the issue, collier docks versus regulation in the river. The coal trade was still of the opinion that collier docks were useless; and Blanchard, the Chairman of the Meters' Office, wrote in 1833 that no plan 'is so well adopted to celerity as discharging in the stream'.3 In 1825 an Act was passed for constructing collier docks, but was never carried into effect as the legislature had refused to sanction a clause which would have compelled comers to use them.* This was the year in which ' the harbour-masters represented to the Committee [of the Corporation] the vast increase in the coal trade and the con- fined space allotted for the delivery of ships; an investigation took place . . . the coal trade was consulted . . . and it was notified by them that they could not carry on their business without having 250 sail in the Pool. . . Many vessels were detained at Greenwich and Black- wall until there was room in the Pool, but a system of letting them proceed upwards in proper turn was wanted, which presented a great difficulty to obtain . . .'5 On 22 July 1825 the Port Committee of the Corporation resolved ' that not more than 250 sail of colliers should be permitted to be in the Pool at one time, and that the harbour-masters be directed to cause a signal flag (half red, half white) for stopping colliers, to be hoisted at the Blackwall end of the City Canal, whenever that number has been moored therein'. Notwithstanding, vessels got permission to
|
| 'R.. p. 174.
2 R. p. 165. 3 R. p. 168. 4 Broodbank {Sir J. G.). History of the Port of London, vol. i, 1921, p. 170. R. p. 165. 5 R.p. 175. |
|
200 SEA-COAL FOR LONDON go up into the river upon the representation that their cargoes were sold, and that they must go up into the Pool to deliver. No effective check could be found for this practice. The consequence was, that ship-owners and coal merchants complained of detention; the meter was often sent to a ship not in the Pool; he lost a day's work and the ship's captain had to pay for the 'baulked' day. 'The cause may be traced to an increased demand for coal and the introduction of steam- boats. The navigation through the Pool had hitherto been considered as a passage on the flood-tide for arrivals and the ebb-tide for de- partures; a new era . . . was established . . . the largest vessels were driven against wind and tide and . . . the Pool required a vigilant superintendence and management.'1 In another passage Rowland reported that every user of the river (i.e. in 1835) complained about it and about the harbour-masters.Of colliers' griev ances, he said:2 Colliers complain of having the space formerly allotted to them taken away by the ... dock companies ... of the damage they receive by steam- boats, and vessels towed by steam; that they are unwarrantedly detained at Deptford, Greenwich, and Blackwall, and of the . . . expense . . . that they are harassed by the dock company's regulations at the West India dock, at Limehouse, Commercial dock, Greenland dock; by orders to remove from off the Red-House and dock-yard at Deptford, off Green- wich and Deptford, by the steam-boats going to and from their piers all day. At the Folly-House, by steam-boats. At Blackwall, by the dock- masters; at the second entrance to the West India dock, and also at the East India dock; if they lay in the intermediate space . . . they are in the way of the Brunswick steam-wharf; in short that they have now more annoying regulations to contend with, and more expenses than any other trade in the Port of London. In 1827 and 1828 the Port Committee of the Corporation resumed consideration of the harbour service. A further Act of Parliament was passed in 1829, and further bye-laws made by the Corporation in that year. According to Rowland3 'it was stated to the Port Committee by the Committee of coal factors, that the trade required 250 sail ... in the Pool'; upon which evidence a clause in the new bye-laws was introduced limiting the number of colliers in the Pool to 250, to lie in 20 specified tiers. The sale of the City Canal in 1829 to the East and West India Dock Company 'deprived the harbour-masters of
|
| ' R. pp. 165 note, 175. Corporation of London, Notice regarding tiers to accommodate colliers, 250 in all. No colliers to moor at the chains in the upper Pool without the permis- sion of a harbour-master. 10 December 1825. (In Guildhall Lib. Noble Colln. C. 87/5.)
2 R. p.177. 3 R.pp. 165, 166, 176. Corporation of London, Bye-Laws for the government of the harbour- masters, 1829. |
|
METERS AND THE TURN SYSTEM, 1800-34.201 their office and the flagstaff at Blackwall'; another office was taken at Greenwich and a number of regulations adopted. The flag for the detention of colliers was hoisted at Greenwich; ' a list was sent from the coal-market, gd. April 1829, and is still [September 1835] con- tinued, of the names of all the ships that were sold in each market- day, and the number required for work in the Pool, therefore the harbour-masters were prepared in some degree to let into the Pool only those ships that were actually required to carry on the coal trade; and by a regulation lately [September 1835] adopted at the coal-market, of selling the ships in turn as they arrive at Gravesend, the harbour-masters receive a list of them, by which they are enabled to comply with the wants of the trade in a more regular manner . . .' Between April 1829 and September 1835, the period covered by the preceding paragraph, a great revolution in the trade had taken place. The parliamentary investigation of 1830 had been followed by the Act of 1831 which abolished the coastwise Customs duty and the whole system of metage. To take the place of the old metage system, buyers and factors set up a Meters' Office in 1831, which worked in conjunction with a Night Office maintained by factors. In 1832 the Society of Coal Factors was constituted (or reconstituted), and in 1833 an office at Gravesend was opened to operate with the Night Office. In 1834, when factors and coal-owners co-operated in restrict- ing the market, the Gravesend office became the pivot upon whichthe system turned. (ii) From 1830 to 1834 The story of the turn system in the years 1830 to 1834 begins with some account of the Night Office, the function of which was that of Mr. William Topper's office of 1811. According to the evidence of Bentley and Gillespy in 1830,' in the day-time (i.e., during office hours) ships' papers were sent to factors' offices. At night (i.e., when the factors' offices were shut), the papers went to an office near the Goal Exchange established by the factors for that purpose, where the ships were numbered in rotation. After the sale had been effected and the necessary papers supplied to the Meters' Office, a meter was appointed 'according to the number the ship is entered'. The expense of the Night Office was met by a contribution of is. a ship. Gillespy put forward a suggestion that to preserve a proper
|
| 1 1830 (H.C.) report, pp. 132, 134, 163-4. Cf. the (H.L.) report, pp. 33, 36; the charge of 1s. is there included in the factor's bill under the heading 'foy', which also covered the bill stamp and ihe 1s. given the ship's boy. |