¹ Davis, Ralph, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry (Newton Abbot, 1972), 378–379.Google Scholar This was a substantial revision of his estimate of 20 per cent found in “Earnings of Capital in the English Shipping Industry, 1670-1730,” Journal of Economic History (September, 1957).Google Scholar

² Ibid., 382-383.

³ Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York, 1937), 570.Google Scholar

⁴ For the holdings of John Gibson and William Williford, London lightermen, see Public Record Office, Treasury Papers T1/310 no. 12. They individually owned parts of nineteen ships.

⁵ Ralph Davis stated: “The wooden ship, if well looked after and free from accident could have a very long life – so long, indeed, that one may suppose the majority of ships to have ended their lives violently and suddenly in storm or fire, rather than to have rotted through old age as colliers and hulks.” “Earnings of Capital,” 411. J. H. Parry had a better opinion of the collier. He stated: “Colliers had to be strong. They were solidly built of oak; their proportions were moderate; their tumble-home relatively slight; and they had robust transom sterns. They retained, on the other hand, some of the virtues of the fluyt: their full section (i.e., flat floor); their capacious, almost rectangular hold; their simplicity and economy of size. They had bluff bows and straight stems, with no beakhead and only a modest cutwater; they were built for strength and carrying capacity, not for speed, certainly not for looks. Their qualities were widely appreciated; when Cook used Whitby-built collier barques for his exploring voyages, no eyebrows were raised at the admiralty.” Trade and Dominion (London, 1971), 282.Google Scholar

⁶ Nef, John U., The Rise of the British Coal Industry (London, 1932), I, 85–86.Google Scholar See also Stevenson, John, Observations on the Coal-Trade in the Port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (London, 1789), 2.Google Scholar He asserted that ships frequently switched over from the Baltic and Archangel Trade to the coastal coal trade.

⁷ Smith, Raymond, Sea-Coal for London (London, 1961), 107.Google Scholar

⁸ See Hughes, Edward, North Country Life in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1952), 218,Google Scholar and Nef, British Coal Industry, II, 95-96.

⁹ Willan, T. S., The English Coasting Trade, 1600-1750 (Manchester, 1967), 16.Google Scholar See also Harper, Lawrence A., The English Navigation Laws (New York, 1939), 335.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Imports into London were measured in London chaldrons, a unit of volume fixed by statute. It was made up of four “vats” of coal, the standard of which was kept at the Guildhall. By the eighteenth century, this was roughly equivalent to 26.5 hundredweight or tons. The Newcastle chaldron was approximately twice the London chaldron. See Nef, British Coal Industry, II, 367.

¹¹ Willan, Coasting Trade, 14. Nef argued that the number of ships in the trade jumped from 400 in the mid-seventeenth century to about 1000 in the late seventeenth century. This increase was said to have come about from both native production and the fitting out of Dutch prizes. It is doubtful, however, that all 1000 were engaged in the coal trade. British Coal Industry, II, 9.5-96. Dunn, Matthias noted that for 1703, “The Masters of the Trinity House asserted, that 600 ships, … with 4,500 men, were requisite for carrying on this branch of commerce, which they said was the rate for the last three years.” View of the Coal Trade (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1844), 21.Google Scholar In 1800, the figure was put at 400 on average (never less than 300 nor more than 500). Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, 1800 Coal Committee Report, 31. An estimate of 600 ships attached to the trade in 1757 was obtained by counting the ships listed in the Alphabet (Corporation of London Record Office) for that year. The exact number is not certain because “A” and “B” were missing and had to be estimated.

¹² The Collector's Returns indicate that there were in each month several ships which unloaded as little as one chaldron of coal. These were clearly not colliers, and may have been ships that took on coal in some port in lieu of ballast. The Newcastle hostmen pointed to one practice apparently utilized to avoid returning to London without a full cargo. “… Severall shipps did putt in att Sunderland and take in part of their loadeing of Coles there and then Come into this Port and take in the remaining part.” Dendy, F. W., Extracts from the Records of the Company of Hostmen of Newcastel-upon-Tyne (Durham, 1901), 169.Google Scholar

¹³ The coal trade was seasonal, with most ships laid up during Winter, but it was less so in 1770 than in 1700. For the first twenty years of the century, winter coal imports were about 6 per cent of coal imports during the rest of the year. From 1755 on, this figure fluctuated around 20 per cent.

¹⁴ Philalethes, A Free and Impartial Enquiry, 29.

¹⁵ See Rogers, J. E. T., A History of Agriculture and Prices in England (Oxford, 1902).Google Scholar

¹⁶ These have been reprinted in Willan, Coasting Trade, Appendix 5, with the wrong date attributed. I have reproduced the accounts here in a more convenient form for comparison.

¹⁷ The Account … Examin'd.

¹⁸ Charles Povey asserted that for the early eighteenth century, it was not uncommon for a coliier to cost between £2000 and £3000, which is consistent with this example. See Nef, British Coal Industry, I, 395.

¹⁹ Davis, English Shipping Industry, 377.

²⁰ For a single voyage in 1764, the Kent paid a premium of 3 per cent of value insured (£400). See Smith, Sea-Coal for London, 124. For a full discussion of the insurance market in the eighteenth century, see John, A. H., “The London Assurance Company and the Marine Insurance Market of the Eighteenth Century,” Economica (May, 1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Smith, Sea-Coal for London, 124-125.

²² When a lighterman was asked what profits were for that sector of the trade, he answered, “One year with another about 10 per cent.” Treasury Papers BT 6, Coal Trade, 1787-1788. An Anonymous writer in the Historical Register claimed a profit of 15 per cent per annum for the shipping interest, XXIII (1738), 223. One feature in Table 4 that stands out is the large part of the costs that were made up of taxes. These have been discussed elsewhere. Hausman, William J., “Public Policy and the Supply of Coal to London, 1700-1770” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1976).Google Scholar

²³ Davis, English Shipping Industry, 379.