1801.] On Coal Vbnes. 405

tional concern, as the exiſtence of Coal Mines, in the vicinity of London, or in its bordering counties, bare aſſertion, on either fide, ought not to be truſted. R. C. ſays truly, that I profeſſed to know nothing aboxt the matter. I applied for preciſe infor- mation, to a miſcellany, widely diffuſed, and abounding with in- telligent correſpondents, on an intereſting ſubje&, of which it had been hitherto in my power, to obtain only general and Vague ideas.

My aſlertion,“ that the beſt coal is heavieſt,” T am by no means inclined to retract; at leaſt, not until I am convinced by much heavier reaſoning than that of your correſpondent. My allowance of an undue-weight to oleous bitumen, was from pure inadvertence; and’ probably it may’ be a. lapſe of’ the ſame kind, and want of diſcrimination in R. C. when he ſuppoſes that ſlaty coals are the heavieſt: Whéther on 2 compariſon of individual lumps of the ſame dimenſions, good or flaty coals would prove the heavieſt, T have never experimented, but have ſufficient reaſon to believe, that, in reſpe& to a meaſure or buſhel, the former always have the advantage, in this parti- cular, from lying more cloſe; the beſt and moft ſubſtantial coals generally running ſmalleſfe. For this reafon it is, that ſmiths ever purchaſe ſmall coals, and that many intelligent and econo- mical houſekeepers prefer them likewiſe. The idea of the mea- ſure of a commodity exceeding in weight, from the circum- ſtance of its minuteneſs, and lying cloſe, is perfe&ly obvious. Small, or horſe, are ever heavier, by a conſiderable number of pounds, per buſhel, than tick or Kidwell beans.

I ftill remain totally unconvinced‘by R. C°s argument, by which I mean, aſſertion, of the impoſfibility, withouc a Parlia- mentary bounty, of obtaining coals from the Midland counties, by the aſſiſtance of canal navigation; and the prohibition in a late A& of Parliament, very properly pointed out by J. M. ſeems of a ſuſpicious caſt. Conſidering the vaſt importance of fuel, as an article of prime neceflity, and the difficulty, o- al- moft impoſhbility, to the labourer, in theſe grinding times, to obtain a ſufficiency of ſuch, the queſtion imperiouſly demands inveſtigation, nor ought it to be ſkreened from the utmoſt ſcrutiny, by any partial and pretended reafons of public good, the meaning of which, in legiſlative vocabularies, is foutid too often to be MoNePoLY.

To the queſtion,“ who hath ſeen coals iù St. Leonard’s foreſt?” The moſt proper anſwer is—the rational preſumption of ſuch a thing: ought long ſince to have been a ſtimulus to effeual ſearch, by boriog; but ſuch-ideas have been perhaps ſtifled in their birth by the ſenſe ota legal bar.

Harrow on the Hill, May 5.* HOMO GENEROSCUS.

®* We refer this correſpondent to the accourt of coal at the ¿nd of Kirwan’s Mineralogy. It will corre& his preſent notions.

Com.& dg, Mag. Vol. VP. 3 E