geology and mineralogy, of microscopists and
miners, to declare that it was shale, clay,
bituminous earth— anything in fact but coal.
A geologist took his hammer, and averred
on his reputation as a professor, that it had
no appearance of coal. The chemist took his
crucible and his blow-pipe, and he too insisted,
on the word of a philosopher, that it did not
burn like coal, and did not leave the ashes of
coal. The microscopist applied a powerful
lens, and had no sort of hesitation in avowing
the absence of all traces of those cellular and
vegetable tissues which existed in all coal;
consequently, it could not be coal. The
miner declared that he had never seen any
coal similar to that worked by the defendant,
and that, therefore (modest man) it was
absurd to call it coal.

So much for the science of the plaintiff.
The defendant had a still larger array of
philosophy on his side; and a host of men,
equally known in the scientific world, did
declare, on their reputations as geologists,
chemists, and microscopists, that the substance
in dispute had all the characteristics
necessary to make it coal; that in short it was
most decidedly, unequivocally, and beyond
dispute coal, and nothing but coal.

The array of evidence presents a curious
illustration of the fallacies of science in the
nineteenth century, and is quite worth
quoting. Professor A. declared that it burnt
precisely like coal: Professor B. protested in
plain English that it did not. Professor A.
stated that he found it to contain only six per
cent. of fixed carbon: Professor B. had found
ten per cent. of carbon in it; while Professor
C. met with sixty-five per cent. of carbon.
Professor A, stated that the mineral was a
bituminous shale: Professor B, asserted that
it contained the merest trace of bitumen.
Their duel being over, Professor C. found that
no degree of heat would cause it to yield
bitumen. Professors A., B., C., and D., declared
positively in full chorus that it possessed
no signs of an organic structure. On
the other side, Professors E., F., G., and
H., avowed much more positively, that it
had a most unmistakeable vegetable organisation,
with perfect traces of woody fibre,
cellular tissue, and every other characteristic
of the best Wall's End. Professor I.
found that it had no fixed carbonaceous base,
but its base was earthy matter: Professor K.
discovered on the contrary that the base was
decidedly carbonaceous, with very slight traces
of earth. Professor I. could obtain nothing
like coke from it, and he had tried very hard
too; whilst Professor K., with scarcely an
effort, had obtained forty-one per cent. of coke
from it!

Now, I take it, that there is no need of an
acquaintance with chemistry or geology— no
necessity for fathoming the constituents of
bituminous shales, carbonaceous bases, cellular
tissues, &c., to arrive at a due appreciation
of the absurd and anomalous position
in which science was here placed. The evidence
of a Newcastle coal viewer adduced
before a properly constituted Tribunal of
Commerce would have settled the case in five
minutes.

Setting these considerations aside, we arrive
at a powerful argument for the establishment
of tribunals; which, by a mere effort
of common sense and common justice, will
save the pockets of disputants, the time of
public officials, and moreover save men of
science from humiliating exhibitions. The
coal case was given in favour of the defendant
and lessee; and, so far, justice was doubtless
served, for according to a straightforward
and honest interpretation of words, a black
inflammable substance dug out of the earth
which gives forth inflammable gas, remains
coal, until a new special word be given to it;
and even then it must and will always belong to
the genus Coal. Had the dispute been brought
before a commercial tribunal the technicalities
of science would not have been called to their
aid— they would have contented themselves
with an examination of the true purport of
the lease by which the defendant held the
mines, and whether the mineral in question
was or was not what is popularly and generally
known amongst business men as a coal,
without reference to any scientific distinctions
or legal quiddities.

The agitation in favour of "Tribunals"
was commenced in the City of London
about two years since. It has gone on with
some degree of success; although far from
sharing that countenance which it richly
deserves. There are conflicting interests at
work. Strong prejudices and legal opposition
have hitherto stood in the way. Thanks,
however, to the zeal and public spirit of
one man, the tide of public opinion has
begun to set in favour of the movement.
The adhesion of nearly all the Chambers
of Commerce throughout the provinces
testify how keenly men of business feel the
incubus of the law in their daily operations,
and the result of strong convictions on
the subject has been the adoption of petitions
to both Houses of Parliament praying
that a committee may be appointed for
the purpose of inquiring into this most important
subject with a view to legislating
thereon.

Such a committee would assuredly bring
to light some curious and forcible testimony
in favour of what is now asked, and there is
no reason why Tribunals of Commerce may
not be as readily formed in this country as
elsewhere. The machinery may be so simple,
the expense so trifling, that it is difficult to
conceive any real objections to their formation.
A council of merchants, bankers, and others
accessible to the trading and manufacturing
community at all times and in the speediest
manner, would undoubtedly prove a welcome
boon. The suggestion of a stipendiary judge
with a sound legal education and training,