166 THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN July 23, 1915. quantities and similar conditions as last year as a basis for the new contracts of this year. How were they going to say what was sold in similar quantities and under similar con- ditions means? The colliery owner would simply withhold selling that particular coal on a particular day, and thereby defeat the object of the Government. In order to make the clause watertight the Government ought to take the average price. He suggested that they should take these words : “ No coal shall be sold or offered by the owner or on his behalf at a price exceeding the average prices realised by rail, inland water, or land sale, respectively, for coal of the same description at the pit mouth at the same coal mine in the 12 months preceding the war.” The bon. baronet also referred to the prices paid by the London County Council. The London County Council bought large quantities of coal under contract. Seeing what they had paid this year—of course, the prices include delivery, and there had been an increase of probably Is. 6d. for extra cartage to meet it— there had been an increase in Wales of 15s. 9d. per ton, in Warwickshire 8s. 3d., in Leicestershire 10s., Durham Ils. 7d., Nottinghamshire 7s. 9d., Yorkshire and Derbyshire 13s. 9d. Were the Government going to allow these local bodies to pay these exorbitant rates? They were forced to buy. These local authorities could not wait and see. Sir J. Harmood-Banner thought the hon. baronet, while he was a colliery owner, did not represent anyone in the coal owning industry except himself. He was quite prepared to agree with him on his proposals in regard to the middleman, but thought it was most important to repudiate his views about contracts as soon as possible. Did he intend to break contracts which were at a loss, as well as contracts which were at a profit, because in the coal trade there were two classes of contracts? There was an enormous number of contracts which were made prior to the war in 1914, and some of them even prior to that date. In his own collieries they had got 300,000 tons of coal still to deliver on contracts made at that time at a very different price compared with the present price. The railway companies made these large contracts in advance, and this proposal would mean that the railway companies would have to pay 6s. or 7s. a ton more for their coal than under these contracts. The merchant and the coal owner ought to be exactly on the same lines, and particularly for this reason—that a great many collieries had depots of their own, and they carried on a trade in the big towns. Nor could he see whv other trades should be dealt with, and why it should be limited to coal. Why did they not touch the ship owners? Drink and coal were the only two things which they had touched. In reference to the Bill, it was quite possible under clause 1 to give one part of the kingdom a difference of Is. in the price which it would get as compared with another part of the kingdom. There were other important points which required elucidation and putting in proper form. There was an enormous amount of nonsense talked about the profit of coal owners. In many cases up to December 31 last collieries did not produce any profit at all in very large districts of the country. In the case of one colliery in which he was interested, the price at which nearly 800.000 tons of coal was sold at the pit mouth was 9s. lid. The net profit on the whole year—for the loss up to December had been made up—was a difference of 8d. per ton; 8d. per ton represented what had to be provided for depreciation and interest on capital. A question which the House ought to consider was that of mining royalties. Whether thev took the coal out of the land or nPt, they had got to pay their royalty. With the men going away, their output was considerably less. The royalty very often amounted to £8,000 or £10,000 a year, which they had to take out of profits. Sir J. Walton at this point withdrew his motion. Mr. Pretyman said the Bill was brought forward on purely national grounds, and there was no accusation made against the coal owners that they were different from people producing other commodities. The only reason why this Bill dealt with the coal trade, and with the coal trade only, was that the conditions in that trade were different from those in any other trade. The whole of the coal was pro- duced in this country. It was a vital necessity to every industry in this country, as well as to every private individual, that they should be able to get a sufficient supply of coal at reasonable prices. If they were to treat freights as they were now treating coal, the consequence would be that thev would deprive this country of its greatest asset in regard to financial exchange. This was merely a question of trying to regulate the price to the consumer in this country. Manv of the criticisms which had been directed against the Bill would be unanswerable if it were a peace measure, and if it were a precedent which would lead them in this or that direction. The only justification which could be urged for this Bill was that it was an emergency measure. He believed that a very great advantage would be obtained in dealing, by any means whatever, with the distributor if they had got a basis price. Although the hon. member for Mansfield had a verv much greater knowledge of the coal conditions than he had, he suggested that the Board of Trade’s most careful examination and calculation of the figures of production and the prices from one end of the country to the other was really more valuable than was the hon. gentleman’s expert knowledge, which was rather more local in character. The House would make a mistake if they attempted in Committee to carry the Bill too far, and if they carried the area of legislation proposed in this Bill beyond the pit mouth, and took it into the trade as a whole, they would really do more injury to—because of the complications and the difficulties that would be set up—than they would advantage the consumer. If thev were to take the delivery basis instead of the contract basis, and were to sav that all coal from a stated date after the passing of the Bill should be sold at certain prices, it would be found in that case that even greater hardships and difficulties would be caused than any which could arise from this proposal. Sir A. Mond pointed out that there was nothing in the Bill which compelled anybody either to raise any coal or to sell any coal. There were plenty of manufacturers in the last six months who had had contracts with colliery pro- prietors for the sale of coal at certain prices, and who. on many occasions, had not been able to get the contract delivered because the coal had been diverted to other customers who had been willing to pay higher prices. Tn the Midlands that had been a very common practice. It was no use to a manufacturer who had to keep his works going to bring a law suit, while in the meantime his coal supply was stopped. As the Bill stood, thev had also a large number of contracts running at better prices than they wore going to allow in the future. The result of that would be a tendency to take care that the coal went to the people who were not paying the minimum prices, but the higher prices they had already contracted for. The people who had not contracted would be put in the position of not having to pay more than a minimum amount, while the people who had contracted at higher prices would get the full coal supply, while the other people would experience difficulty. The Government seemed to be obsessed with the question of London households and the London coal margin. That was a very small part of the problem of coal in this country. The important question was the millions of tons of slack and industrial coal which they wanted to keep the factories running in order to supply the Government with the articles they required. It was not a question of whether the London coal merchants or the colliery proprietors got Is. more or less. Then he did not think there was sufficient recognition of another very important question, to which his notice had been directed, in South Wales, and that was as to not limiting the export price of coal. What would be the result of that? The man who was exporting coal from South Wales or any other part would be in this position : he would be able to get very » 7