July 30, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

215

own firm before the war sold coal for several years ahead,
and it had pre-war contracts, some of them not expiring
until April 1917. On none of these contracts was it possible
to raise the price of coal, and yet the cost of raising it had
been very materially raised, and would continue, probably,
throughout the whole of that period. The average colliery
was making less money now than it did last year, and the
amount of free coal available was in most large businesses
very small. His hon. friend had entirely overlooked the
item of waste. They produced a lot of coal, and lost 5 per
cent, in waste. About another 3 per cent, of the output
went in colliery consumption for engines and for workmen.
In one district the workmen got their coals free, and they
had to pay more for those coals to be raised, and yet they
got nothing for them. If they took certain other contracts
which had been made for a long time ahead, he could com-
pute, certainly in many instances, that during the next six
months not more than 10 to 20 per cent, of the output could
get the benefit of the higher price. But the increased cost
of 6d., 9d., Is., Is. 6d., up to 2s., which operated in these
collieries, operated on the whole output of the colliery, and
that was the reason why many colliery proprietors at present
were losing money on some of their collieries, while on
others they were making no more than they were making a
year ago. He wanted to put this other point to the President
of the Board of Trade. The tendency always was where
they had an artificial price in an Act of Parliament, to create
both a maximum and a minimum, and in the event of any-
thing of this kind being done, although export coal was
going to be limited, in his judgment, and in the opinion of
many others who had sold coal for many years, if an artificial
price was going to be fixed in regard to coal for home con-
sumption, it would have a tendency to operate prejudicially
in connection with the export trade, and the export trade
would obtain very little advance over and above that limit
which had been placed on the coal for home purposes. The
result would be that this country, during the period of the
war, would be deprived of many millions of pounds in con-
nection with the prices that they would obtain for their
exported coal in neutral countries. Pour shillings seemed
to him to be a fair price if the price was to be limited at
all.

Sir A. Markham said that what he had said,at the private
meeting was that the price of coal had in his own case
doubled, and if the colliery owner was able to make a profit
of 2s. a ton he had made a fortune, and did very well. He
would tell the House exactly how much his cost had gone up.
In Wales the cost of timbering had gone up from 100 to 120
per cent.—from 8d. to Is. 6d. a ton—and for every ton of
coal produced in Glamorganshire, the average cost for timber
alone was Is. 6d. In the colliery with which he was con-
nected in Monmouthshire, it was 8d. to lOd. a ton, and in
some cases over Is. Since the Departmental Committee was
set up there had been an advance given to the miners in the
Federated area of 25 per cent, on the old standard rates of
1889, and, in addition to that, there had been a reduction of
output of nearly 25 per cent., and the net result was that in
his own colliery there had been an increase of cost which
would necessitate a few collieries going to the President of
the Board of Trade and asking for an increase above the 4s.
If they took the collieries as a whole throughout the Federated
area—he was talking of house coal—he did not think the
increased cost had been more than Is. 6d. to 2s. per ton.
Perhaps he was on the low side. In some of the older
collieries the increase was considerably more. He was giving
the House the figures of the best collieries. When they
came down to Wales, if they took the price at 3s., it would
not really cover the actual increase in the cost of wages and
timber, and he did not think, therefore, that the figure of 4s.
was an unreasonable one. It was not fair that one class of
coal owner in the Federated area should, under the provisions
of the Bill, make a larger profit than the people in South
Wales, and he had therefore urged the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to make a pronouncement in the House that he
would take all surplus profits made by coal owners. That
would get rid of the whole injustice about the 4s. The
moderate collieries said, “ Why should you, by Act of Par-
liament, have the power to charge 4s. per ton, which will
give you a very substantial profit, while it will yield us very
little, if any at all?” The Bill was not brought in for the
purpose of "fixftig a natural price at which coal was raised
in the collieries throughout the United Kingdom. It was
brought in to prevent panic prices, -to prevent the price of
coal being doubled on the consumer, as it had in many cases,
and the price of 4s. was very little more than the price pre-
vailing in the year 1900, when, although the prices were very
high, the miners were not getting anything like what they
were asking now. He could not think it was right that they
should have one large trade union which was able to exercise
great pressure on the community, or that either coal owners
or miners, or both together, should be able to force on the
general community a high rate of wage in a time of national
danger, and if the President of the Board of Trade could in
some way introduce into the Bill a provision that there should
be no further increase, either on the part of the owners or
of the men, that would certainly meet the views of the
miners themselves. Therefore it would have been better if
his right hon. friend had introduced, after the word
“ increased ” the words “ or decreased.” There were cer-
tain classes of mine in which he might well have made the
prices lower than they would be under the Bill. When the
lion, member for Stockton gave these figures of immense
profits, he could assure him that it was not so. The
collieries with which he was connected were actually making
to-day, some of them, less money than they were making at
this time last year.

Mr. O’Grady said they would not like to have the figure
so fixed that it would endanger the position of the miners’
wages. The miners themselves had agreed upon the figure
4 s.

Sir J. Walton reiterated that there was a great variation
in the effect of war conditions upon coll>3ries in diffeceit
districts, and on different collieries in the same district. The
diminution of output, in some cases, had increased the cost
of coal over Is. a ton to his own personal knowledge. In
some collieries they were heavily watered, and had the great
cost of pumping on a largely reduced output. Not only had
they that enormous increase due to diminished output, higher
pumping charges, etc., but they had in many cases old
collieries working thin seams with bad roofs, which entailed
extra timbering, and timber was 120 per cent, more costly
than it was before the war. At collieries in Durham and
Northumberland, owing to war conditions, the cost had gone
up in some cases 3s. 6d., and in other cases over 4s. per
ton. He had a letter from a large group of colliery owners
in the county of Durham, which said :—

The figure proposed by Mr. Runciman’s Bill, namely.
4s., is, in the opinion of myself and several other coal

owners in this district, totally inadequate to meet the extra
cost occasioned by the shortage of labour, thereby con-
siderably reducing the output, the high price of materials,
and the advance of wages which has already taken place.

He had a letter from South Wales

The 4s. per ton advance allowed on the price obtained
in 1913-14 in many cases will not meet the increased cost,
and unless the colliery affected is to be run at a loss it will
mean confining its operations for shipment and shutting
off the home trade. This move, Mr. Pretyman said, wifi
be met by. the. Licensing Committee. I frankly cannot
see how this will work smoothly, when you work out the
details and how they operate.

He had another letter from Newport, Wales, in which he
was told that there was another point that ought not to be
overlooked. The bulk of the coal of Wales was exported,
and it was anticipated that very high prices would be realised
for it. The miners’ wages were regulated on the selling
prices, and the smaller collieries in South Wales, which did
not export, but sold for home consumption, were likely in
the near future to have their wages bills considerably
increased by being lumped together in the taking of the
average prices in Wales with the great exporting collieries
that were obtaining much higher prices. This letter from
Wales also pointed out that the cost of these smaller collieries
in Wales had gone up to an extent that justified the 4s.
increase per ton proposed in the Bill, and suggested that if
they had further increases in wages to pay they ought to be
allowed to add them to the 4s. He had a similar communi-
cation from Yorkshire. This outspoken Yorkshireman said :

Obviously this Bill is being engineered by Sir A.

Markham to benefit his thick seam pits, and to standardise
the coal from them. The Government are being hood-
winked, but I am sure if they pass this Bill there will be
a rude awakening for them.

The Rise in Cost of Production.

Mr. Runciman thought the only way they could arrive at
any figures likely to be at all just was by taking the averages
of sample collieries over very large areas. It was better to
take current wages than the old standard. As far as one
could tell, that in the Federated area meant an addition for
that area of about Is. a ton. They had also to take into
account the fact that the amount that was. consumed for
colliery purposes remained pretty much the same, and there,
was consumption of coal for other purposes which did not
leave as large a proportion free for sale as formerly when
the output was up to the maximum. It was probable that
Is. 2d. per ton would not be an unfair amount to take in
the Federated area in respect of the increased charge caused
by the war bonus. Then it was 17J per cent, in South
Wales, which must have added something over Is. a ton to
the cost of getting coal in South Wales. In Scotland 18|
per cent, was added on the standard, and this would mean
that the increased cost in Scotland’ of the war bonus could
not have come to much more on the average than about 8d.
a ton. In Cumberland and'Scotland and the Forest of Dean
there had also been other increases as well as those which
they had suffered under the war bonus. In Cumberland
there was an increase of 21 per cent, on the standard because
of the increased selling price of coal. In Scotland the increase
recently given under the arbitration of Sir George Askwith
came to about 12^- per cent, on the standard. It would be
roughly another 5~d., as far as they could make out, on the
coal owners. So that in Scotland the increased cost in wages
alone worked out at something in the region of Is. 2d. or
Is. 3d. He was afraid that it would be impossible to have
quite precise figures. In the case of the Forest of Dean, the
increases had amounted to 25 per cent, on the standard,
which was something like Is. 6d. additional on the output
in that district. It was only fair to say that in the case
of every one of these coal fields there would be a great many
collieries where the increase was above the average, and in
many others which were more fortunate, so far as cost was
concerned, it would be less. But it would not be an unfair
estimate to allow Is. 6d. or thereabouts, as added to the cost
of getting coal throughout the United Kingdom since the war
began. But, apart from wages, there were other elements of
increased cost. Scarcely anything had fluctuated more,
perhaps, during the last 12 months than pit props. Some-
times they had an increased supply, say, from the South of
France, which they had obtained largely with the assistance
of the French Government. Sometimes they had had unex-
pected shipments from Portugal. Arrangements had been
made, though not very much had come of them up to the
present, for an increased supply of pitwood from Canada and
Newfoundland, but until these came forward the necessity
of collieries providing them was so urgent that they had had
to pay abnormal prices in order to induce shipments to be
made to this country at all. He found it extremely difficult
to arrive at anything like a fair calculation as to what the
increased cost of pitwood would have come to—it varied so
much in individual collieries. In the matters of pit wood and
the cost of fodder, oils, and all sorts of materials which were
■requisite for machinery, illuminations, and light, there had
been a great many additions made to the standard charges,
and all these brought up the cost of material since the war
began to something again in the region of Is. 6d. It was
above that in the case of some collieries, and below it in the
case of others. Then they had to add something for
increased expense owing to lower output. They had got to
keep ways open and in good order, and the pumping must
be conducted exactly the same as it was before. Interest
and capital charges remained exactly the same as before. In
addition, all these standing charges must be spread over a
very much lower tonnage. In some cases the drop in the
output had been as much as 20 per cent. The average, he
was glad to say, was not more than about 10 per cent.
But jn some districts it had been very heavy, and in those
districts where it had been very heavy the increased burden
per ton, measured by tonnage, thrown on these collieries had,
of course, been proportionately increased, and they had there-
fore reached something over 3s. In many cases he feared
that the increased cost of getting the coal had been con-
siderably more than 3s. Instances had been put before him
in which the increased cost of getting the coal had been
over 4s. It would, however, be unfair to take these
extreme cases for the standard price which they put into the
Bill. On the other hand, it was quite clear from these
average calculations which had been drawn out with as great
care as their statisticians had been able to apply, that to
put in 3s. would mean that actually in this Bill they would
be facing the coal owners with a definite loss prescribed by
Act of Parliament. This had a further effect. His hon.
friends who had proposed that the figure should be 3s. and
not 4s. were leaving out of account the fact that in a great
many of the colliery districts wages had already been
increased, and there had been an increased cost on the selling

price of coal above 3s. There were a great many colliery
-districts where there was a choice of selling abroad and sell-
ing at home. The Export Coal Committee did check to
some extent the undue selling of coal abroad—that was to
say, selling coal abroad to such an extent as absolutely to
deprive the home market of coal which they must have. But
if they definitely put into this Bill a figure which would
impose a loss on the collieries, so long as the Bill was in
force, it would not be a choice as between selling coal at
home and abroad, but it would mean that the collieries
would find it better not to get the coal up to the surface at
all rather than be under the provisions of this Bill. As far
as any such districts who would only raise coal to sell abroad
were concerned, nothing that could be done by the Coal
Export Committee would be sufficient to force the coal into
use in places where they needed it for certain uses, if a
Statute with that provision were imposed on these collieries.
A great many collieries last year made no profit at all. The
average certainly did make profits, but it would put them
in such a position as to make it not worth their while to
raise the coal for home consumption if the figure of 3s. were
put in. He was sure that the Committee would -be well
advised to arrive at a figure which was fair, taking all the
increased cost of working into account, rather than to attempt
to make this a penal provision without there being a corre-
sponding benefit. The suggestion made by Mr. J. Samuel,
that every extra shilling added to the price of coal in this
country would mean that the consumers would have to pay
over £9,000,000 extra, was quite correct. The exact figure
was somewhere in the region of £9,250,000, but the whole of
that did not go, and, owing to the increased cost of getting
coal, could not go, into the pockets of the coal owner. When
the Committee was sitting upstairs looking into the matter,
they arrived, not at 4s., but 4s. 3d. He had taken a more
severe view of the situation than they had, and had left out
the 3d. He hoped that the Committee would be prepared to
accept the figure inserted in the Bill without feeling that
they were giving the coal owners undue profit, and that
they would agree that the 4s. was a fair sum, which would
not act to the detriment of the consumer, and would not give
the coal owner a greater profit than he was entitled to, and
would not disturb the arrangements which had been made as
to wages, which would certainly occur if the figure in the
Bill were reduced to 3s.

Mr. T. M. Healy complained that no attempt had been
made to separate the qualities of coal—namely, household
coal and steam coal. As regards steam coal, the man who
was charged had the protection that, to a large extent, he
could “ pass it on.” The man who had not that protection
was the ordinary man who bought three, four, five, or even
25 tons of coal in a year. His humble opinion was that tall
talk, booming, newspaper puffery, and the important posi-
tion of colliery proprietors in the House, had largely accounted
for- the price of coal that in distant parts of the country the
people were paying. ,

Mr. Adamson pointed out the amendment was not the
amendment of the Labour Party, but had been put forward
on the personal responsibility of the member for the Attercliffe
Division (Mr. Anderson). He agreed that the increase in
miners’ wages represented a fairly substantial portion of
the increase provided for in the Bill.

The amendment was defeated by 77 votes against 33.

Exempted Mines.

Sir A. Markham moved, in sub-section (2), to leave out
the words. ” class of ” [” any class of coal mines and to
insert instead thereof the words “ coal mine, or.” The
object, he said, was to prevent the Board of Trade taking a
whole district and classifying the mines in it, as being out-
side the provisions of the Act with regard to the 4s. He did
not think the Board of Trade ought to exempt any mine
from having to charge 4s., unless the mine could prove that
it was losing money.

Mr. Runciman said one of the difficulties by which they
were faced was that, he was told, the number of applications
they should have from collieries, in order that they might
have exemption, would be considerable. Any idea of taking a
whole district, like West Yorkshire, and excluding it alto-
gether from the operations of the Bill, was far from his
mind. On the other hand, to take the amendment would
mean that any individual mine in any individual area might
be subject to the exemption they should be asked to give.

Sir A. Markham said he did not wish to press the amend-
ment.

Mr. Anderson moved, in sub-section (2), after the word
“ increased ” [“ should be increased ”], to insert the words
or decreased.” According to the Bill, where the circum-
stances were quite exceptional, the standard rate might be
increased, but even if there were exceptional circumstances
in the other direction, the standard rate could not be
increased.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade
(Mr. Pretyman) said he thought it was obvious that a
particular mine in a district would have its price fairly regu-
lated by the price at which its neighbours were prepared to
sell, and so far as any figure below the maximum was con-
cerned, every mine would be open as before to competition in
the market. He must again emphasise the point that this
was not a Bill for fixing prices for coal.

Sir J. Harmood-Banner said he did not know anybody
who -was getting so much for his coal that he would ask
for a decrease.

Sir C. Cory said if a mining district showed that it was
working at a loss, those concerned might go to the Board of
Trade for an increase. He considered this of no value at
all, and for this reason : if they got their increase, they
dared not, and could not, obtain the increase from the
buyer. If their neighbours were selling at 4s. and they
asked 5s., how on earth could they get it? There was no
value in this clause of the Bill, and it would certainly be
unfair to put in the decrease.

The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.

The Exclusion of Contracts.

Mr. Goldstone moved, at the end of sub-section (2), to
insert : ” (3) In every contract for the sale of coal at the
pit’s mouth under which such coal has been sold but not
delivered at the time of the passing of this Act, it shall be
an implied term that the price of such coal shall not exceed
the lawful price as determined by this Act, and any disputes
arising therefrom shall be submitted to the Board of Trade
for determination in accordance with the Board of Trade
Arbitrations, etc.. Act, 1874.” Without the amendment, he
urged, the Bill, from the point of view of the household con-
sumer, and from the point of view of authorities which had
large undertakings, would be valueless. It was probably
fair for the coal owners to urge that the price which was