July 30, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

217

be breaking what was the real basis of commercial life in
this country, but that they would be actually conferring by
Act of Parliament upon some business men a benefit which
they deprive other business men the opportunity of possess-
ing. Suppose a big contractor had entered into a contract
in May last to buy coal during next year at a certain price
above the standard rate. It was more than likely that he
would have taken into consideration the price he would have
to pay for the coal when he was making his own contracts
for the ensuing year, and that price would be incorporated
in the price he charged for the commodity which he pro-
duced. The hon. gentleman proposed to substitute 4s. for
6s. The 2s. would be put straight into the pocket of the
contractor. Were they going to have another Bill to provide
that the steel maker’s engines or motors, or whatever he
might produce, should be reduced in price in proportion? The
Committee knew that that would be a perfectly ridiculous
proposal. Then there were the cases of merchants who had
sold in double or quadruple. Were they going to place
every one of those contracts in the same position? It had
been suggested that it should be left to the county court
judge to decide. But how could he do it? Further, his
right hon. friend the Home Secretary reminded him that they
could, not always identify the coal. They could not trace it,
and it amounted to nothing more than that the Government
would be taking away from certain coal producers and miners
a benefit which the Government thought they should have,
and the merchants, because they could not trace the coal
sold under the sub-contracts, would get the whole of that
benefit. It had been an appeal ad misericordian from begin-
ning to end. What was the cause of the delay? One cause
of the delay was that it was impossible to proceed with a
Bill like this in which they entered a standard price like
that unless they were of necessity sure that the standard
price was going to be a fair one, and one that would help.
If this Bill had been introduced in the month of April it
would have been introduced before the war bonus had been
decided upon for the wages of miners all over Great Britain;
it would have been introduced before the great readjustment
of wages in Scotland, and before there had been anything
like equilibrium in the Welsh coal field. It would have
been introduced at a time when materials were fluctuating
with great rapidity in price, some upwards and some down-
wards, and at a time when it would have been impossible to
state with any degree of accuracy whether 4s., 3s., or 5s.
was anything like a fair sum to put in the Bill. It was
essential, before they started doing anything so drastic as
this Bill did, that they should have something like equilibrium
in the coal trade. He was reluctant to introduce the Bill
at a time when in almost every coal field labour troubles
were unsettled, when negotiations were going on, and when
this proposal would itself have provided one of the most dis-
turbing factors in those very negotiations. It was of first
importance that at the present time there should be nothing
done by Parliament which afterwards might cause greater
difficulty between capital and labour. He did not .know that
they were going to benefit the London consumers if they tore
up all contracts. One of the greatest securities London had
had in the past was that coal had come in under contract. It
was true that one form of contract, the sliding scale contract,
had been detrimental to London in the past. That was why
the main suppliers of London undertook at the Board of
Trade that in the coming winter they would abandon the
sliding scale. The truth was that the Committee had been
much impressed by the special case of Glasgow. Something
like 960,000 tons of coal had been bought under contract by
the Glasgow Corporation before the Bill was introduced.
He had been found fault with for having used the unfortu-
nate word “ shrewd ” in a previous debate. It might be
that the Glasgow Corporation did their best to avoid con-
tracting. Possibly they failed toabuy from hand to mouth.
It was quite possible that their stocks were so low that they
could not afford to wait and run the risk of the market in
any degree. If that was the case, there might be good
reason for taking the position of that Corporation and others
into consideration. But that was quite a different proposition
from the one before the House. The amendment would
strike at the root of all commercial stability. No man would
knew where he was, no contractor would know
where he was, no manufacturer would know where he
was, and no sub-contractor would know where he was. It
wmuld mean that they would be transferring the definite
benefit by this amendment from one set of pockets to
another. It would give no relief, it would cause a great deal
of trouble and mischief in nearly all our industries, and it
would certainly do no good to those whom they wished to
benefit. But the special case that had been put of corpora-
tions was one which the Government was bound to consider,
and he suggested that the amendment should not be pressed
to a division, or if it was, that it should be beaten, and that
the Government should, between now and the report stage,
endeavour to meet the case of local authorities and those
public utility companies which were limited in the payment
of dividends. In one form or another the local authority
was the State, and it might be that they were doing right
“to protect the State "with respect to some of these contracts.
He was very doubtful about the principle of the thing, but
the Bill was one purely of expediency, and to deal with the
case of the local authorities was quite a different matter from
tearing up all contracts which had been entered into before
the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. MacCallum Scott said the right hon. gentleman had
shown some reasons to which weight ought to be attached
for rejecting this amendment. But he could not resist the
feeling that he had shown more reason against the Bill itself.
Without this amendment the Bill was merely a piece of
window dressing; that it was full of dummy parcels, which
were made to show and not to sell; that it was intended
merely to have the effect of stopping criticism in the country,
of calming public feeling, and of deluding the people into the
idea that something was being done to prevent that h;',k
price of coal which prevailed last season. If this amend-
ment were carried, the intention of the Bill would be legiti-
mately and bond fide carried out. He did not think cor-
porations were justly entitled to special treatment any more
'than the ordinary private individual or private trader who
had entered into contracts.

The amendment was negatived.

Penalties : A Concession.

Mr. S. Roberts moved, at the end of sub-section (3), to
add the words : “ Provided that a person shall not be liable
to a fine under this provision if he shows that he had
■reasonable grounds to believe that he was not committing an
offence.”

Mr. Runciman said he would accept the amendment.

The Committee then adjourned.

The amendment was further discussed on Friday.

Mr. Roberts said the object was to protect the owner who
was innocent, where error had been made on his part, or on
the part of his agent or sub-agent, or in any other way
which had not come to his own knowledge.

Mr. Anderson opposed. He asked who was going to
prove whether a coal owner had “ reasonable grounds ” for
imagining that he was not committing an offence?

Mr. Pretyman said the amendment was the ordinary form,
which had been unwittingly omitted; and he hoped the
Committee would accept it.

Mr. M. Healy said nine-tenths of the collieries now were
the properties of corporations; and how were they to find
out that a corporation had reasonable grounds for knowing
that it was doing wrong?

Mr. Denniss pointed out that it was a principle of legis-
lation that they must be very careful how they created a
new crime. This section created a new crime. Never
before in the history of the coal trade or any other trade was
it made a crime to sell a thing for what price they could
get for it.

The amendment was carried, and a further amendment
was made, on the motion of Mr. Run ciman, inserting after
the word “ apply,” the words “ (both as respects the price
at which coal is sold or offered for sale and as respects the
corresponding price)”.

Sir A. Markham moved, after the word “ railway,” to
insert the words “ canal, inland waterway.”

Mr. Runciman said he was advised that if these words
were inserted they would have a limiting effect. The words
in the Bill, “ incidental services,” were of very wide appli-
cation, and would cover the object to which his hon. friend
referred. The railways were much more used for the purpose
of carrying coal, especially to our great populous centres.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On the motion of Mr. Runcimas a further amendment
was made, leaving out the word ” a ” [‘‘a price reduced ”],
and inserting instead thereof the word “ that.”

Contra ventions and the Validity of Contracts.

Mr. S. Roberts moved, at the end of sub-section (4) to
add :	(5) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section

shall affect the rights or obligations of any person under
any contract or agreement for the sale of coal except, in
cases where the sale is in contravention of this section, as
respects so much of the price as exceeds the maximum price
which could have been charged for the coal if there had been
no contravention of this section.” He pointed out that
unless some provision of this kind was put in, very great
inconvenience might arise, because the coal might possibly
have been passed on to somebody else. This proposal would
make the contract valid so far as the legal price goes, and
only invalid for the excess over that price.

Mr. Runciman said he thought if the price was above that
provided for in the Act of Parliament, the customer ought to
have the right to say whether he would or would not go on
with his contract. Indeed, if he had not the right of
declaring his contract void, it would diminish to some extent
the liability which applied to the coal owner for putting a
higher price in the contract.

Sir J. Harmood-Banner said the question arose, where
the contract was declared void, whether the owner who sup-
plied the coal would be able to collect payment for it, and
whether the contract, being void, the man who received the
coal would be able to stick to it without paying anything
for it.

Mr. M. Healy said it appeared to him that the Govern-
ment ought to consider whether or not they would put some-,
thing in the clause which would settle once for all whether
a contract in breach of the charge provided in the Bill was
a void contract or not. Undoubtedly to the extent of the
excess price it was void. Contracts made void by reason of
the breach of this provision might be constantly used by
dishonest or insolvent persons as a means of avoiding pay-
ment under the contract. Everybody knew that it was a
very common thing for a customer, where he sought to avoid
payment, to take objection to the quality of the coal, or that
the coal was delivered short, or that he had got one kind
of coal and not another kind of coal; all which allegations
found their origin in his real reason that he would not pay
for it. The right hon. gentleman had not made any provision
in this Bill as to how the facts were to be ascertained. As it
stood, there would be no reason in the world why the person
purchasing the coal should not set up the defence tliat it
had been sold in breach of the statute, and so endeavour to
escape payment.

Sir C. Cory submitted that it would be a great hardship
if the seller was not permitted to recover the legal value of
the coal supplied, and that he should have that penalty
imposed on him in addition to that in the Bill.

Sir A. Markham thought the amendment ought to be
accepted for the reason that the coal owner would have great
difficulty in knowing the price. The price might possibly
be varied by the Board of Trade by 2d. or 3d., and he should
like to know whether that would invalidate the whole con-
tract and affect the coal that had not been paid for.

Mr. Beto said the penalties under the Bill would not be
affected if this amendment were accepted, and it would make
an enormous difference to the interference in the carrying
out of contract^ and wfith the course of trade generally.

Mr. Glyn-Jones observed that it might well be to the
interest of the consumer that he should be able to call upon
the coal proprietor to fulfil his contract at the legal price.
In the interests of the buyer, something of this sort was
necessary.

Mr. Runciman stated that after what had been said, he
thought there was something to be said for inserting an
amendment similar to this. He proposed as the most con-
venient course to accept this amendment now, and he should
put down amendments to it on the report stage.

The amendment, on this understanding, was agreed to.

Coal Owners’ Retail Establishments.

Sir C. Cory moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the
words : “ Provided that nothing in this section shall preju-
dice any owner of coal at the pit’s mouth in the sale of coal
bv him elsewhere than at the pit’s mouth as a merchant in
competition with other coal merchants.” He said unless an
amendment of this kind was passed, the owner at the pit’s
mouth who also acted as a coal merchant would be in a
very unfair position as compared with the coal merchant.
He would have his office in London or elsewhere, with an
agent or salaried man, or perhaps paid on commission, and
while the merchant might get 5s., the man to whom he
referred could only ask for 4s. In that case he would try

and sell at a higher price or export his coal, or do some-
thing else with it. From every point of view they ought
to put the coal owner on the same basis as the competing
coal merchant. There was no reason why a man who hap-
pened to be a coal owner should not, when he acted as a
coal merchant as well, have a sufficient price to cover the
extra expenses which he incurs as a coal merchant.

Mr. Runciman said the object which the hon. baronet had
in view was quite obvious, and he thought it was covered by
the phrase “ under similar conditions,” which had now been
given a further value by the insertion of words making the
sub-section read : “ This section shall apply (both as regards
ithe price at which coal is sold or offered for sale and as
respects the corresponding price), etc.”

The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On clause 2 amendments were made at the instance of
Mr. M. Healy, in sub-section (1), to leave out the words
‘ ‘ for the recovery of a fine ’ ’; and on the motion of Mr.
Runciman, to leave out the words “ including any question,”
and insert instead thereof the word “ or.”

The clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Exports and Bunkers.

On clause 3, Sir A. Markham moved, in sub-section (1),
after the word “ export ” [“ coal for export to insert the
words “ other than for the use and purposes of the Allies of
Great Britain and Ireland in the present war.”

Mr. Runciman said he had the authority of the Department
for announcing that the Admiralty was giving to the French
Navy and the French State Railways the full advantage of
the arrangements which existed now between the Admiralty
and the Welsh coal owners. That was to say, the full
benefit of the prices which they had secured for themselves,
they had also secured for the French Admiralty and the
French railways. They got their coal on exactly the same
terms also as regards shipping. With regard to Russia and
Italy, no question had yet arisen. He understood that the
Governments of both these countries had contracts running
on terms favourable to them, and in which they were for the
present satisfied to rely. When those contracts expired, the
question would probably arise, and he need hardly say that
the Admiralty would be prepared to treat those Governments
in exactly the same way as the French Government was now
treated.

Sir A. Markham said the arrangement which Mr.
Runciman mentioned referred only to the Welsh coal owners.
He did not know whether he was aware that Admiralty
buyers had been cutting into the market and buying at high
rates. There had been no arrangements made with the
South Yorkshire, Nottingham, and Derbyshire owners as to
any particular rate which the Admiralty should pay.

The amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. Peto moved, in sub-section (1), to leave out the words,
“ or to any sale of coal to be used on any ship.” He said
his object was to point out that the Bill was not limited to
the sale of coal only for domestic purposes, but realised the
fact that coal used in factories and for the transport of goods
had an indirect effect on the cost of living, almost as much
as the coal which was used for the manufacture of goods,
cooking, and other purposes. If the Bill expressly stated-
it was leaving out coal for export and coal for manufacture,
but (included everything else, with the solitary exception of
coal to be used on any ship, they ought to have some explan-
ation as to why that omission was made. He could not
himself see any distinction in principle between the coal that
was consumed in the transport of goods in carrying the
export trade of this country from point to point, and the coal
that was used in the transport of precisely similar goods by
land—by the railway—which might be removed a very few
miles at any point from the course the ship would take.

Mr. Runciman said, in reply: The reason why we have
not thought it well to include coal to be used as bunker coal,
or with bunker coal—because in the case of foreign-going
ships, those which are making what are called three-cornered
voyages—really a portion of our northern export trade—is
that we have regarded it as necessary that the export trade
should be kept up to as high a value as possible. There is
every reason for that, both nationally and commercially, but
particularly nationally. If we take our foreign exchanges, it
is quite obvious that such a thing as our invisible exports
should be maintained, as well as in respect of the actual
material which is sent abroad, at as high a value as pos-
sible. A great many of these three-cornered voyages, includ-
ing one trip at least in the carriage of goods into foreign
countries, are in the nature of invisible exports. This extra
cost of coal for bunkers is one of the items. In any case,
if you had limited the price of the coal to be purchased by
the ship owners for the vessel it would not have been meet-
ing the ship owner, whereas there is no limitation of the
amount which he can earn in the foreign trade. Nor did
we wish to put any limit on the amount to be earned in the
foreign trade. Any limitation would have been a limitation
of the value of our invisible exports. If the hon. gentleman
knows what I mean by referring to invisible exports, he
will know that the freights earned from foreigners are just
as good for the purpose of equalising our exchanges as
though we had exported commodities from this country.

It cannot be in the national interest to limit what is
earned by ship owners in carrying the foreign trade. It is
obvious that artificially to reduce the price of the coal which
they are paying for their business would merely mean that a
present would be given to them without a corresponding
advantage, although it might be very small in amount just
now. We therefore felt it desirable to exclude shipping from
the beneficiaries in this Bill. The hon. member draws a
distinction between a foreign-going ship and a coastwise
ship. There is a great difficulty in deciding exactly how far
the coals which go into the bunkers of a vessel are to be
used partly for coastwise purposes. A vessel, for instance,
may have loaded her cargo at Copenhagen, and discharged
a portion of it at Newcastle. She may take in at Newcastle
coal for the Thames, or she may bunker at Newcastle, may
take enough coal at Newcastle to carry her either the whole
of her round voyage—it may be to South America, or part
of her voyage out to the East. It would be impossible to
earmark or label the coal which went into the bunkers, partly
for the trip from Newcastle to London. It is very much
better to leave the whole of the coastwise bunkers in the
same position. When the hon. member put the point he
did as to the coastwise freights, he must have omitted to
make a calculation as to the amount of bunkers used in a
coastwise ship. Take the case of a North country collier. It
burns 12 tons a day. It takes 36 hours to come from New-
castle to the Thames. Therefore the amount of coal affected
on her trip from north to south would be 18 tons, and 18
tons back, or 36 tons altogether. The difference of 2s. or 3s.