July 30, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

225

firmness; steams are well booked, and there is a
good steady enquiry for gas coal. The collieries of
Derbyshire continue to work full time, there being a
good enquiry all round. However, in the absence of
any very great pressure, customers’ requirements are
easily met. The inland household trade of Lanca-
shire continues to be above the average for the time
of the year, and the shipping trade shows fair
activity. The uncertainty as to the ultimate shape of
the Limitation of Prices Bill caused a “holding
off ” policy to be adopted at the Yorkshire markets,
and the volume of business has been below the
average. The bulk of the orders has been for
manufacturing fuel, business in house coal being
rather dull owing to month-end considerations.
Business in Scotland in consequence of approaching
holidays has been almost at a standstill, but the
outlook for the future appears more encouraging.
the export trade remains unsatisfactory. Only about
70 per cent, of the miners returned to work imme-
diately, and production was thus far from normal;
the small amount of coal on the market fetched
higher prices.

At the inquest on the nine victims of the pit cage
disaster at Bentinck Colliery, Kirkby, the jury found
that the occurrence was accidental, resulting from
oscillation of the cages and the guide rope.

Regarding the question of the limitation of the
enlistment of coal miners, Mr. Tennant, in the House
of Commons last week, said the matter was engaging
the careful attention of the War and Home affairs
secretaries.

According to Mr. Runciman, the estimated reducr
tion of the output of coal due to the South Wales
strike is 1 million tons, and the loss in wages about
£450,000.

The novel experiment of utilising barges for the
transportation of coal to Prance and Spain will be
instituted by the Plisson Steam Navigation Company
next week.

The Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill was again
discussed by the House of Commons in Committee
on Friday last, and the report stage was reached on
Tuesday, when the Bill was read a third time. On
Wednesday the Bill was also passed by the House of
Lords. On Thursday it received the Royal Assent.

The Welsh coal owners have submitted a scheme
to Mr. Russell Rea, M.P., chairman of the Coal
Exports Committee, by which it is hoped that coal
supplies for home consumption will be increased,
while at the same time there will be greater freedom
of export. The matter has been referred to the
President of the Board of Trade.

An abortive meeting of the Scottish Coal Concilia-
tion Board took place in Glasgow on Tuesday on the
matter of the application of the miners for an advance
in wages of 25 per cent, on the 1888 basis. The next
meeting will take place on August 13.

Regarding the difference in the Northumberland
coalfield anent the adjustment of the sliding scale
agreement to the 15 per cent, war bonus recently
awarded, the Premier will discuss the point raised
with the owners.

The national conference of the coal mining industry
took place yesterday (Thursday) at the London
Opera House. The Home Secretary presided, and
was supported by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Arthur
Henderson, and Mr. W. Brace. The principal
speaker was Mr. George, who made a very eloquent
appeal to the owners and the men to co-operate in
accelerating the output of coal. Mr. R. Smillie
(president of the Miners’ Federation of Great
Britain) moved a resolution with this object in view,
and this was seconded by Mr. A. F. Pease (chairman
of the Mining Association of Great Britain) and
carried unanimously. A full report of the speeches
will appear in our next issue.

The Home Secretary envisaged a modification of
the Eight Hours Act, asking the owners to open
their pits for work on every possible day, and the
miners to work on every day that they possibly could.
He pledged the Government that any relaxation of
rules and regulations during the war should be
restored without alteration when the danger had
passed.

The following resolution, moved by Mr. Smillie
and seconded by Mr. A. F. Pease, was carried by the

conference :—“ That in the opinion of this meeting,
representative of the coal mining industry of Great
Britain, every effort should be made by owners and
workmen alike to secure the greatest possible output
of coal in the interest of the nation during the period
of the war.”

Mn. Asquith, in the legislative
The Price survey which he took in the House

Of Coal of Commons on Wednesday, stated
(Limitation) that the Government had no further

Act. measures in contemplation. Coal
owners will welcome this assurance
with relief, for their ship is sadly over-weighted
now. The Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, which
passed through Parliament within a week and
received the Royal Assent yesterday, is very nearly
the last straw, and certainly the man who takes upon
himself the responsibility of winning coal under the
conditions now imposed must be either very bold or
very foolhardy.

Mr. Laurence Hardy has promised that the coal
owners will do their utmost to facilitate the working
of the Act, and the Government may confidently rely
upon their support. They will recognise, as Mr.
Runciman clearly recognises, that this is an
emergency measure, very far from being
economically water-tight. Nothing else could be
expected; “ you cannot,” as Mr. Handel Booth
said, “ by passing bits of paper, dispose
of a complex system connected with a large industry.”
The worst of emergency legislation is that expert
criticism is disarmed, whilst it is singularly ductile
under the stress of the plea ad miser icordiam. The Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade has handled this Bill in
a masterly fashion, but he is obviously impressed by
the grave problems that must ensue from it, and
sceptical of the benefits.

The Act, which is now in operation, is to have
effect during the continuance of the war and for a
period of six months thereafter. It applies to all
sales of inland coal, with the exception of sales in
pursuance of a contract made before the commence-
ment of the Act; but it is provided that sales of
“excepted” coal contracted for between April 1,
191.5, and the date of the Act, and delivered after
October 29, 1915, may be brought under the Act on
the application of the buyer, the Board of Trade
having power to extend this period; “ excepted ”
coal is defined as “coal supplied for domestic or
household purposes to any person and coal supplied
for any purpose to any local authority, or to any
undertakers supplying gas, water, or electricity in
any locality in pursuance of authority given by an
Act of Parliament, or by an Order confirmed by, or
having the effect of an Act.”

The Act applies not only to coal sold, but also to
coal offered for sale ; and it is important to Emphasise
the point that “ sold,” as regards the basis period,
July 1, 1913, to July 1, 1914, meansnot “delivered,”
but “ contracted for” ; in other words, coal is deemed
to be sold when a contract is made.

Before dealing generally with the effects of the
Act, we may examine some of the provisions. It is
difficult to offer more than a conjecture as to the true
construction of some of these, and were this an
ordinary Act it would give rise to an unending flood
of litigation. Against this there are two safeguards ;
in the first place, all questions are left to the arbitra-
ment of the Board of Trade, even as regards the
facts incident to prosecutions under the Act; and,
secondly, we may hope that parties injuriously
affected by the Act will resolve to compound their
grievances, if only to assist the Government in
carrying out their onerous duties. Those who have
a genuine conviction that this contempt for the
“ sanctity of contracts ” strikes at the foundations of
commercial morality, must keep it to themselves,
preserving their energies for the time when these
honourable conventions have to be restored to their
proper eminence.

Of the questions that may arise, one is as to who
is the “ owner of the coal at the pit’s mouth.” We
think it is clear, however, that the section covers the
case of a factor or merchant who is the owner of the
coal at the pit’s mouth, and in the report stage

Mr. Runciman . added the words “ directly or
indirectly,” which gives the Board of Trade a
wide discretion. Sir Edwin Cornwall’s attempt
definitely to exclude the factor was defeated. The
expressions “same description!” and “ similar condi-
tions,” which occur in section 1, may also give rise
to trouble, because no two contracts are alike, and
there may be sales for which no comparative basis
exists; this is another task assumed by the Board of
Trade in the last resort. One point, however, of
considerable importance to coal owners who, as in
Lancashire, engage in the retail trade, was elucidated
by Sir Clifford Cory ; it was felt that if coal owners
were bound down at their depots to a bare 4s. increase,
they would be prejudicially situated in competition
with other merchants; in such cases, however, the
owner will be able to add to the standard the difference
in cost of transport, cartage, &c., so as to place him
on the same footing as the merchants.

The Act provides that the standard amount of 4s.
may be increased where representations are made by
certain classes of mines. The Irish mines have been
specifically eliminated from the Act, and some sort of
promise was held out in the case of the Kent collieries;
it appears, however, that such applications can only
be made by the owners of a class of mines in any
district and not by individual owners. We have no
doubt that the Board of Trade will be inundated with
such applications. Mr. Runciman showed in the
course of the debate that his department do not share
the ridiculous estimates as to the rise in cost cherished
by some of the representatives of the “ back-streets.”
The figure arrived at by the Board of Trade, whilst
it may be a fair average, does not, even with the
additional shilling, cover the rise in cost in many
cases, and such collieries can make a fair claim for
consideration.

Coming now to the penalties for infractions, it may
be observed that aggrieved parties can either pro-
ceed for recovery in the commercial courts or apply
for a conviction under the Act. In either case the
Board of Trade is the final tribunal, and amend-
ments have now been inserted whereby a contract is
not vitiated by a contravention of the Act, except as
regards the price, and penalties will not be inflicted
where the contravention has been innocently
committed.

The new clause giving a partial limitation to
existing contracts contains a provision that is very
recondite. The paragraph is as follows :—

If in consequence of this provision the price to be paid
by any person to whom coal is delivered is reduced by
any amount, the price to be paid by any person to whom
the coal is delivered in pursuance of any subsidiary con-
tract shall be reduced by an equivalent amount; and any
purchaser under any such subsidiary contract shall have
the same right to give notice to the owner of the coal at
the pit’s mouth as the person who has made the original
contract with that owner, and any person who has sold
the coal shall, if required, communicate to the purchaser
the name of the person from whom the coal has been
bought.

The intention is clear; it is not proposed that a
merchant or factor shall be able to pocket the amount
of the reduction, but this does not seem to follow
from the text. The factor may not have immediately
sub-contracted for the supply, or he may be in the
habit of mixing his coals; again, what is an
“ equivalent amount ” ? The factor may claim that
he is not under an obligation to allow the customer
the full benefit of the reduction. As to the last
sentence, we confess that we do not understand it;
who respectively are the “ person who has sold the
coal,” the “ purchaser,” and the “ person from whom
the coal has been bought ” ?

One of the fundamental requirements in the case
of emergency legislation is that it should be confined
closely to the circumstances which it is designed to
remedy. The Price of Coal Act does not, it seems to
us, conform to this standard. It may be criticised on
various grounds, according to the standpoint of the
critic ; it may be said that it is costly, if not impos-
sible, to administer ; that it is unfair and unequal in
its incidence ; but these arguments might be ignored
if it were clear that its object were of paramount
necessity to the country, or that it would succeed in
achieving this object. As regards the first, we think
the President of the Board of Trade and the