July 23, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

165

to deal with the subject matter of the Bill at an earlier period
in the war, but all the factors had been so variable since the
war broke out that it would have been unfair to have taken
any one of the prices and imagine that it could reach an
equilibrium. Pit props fluctuated up to 200 per cent., and
other materials also fluctuated. The prices at which
by-products had been sold had fluctuated considerably, and
that was one reason why they should not rush into fixing
standard rates when no one could tell what the expense of
working coal was to be in the future. Then there had been
a good deal of agitation and negotiation with regard to
miners’ wages. He had introduced into this Bill an artificial
figure, which must be the basis, as there was no common
ground that could be accepted.

With regard to the export of coal, he could only say that
the Bill did not attempt to limit the price. Foreign exchanges
were of more anxiety to us than almost any other financial
problem at the present time, and it was by* the export of coal
that we were able to keep our exchanges’ equilibrium. If
we stopped the export of coal we should have to take to the
export of gold for trade purposes, and for the purposes of
foreign exchanges, coal was gold. If the export of coal was
the only way that we had to keep our exchanges’ equilibrium,
it was obvious that the best price Britain could get for her
coal from the rest of the world would give us a better chance
of keeping our exchanges’ level than if we were artificially to
restrict the prices. Those whom he had consulted had been
overwhelmingly of the view that they should not limit the
price of export coal. Coal which was shipped coastwise, and
was delivered within the United Kingdom was not export
coal. It might well be asked that if they left the price of
export coal without the limit, it would tend to coal going
out of the country, rather than being kept for consumers here.
In this war we had had resort to many artificial schemes,
and there was one artificial means of controlling the export
of coal. They had at the present time an Export Coal Com-
mittee, which kept control of the amount of coal that went
abroad to various destinations. The exercise of the power
that Committee possessed would check any tendency to allow
an undue proportion of coal to go abroad, leaving in this
country a greater shortage than would otherwise have
occurred. Their powers at present extended to neutral
countries only. When this Bill was passed they proposed
to extend their powers to Allied countries as well. He com-
mended this Bill to the House, not because it was a water-
tight, economic measure, but it was like a great many other
Bills which had been passed since war broke out—it was a
measure of expediency. It dealt with the most troublesome
of all subjects, the most troublesome in his experience—the
subject of coal.

Mr. Russell Rea, as chairman of the Coal Exports Com-
mittee, asked to be allowed to give some account of the
principles on which they were acting. He denied that the
action of the Committee had caused collieries to stop for
want of orders from foreign countries. The districts on the
east coast of England and Scotland had lost their largest
customer, Germany, which took from them 9,000,000 tons per
year. They had lost their second largest customer, Russia,
which took 6,000,000 tons per year. They had also, but not by
the action of the Committee, been very much restricted in
shipments to Sweden. That had been the cause why collieries
had stopped. To all the collieries which were left open to
the operations of the Committee they had been most indulgent.
They had given them every licence for which they had
applied, except in cases where the shipper or consignee was
a black-listed person or an alien enemy, or a suspected
person. They had gone further than that, and had refused
to licence shipments from districts where they were able to
dispose of their coal at home, and where they were not
dependent on the export trade. They had to look at the
geographical situation, and at the diplomatic situation. To
shut off coal entirely from the Argentine would have shut off
our supplies from there of corn, meat, and other things. To
shut off our supplies of coal to Spain would be to shut off our
supply of other articles. To shut off our supplies to Sweden
and Norway would be to deprive ourselves of pit props and
magnetic ores. Then they had to consider our action in
regard to the sources of supply, and the different districts
upon which coal was produced. For instance, to refuse per-
mission to export coal from the Fifeshire collieries >would not
have meant more coal for the home consumer, but would
have meant a stoppage of the collieries. If the export trade
wTere stopped, there would be no trucks or rolling stock to
deal with the home trade, whereas formerly all that was
necessary was the little journey from the pit to the ship.
Therefore they found it quite necessary to allow such dis-
tricts as Fifeshire to export. The same argument applied to
South Wales, though the position in South Wales was, of
course, immensely mitigated by the enormous demand of the
British Navy and our Allies at the present time. The same
conditions applied to the Northumberland district. They
had severely restricted licences from the inland districts of
England for exportation, either from the Humber or the
Mersey, because those inland collieries could sell all their
coal at home. They had had, from week to week, particulars
of production, and from day to day they acted in their
judgment of supply and demand on the market reports which
were sent to them. Since they began operations the condi-
tions had been very much mitigated, and prices had receded.
Now they were licensing very freely indeed, excepting to
persons who were alien enemies or were suspects on the black
lists of the Foreign Office or the Admiralty or other Depart-
ments. The London gas companies and all the companies
engaged in works of public utility were extremely alarmed,
and had set themselves to work under an organisation to
accumulate stocks in the summer. During the last two
months or more they had succeeded in putting by not only
the 25,000 tons a week which they required, but about
150,000 tons beyond that. The production of coal, when they
considered the number of men who had left the collieries and
gone to the front, had been extremely satisfactory. The
amount produced per man had actually gone up, although
they had in the collieries much less experienced men, who
had in part taken the place of those who had gone to the
front. The new Bill had rightly exempted from the range
of maximum prices all export coal, but it had added thereby
very considerably to the responsibilities of the Committee. A
good many of the Midland colliery owners had acquiesced very
loyally in the reduction of their export trade, but it would
be rather a different matter 'if they found that perhaps 10s.
or 15s. per ton extra could be obtained by exporting, if they
could get a licence.

Mr. Stephen Walsh dissented from the view that the pit
head price was the dominating price to the consumer. At
the very time when these tremendous prices were being
charged to the London consumer, the average pit-head price
in the Federated area, which commands over three-sevenths
of the coal production of the kingdom, was 5d. less than it

was in July of the same year. That was to say, the price
had fallen almost continuously from July 1914 until
December 1914, the very time at which these tremendous
prices were being foisted upon the London public. Certainly
one-half of the total production of the Durham mines came
into the London market. At the very time these prices were
being foisted upon the London public, the Durham miners
were suffering a reduction of wages, because of a reduction
in the pit-head selling price. It was very difficult indeed
under such circumstances to reconcile the Minister’s state-
ment with the actual facts of the case. There were some
people who came in after the pit-head price was fixed. They
were legion, and they wore different garbs, but they all had
the same purpose—that of making the greatest possible profit
out of the people who were least able to defend themselves.
Unless they did something in this Bill to stop the middleman,
the measure seemed to be almost worthless. It would not be
an easy thing, it never was, to catch the middleman; but he
thought it was well within the bounds of practicability to
form committees in various areas, establishing zones, so to
speak, to place upon those committees people thoroughly
conversant with the trade, and to schedule the prices within
which coal must be sold to the householder. As to exports,
he suggested that there was not a single person who wished
to interfere with profit, so long as it could be kept within
the lines of reason, but there should be an ad valorem tax,
to go to the funds of the State when the figures reached a
certain point, or beyond.

Mr. Chaplin observed that the essence of this Bill was to
limit the profits made in certain circumstances by the coal
owners. It was made, not very long ago, as part of an
arrangement between the Minister of Munitions and the
trade unions. Unfortunately, however, one side of that
arrangement had already been broken by the strike in Wales.
Obviously, until those strikes were put an end to, it would
not be either fair or reasonable that that part of the bargain
that the profits of the coal owners should be limited should
be enforced, when the quid pro quo by which it was obtained
had not been fulfilled, or when the whole arrangement had
been broken by the other parties to the bargain. That so
long as strikes continued, this condition ought not to be
enforced upon the coal owners either now, or whenever strikes
occurred. The hon. member afterwards read a telegram
which he had received from a well-known coal agent, who
was agent for one of the great collieries in the North of
England. The sender of the telegram said :—

Effect of the Act is to penalise the producer without
helping consumer. It is a fallacy that the bulk of coal
purchased direct by the consumer. Much coal purchased
by merchants who are not restricted. No reason for
singling out coal owners and not restricting merchants
or freights. Bill indefensible on that ground; probably
useless to consumer whom Government risk benefiting

Mr. Laurence Hardy said he thought the mine owners
did not agree with the action taken by the hon. member for
Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) in moving the rejection of this
Bill. At the same time, they desired to make the very
strongest protest that their industry should have been selected
as the only one in connection with which very drastic legis-
lation of this character should be introduced. They had
accepted the principle of this Bill, but reserved the full right
to introduce amendments when the Bill was taken in
Committee. He thought it was evident that this question
could not be settled unless the question of the charges made
subsequent to the pit mouth were dealt with also by legis-
lation. The larger part was covered by the contracts which,
in most cases, are the effect of bargaining between two
parties perfectly able to take care of themselves, and these
exaggerated prices were seldom applied to larger contracts.
But the reversal of contracts would have led to very much
greater difficulties than the attitude taken up by the Govern-
ment at the present time, because if contracts for higher
prices had to he dissolved, contracts for lower prices would
also have to be dissolved, involving great distress of business
in the land. It was undoubtedly true that there might be
collieries where the cost in wages had not been so much as
was often said, but in the thinner seams, in the older pits,
in consequence of advances of wages arising out of the estab-
lishment of the Minimum Wage Act and war bonus, there
had been increases, of course, very much larger than were
mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. In the matter of
stores, the mine owners would be left in an extremely diffi-
cult position by this maximum price in the Bill. It might
be a much more difficult thing to get timber in the near
future than it had been even in the past few months. There
were other subjects now wThich also were of extreme import-
ance to colliery owners, as pits got more elaborate, and
came under coal mining Act after coal mining Act. There
were all sorts of new inventions instituted in pits, especially
in connection with electrical work, the prices of everything to
do with which had increased enormously, and would increase
enormously, and materially affect the course of price in con-
nection with collieries. All these things were still in the
future, and yet the margin allowed by the Bill was already
in a certain number of collieries used up. It might cause
a curtailment of the production of coal. It might be almost
impossible for certain collieries to carry on if the prices
change in the manner indicated. So far as the price to the
consumer was concerned, there was nothing in the Bill which
in any way ensured that the benefit which was given by the
Bill did ensure to those whom it most concerned. They
might, therefore, only be enlarging the profits in certain
munition trades, while, at the same time, they were taking
away certain natural profits from an industry.

Sir Edwin Cornwall supported the principle of the Bill,
and said the merchants trading in London and the South of
England placed themselves and their services in the hands
of the Board of Trade. If there were any people who had
traded for the small interest on their property, certainly they
were the London coal merchants. If the right hon. gentle-
man had told the House all the facts, it would have been
clear that it was entirely the fault of the colliery owners that
there was any legislation at all, because the President of the
Board of Trade had been negotiating with the colliery owners
for months to try and get them to come to a voluntary
arrangement which' would regulate and modify the pit prices.
In his opinion, the Bill ought not to be retrospective from the
point of view of any coal delivered, but it ought to apply to
contracts from the date of the passing of the Act, otherwise
they came up against very great difficulties. Many mer-
chants throughout the country had made contracts for manu-
facturing coal from 7s. to 8s. of an advance over last year.
Some of that was sold, and some of it was unsold. The con-
sumer who had bought was naturally up in arms, and would
not buy because here was a Bill which limited the price to
4s. on last year. That which was unsold could not be sold

at the advanced price of 7s. or 8s. which the merchants had
to pay. Then he had a case where a coal merchant had a
contract running which ended on October 31, and the colliery
company came to him and said, “ If you want this coal
next year from November 1, you will have to buy it now.”
The coal merchant said, “I do not want to buy it now,
because I cannot deliver it to my customers now.” The
colliery company replied, “ If you do not buy it now, we
cannot guarantee that you will have the coal on November 1.”
Consequently this coal merchant, on the 8th of this month,
was practically compelled by the colliery company to enter
into a contract of an 8s. increase over the price of last year,
which governed the corresponding period referred to in this
Bill. This firm signed the contract on the 8th of this month
to have the deliveries from the collieries on November 1 next,
although they would not be able to sell it to their customers.
In another case, a Northumberland colliery came to Messrs.
Cory, and wanted 17s. 6d. a ton for the coal at the pit, which
was Is. 6d. more than the Bill would allow. This firm said
to the colliery, “ No, we shall wait until we see what legis-
lation is carried through by the Government.” They did not
order the coal, and subsequently they had a letter from the
colliery saying that they had sold half of that coal for export
purposes, and the firm could only have half the quantity they
could have had a week ago. He knew of another case where
a firm refused to buy the coal because they were waiting for
this Bill, and they had lost half the coal, and would pro-
bably lose the other half of their contract. The Bill ought
to apply to all contracts from the passing of the Act, even
if the Government made the figure 4s. or 5s., or a figure
which would be acceptable to the collieries. It was no use
having an arrangement or a low figure in the Bill if that low
figure prevented them getting the coal. They must bear in
mind that 80 per cent, of the coal produced in the country
had already been sold under contract. It would be easy
for the coal owner to say that he had none of that limited
supply of coal of the same description which he could sell
under similar conditions and in similar quantities. There
were no similar conditions. War had altered all conditions,
and, if the colliery liked, they could withhold from anybody
any of this coal which was outside contracts, and which this
Bill said was to be sold at not more than 4s. over the price
of two years ago. Some provision should be put into the
Bill making it the duty and the responsibility of the Board
of Trade to see that consignments of coal were sent to those
parts of the country where there was a particular shortage,
and where coal was most needed.

Mr. John O’Connor asked that collieries in Ireland should
be exempted.

Mr. Dickinson pointed out that nothing had yet been done
to give effect to the recommendation of the Retail Coal Prices
Committee that steps should be taken to consider the ques-
tion of the accumulation of reserves of coal in or near London
for the use of small consumers during next winter. The
London County Council had considered the matter, but had
come to the conclusion that nothing could be done. He
doubted very much whether the agreement was at all univer-
sally accepted by the coal merchants in London. But even
if the agreement of a number of merchants in London should
have the effect which the President of the Board of Trade
thought it would have, wrere they so powerful in their influence
upon other merchants that the latter would follow in their
wake? Still, that did not meet the question of the sale of
coal by trolley, and he could not see how anything was going
to limit the condition under which those sales were carried
on by fixing the prices at which the coal was to be sold. He
was told that one of the reasons why trolley coal was so
expensive was that the merchant had to deal with a large
number of bad debts, and had to put up the price in order
to cover them. The trolley system was expensive alike to the
merchant and to the consumer, and he believed that the bigger
merchants in London would be very glad if they could get
rid of this system of trolley sales, and start some other
system of supplying the poor. It seemed to him that there
were two methods that might be adopted. The first was
to definitely fix the maximum for London. If that method
could not be adopted, there might be a better method of
distribution. The Metropolitan borough councils and the
councils in the surrounding suburbs of London might be made
use of for this purpose, by giving them power to issue coal
tickets at a definite price, so that every poor person who
wanted coal in small quantities could go to the town hall, or
some other office established for the purpose, and buy a
ticket which would enable him to go to the coal merchant and
get what he wanted.

Mr. Parkes thought contractors would not suffer very
much on account of the contracts made during the last few
months. But he thought there would be a great deal of
complication and confusion about the matter. Individually,
coal owners would be thrown into confusion as to how they
were to keep their coal at one price. Again, it was possible
for the large consumer of coal to look after himself a great
deal better than for the small consumer.

Sir A. Markham said the Bill was the result of a proposal
that he made to the Government last January. But the
Bill as now presented to the House was absolutely worthless
so far as the general consumer in the country was concerned.
It failed in two important points, which rendered it of no
value whatever to the general consumers who bought in small
quantities. He did not think it was possible to fix a
maximum price for coal in any district, as had been sug-
gested. The differences in railway rates alone for bringing
coal from Yorkshire and Warwickshire to London repre-
sented some 3s. a ton. If the Government had, in the first
place, made a definite pronouncement that all surplus profits
over and above the average of the preceding twro or three
years before the war would be taken by the State, they would
have had no strike in South Wales. It was perfect nonsense
to say that the price of coal had risen by anything like 3s.
a ton on the average of the collieries of this country. If
they split the amount in two they were getting nearer the
truth. The difficulty was, of course, in dealing with the
intermediate profits made by factors and coal merchants.
With regard to contracts, he could not for the life of him see
how any man had the impudence to say that merchants who
had refrained from buying were shrewd men. What was
the good, a fortnight after the contract season had been con-
cluded, of the Government asking the House of Commons to
pass a measure to limit the price of coal? But, worse still,
the Government said to the coal owners, “ We want to help
the rate of exchange : charge our Allies what you like. We
are not going to allow the provisions of this Bill to apply
to Italy; we are not going to allow them to apply even to
France, where nearly all the coal mines are in the hands of
the enemy.”

Sir Arthur next examined one or two of the clauses of the
Bill. He said he would not have proposed taking similar