July 30, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

219

in regard to the operation of these sumptuary laws, for the
laws of political economy had -a very unfortunate habit of
reasserting themselves. But if they did attempt any
sumptuary law of this sort in fixing prices, for God’s sake
let it be in fixing the prices where the shoe pinched, and
not some vague. fixing of prices to regulate at the pit head
the commercial relations between great corporations, great
owners, and little men.

Mr. Booth challenged those who had studied history to
point to any country in the world that was ever able, by
passing a law, to control retail prices.

Mr. Runciman pointed out that the Retail Prices Com-
mittee drew attention to “ the difficuties incident to fixing
pit head and retail prices for all parts of the country, and
for all kinds of coal, and of securing an even and adequate
distribution of coal supplies under such a system.” There
have been many discussions on this question, but they had
all turned on deliveries in London, and if the proposal were
adopted it was quite clear that some portions of London
would be left entirely without coal, 15s. would be absolutely
out of the question for very, large areas away from the
Midland and Northern railway depots. It would mean that
to deliver coal at that price would be a dead loss, and that
the coal would not be delivered. Moreover, any attempt to
fix a minimum rate which did not take into account the
great fluctuations in trade, and all the difficulties which have
come about owing to the conditions of the war, through
taking carts and lorries—if all these things are not taken
into account the people of London would be in a constant
state of anxiety. It would be much better to leave the
further consideration of the distribution of coal in London to
the constant activities and attention of the Board of Trade,
who, by co-operation with the merchants who were mainly
responsible, he hoped, would be able to keep prices below the
level of last winter, and thus make altogether impossible the
fulfilment of the prophecy of panic prices which in almost
every direction was freely made until it was known that they
were likely to intervene.

The clause was withdrawn, and the Bill, as amended, was
reported to the Houses.

Coal Shops for the Poor.

The report stage was reached on Tuesday, when Mr.
Dickinson moved the following new clause :—

The Board of Trade may make regulations fixing the
increase in the price of coal sold in any place in quantities
of less than 2 cwt. over the price of the same coal sold at
the same place and time by the ton.

Mr. Dickinson said, under the Bill, the poor people of
London and elsewhere were really to be left not only to the
mercy of the coal merchants, but also to the mercy of the
hawkers, who, it would appear, had no obligation placed upon
them at all. Last winter, in many parts of London, when
coal was being hawked at 38s. 4d. a ton in those districts
where the poor people dwelt, coal at 26s. 8d. was being sup-
plied by various charitable institutions and others at the rate
that the ordinary well-to-do consumer paid for his coal. The
Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Families’ Association, through its com-
mittee, had all through this winter provided coal for the wives
of soldiers and sailors upon their paying Is. 4d. a cwt.,
which was about 26s. a ton.

Mr. Glyn-Jones 'seconded the amendment.

The President of the Board of Trade pointed out that
the clause itself did not provide any machinery for carrying
out the obligation which was placed upon the Board of
Trade. The Committee presided over by Mr. Vaughan Nash
spent a good deal of time in trying to deal with this particular
case, and they came to the conclusion that it was impossible
to give relief effectively to those poor purchasers by means
of fixing maximum prices. The only way in which this
could be made effective would be "or the Board of Trade
itself to deal with the case of every district in London, and
it was quite conceivable it might be necessary to deal with
the case of almost every street in London. But even then
they would be faced with the constant difficulty of having to
follow the hawker from door to door before they knew
whether he was or was not adopting the regulation. The
effect of this proposal^ if it were passed, and the price fixed
bv the Board of Trade were too low, might lead to whole
districts being deprived of the advantage of sale in small
quantities. When the Committee reported, he at once put
himself into communication with the London County Council,
and they ultimately decided that they themselves could not,
and were not prepared to, establish depots. There was
another suggestion of his right hon. and learned friend,
namely, that offices for the sale of coal .in small quantities
in every Metropolitan borough or within the Metropolitan
police district might be provided. • That certainly would have
been one of the ways of dealing with the sale of coal by pro-
viding for its distribution.

In this Bill it was impossible to insert a clause of that
nature, but it was as well to let the House know what some
of the largest of the coal distributors had undertaken to
do quite recently. They were prepared, should occasion
arise, to open in the poorer parts of London shops which
would do for the poor people what the depots did for the
better-to-do. Although it might be a different manner of
business from that which they had been conducting in the
past, he should be glad to hear that they had greatly
extended the distribution of coal for which they were respon-
sible in those poor districts. The poor were much safer in
the hands of large merchants, who had a name to keep up,
than in the case of the individual dealer, who might not care
a rap about his reputation, so long as he could get rid of his
cargo of coal. Any attempt to fix retail prices would be
futile.

Sir E. Cornwall said he would welcome the adoption of
this clause by the Board of Trade. He was not sure that it
would not be helpful to those merchants if the duty were
placed upon the Board of Trade, and the public knew that
the Board of Trade was sharing with them the anxieties and
responsibility of regulating the price of coal for the small
consumer. It was rather extraordinary that in the Metro-
politan area there should be such varying prices. The hon.
member dealt at some length with the method of selling coal
by small quantities. He said the trade by trolleys had
arisen from competition amongst the coal merchants them-
selves. The men who took out these trolleys were paid so
much a ton. It used to be 2s. a ton altogether. Then a
question rose about wages, and these had risen to about
3s. 6d. a ton. The man did not earn so much as might
be thought: neither did the merchant. The merchant could
only keep his round of trolley-men by sending trolleys up
and down the streets in the summer at a considerable loss.
It had been said that last winter, when there was a famine
in coal, the trolley-men were not satisfied with the price at
which the merchant sent the coal out, and they asked for

more money. But there were a certain number of the old
dealer class still left, more particularly in the poorest dis-
tricts, but only a very small quantity of coal was sold in
this way. He thought the leading coal merchants would
be well advised if they undertook the responsibility of going
to the various poor districts in London and setting up in
each of those districts some establishment under their
own control, where poor persons who had to buy small quan-
tities of coal could buy them without the cost of the trolley -
men’s wages and other items which belonged to the ordinary
sales.

Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Rowlands supported the
amendment; the latter, speaking as a member of the Depart-
mental Committee, said he did not think that the President
of the Board of Trade quite did the Committee justice in his
resume of the position at which they arrived. They had not
suggested a maximum price for small quantities for London,
but they made a distinctive proposition in connection with
the necessity of something being done for these small sup-
plies, that steps should at once be taken to consider, in con-
sultation with public bodies, the question of the accumulation
by such bodies of a reserve of coal in or near London for the
use of the small consumers during this winter.

Mr. Booth said he was afraid that this clause was being
considered by the various speakers as if it were only a London
clause. There had been, so far as he knew, no desire
expressed throughout the country for any such scheme as
this; and he was sure that it would neither work in London
nor in the provinces. Twenty years ago he was living in’
these very poor areas of London, attempting to solve this
problem. He used to discuss it with the late Hugh Price
Hughes, who lived in St. Pancras himself. It was clear to
them that they could not solve the problem except by some
system of voluntary co-operation on the part of the working
people themselves. He found 20 years ago that within a
mile and a-half of that House coal was charged as much as
l|d. a cwt. difference in two adjoining courts. There was
the question of the quality of the coal. Was coal ever sold
by the ton at St. Pancras or Somers Town? Even if it was
sold by the ton, how would they prevent the sale of one ton
or two tons at a price which would enable dealers to charge
an extra price per cwt. ? Even if they overcame that diffi-
culty, there was nothing to prove that the quality of the cwt.
sold by the hawker was at all comparable with the quality
of the' ton. He was pleased to hear the suggestion with
regard to the opening of depots, because it might make pos-
sible a suggestion he was about to make. He appealed to the
large coal dealers in London that, whenever they established
one of these large retail places which were incidental to
their business in one of these areas, they should allow it to
merge into a voluntary co-operative system for the people in
the district to take up.

Several other members supported the clause, which, how-
ever, was negatived.

Mr. Dickinson then moved the following new clause :—

(1)	Coal shall not be sold, or offered for sale, at any
place within the Metropolitan police district and the City
of London at a price exceeding the London maximum
price.

(2)	The London maximum of any coal shall be a sum
equal to the price of that coal at the pit’s mouth as fixed
under this Act, together with such additional price per
ton as the Board of Trade may allow to provide for the
cost of freight and distribution and reasonable profit to the
merchants .and vendors of such coal.

Mr. Dickinson pointed out that this was a different clause
to that suggested in committee, as he now suggested that
the authority which should have full discretion to regulate
the price should be the Board of Trade.

Mr. Runciman, in declining to accept the clause, said the
London maximum price of coal was not any one price at
all. It must depend upon the distance from the railway
depots, from the coal fields, and upon a number of other
considerations, including carriage and distribution. More-
over, any attempt to fix the London maximum prices of
coal would necessitate their going into a very large number
of distinctions, both as to quality and condition alike, and
that was in itself a thing which the Board of Trade must
decline. Whatever arrangements might be made at later
stages there was no doubt that a real shortage of coal in
Great Britain would lead to high prices at the pit head, and
that no matter how many authorities they dragged in, would
involve them in a very high price to the consumer in London.
He did not anticipate that railway rates were going up
during the coming autumn season—at all events, so'far as they
had control of railway rates they should prevent them going
up. Then came the distribution of coal by the merchants in
London. That must vary with practically every district in
London. The district varied, the position of the depot
varied, and the railway rates to those depots varied, so that
to fix any one maximum price would be impossible. The
arrangements which they had made with the coal merchants
would, he believed, cover something like 200 firms. He
proposed, as long as they were satisfied that undertaking was
abided by, to publish the names of those merchants who
had entered into it, and would recommend consumers in
London that they would be well advised to give their orders
to those who had entered into this arrangement with the
Board of Trade. What he had done in London could be
equally done by the local authorities in their own districts,
but he suggested that the House should not pile on to the
Board of Trade duties which should be performed by other
authorities.

Mr. Runciman moved in clause 1, sub-section (1), to
insert after the word “sale” [‘‘coal at the pit’s mouth
shall not be sold or offered for sale the words “ directly
or indirectly.” The purpose, he said, was to make it quite
certain that it would not be too easy to evade the object
which they had in the Bill. A sale indirectly to a second
person would naturally lead to an evasion of the Bill.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 3 Mr. Runciman moved, in sub-section (1), after
the word ‘‘services,” to add the words ‘‘or as to the sums
charged for the use or provision of trucks.”

This was agreed to.

The Admiralty Contracts.

On clause 4, Sir A. Markham moved, in sub-section (1),
after the word “ export ” [“ This Act shall not apply to
any sale of coal for export”], to insert the words ‘‘other
than coal sold to the Admiralty or any other Government
Department, or purchased by them on behalf of the Govern-
ments of any country which is or may be fighting in alliance
with the United Kingdom during the present war.” He
said Mr. Runci man, during the committee stage, was
quite clear that the Government of this country would be
entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill

when buying coal. He had taken legal opinion, and was
assured that his right hon. friend had not been correctly
informed about the matter. He was therefore asking the
House to accept an amendment, the object of which was to
enable the Government of this country to have the benefit
of the provisions of this Act, and also our Allies. The
Admiralty, under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm
Act, were entitled to requisition coal, and had done so, from
the collieries. They had no power whatever to fix the price
which was to be paid for any portion of coal that they might
take from any colliery. But the Admiralty had met the
colliery owners, and, by agreement, had arranged prices
which they suggested were reasonable, but which he thought
were wholly unreasonable. The Admiralty, in Yorkshire,
were represented by very able men, who bought coal
extremely well. Nevertheless, at a certain period of this
year, they were paying for coal for Admiralty purposes from
10s. to 12s. a ton above the prices prevailing in 1913-14.
Owing to the operations of the Export Committee, the price
of coal had fallen very considerably in South Yorkshire, but,
notwithstanding that, the Admiralty went into the market
like ordinary consumers for their supplies, and also for
supplies for any of our Allies who required coal, and they
had been paying these high prices. In Wales an arrange-
ment had been arrived at between the Admiralty and the
coal owners of Glamorganshire, under which the Admiralty
got their coal at the price of 25s. per ton, and if they had
the provisions of this Bill applied to them they would clearly
be entitled to receive that coal at a price very considerably
less.

Mr. Booth seconded the amendment.

Mr. Runciman said he regretted that on the committee
stage of this Bill he was not in possession of full information
as to the decision of the Admiralty. He could only give the
House the latest information he had as to the view of the
Admiralty. They considered their business arrangements
were such as not to make it advisable for them to come under
this Bill. He agreed that they ought to give the full benefit
of the Bill to our Allies, and the arrangement which he
announced on the committee stage would be adhered to,
namely, that when the British Government was buying coal
for itself, it would also buy coals on the same terms and
under the same conditions for the French Government.
Further, when it was requested to do so, it would buy coal
also for the Italian and Russian Governments. It was not
in consonance with the public interest that he should say
exactly how coal was purchased by the Admiralty. They
were not now paying the price for Yorkshire coal mentioned
by Sir Arthur Markham.

The motion was negatived.

Limitation of Contracts.

Mr. Runciman moved, at the end of sub-section (2), to add
the words :—

Provided that where any contract has been made on or
after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen,
and before the commencement of this Act, for the sale of
coal by the owner thereof at the pit’s mouth, coal delivered
under that contract after the expiration of the period fixed
under the provision, and shown to be excepted coal within
the meaning of this provision, shall, if the other party to
the contract within two months after the commencement of
this Act gives notice in writing to that effect to the owner
of the coal at the pit’s mouth, be deemed for the purposes
of this Act to be sold at the time of the delivery thereof.

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 contract
shall be reduced by an equivalent amount.

For the purposes of this provision “ excepted coal ”
means 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 period fixed under this provision shall be a period of
three months after the commencement of this Act, but the
owner of the coal at the pit’s mouth may apply to the
Board of Trade for an extension of that period, and the
Board of Trade may, if they are satisfied that there are
special reasons in the case in question for such an exten-
sion, extend the period for such time as they think just
under the circumstances, and the period as so extended
shall in such a case be the period fixed under this provision.

Mr. Dickinson moved, in the first paragraph of the amend-
ment, to leave out the words “ and shown to be excepted
coal within the meaning of this provision.” He submitted
that these words, if left in, would prevent the small, and,
indeed, the large manufacturers, from getting any advan-
tage from the clause. Again, if the coal was supplied at the
pit’s mouth under contracts for very large amounts to the
ordinary factor, a contract like that would not come under
this clause at all. The factor would say that he was buying
coal to sell to other people for all kinds of purposes, and they
would not be able to say that the contract was one which
would get the benefit of this Act.

Mr. Runciman said it would be pernicious actually to give
a benefit to one set of business men under this clause, and
to take it away from another without there being anything
like the appeal made ad misericordiam for the household or
domestic consumer, or made on the grounds of the services
rendered by the local authority. It must be perfectly obvious
that if they were going to include the manufacturers, they
were actually going to make a present to one set of business
men at the expense of another set of business men. It was
not his business to plead the case of the coal owner, but, if
the House was to accept this amendment, on. the grounds of
expediency, he would not say of abstract justice, he failed to
see where the expediency came in of putting money into
the steel manufacturer’s pocket by taking it out of the coal
owner’s. So far as he knew, the coal owner was no more
culpable than the steel manufacturer. In every case, they
would have no guarantee that a manufacturer receiving a
benefit under this amendment would make a corresponding
reduction in the price of his commodity. Even if he were
inclined to do so, it would be extremely difficult for him to
say exactly how much coal had been an ingredient in the
price he was charging under the contract. He had put this
amendment down as a compromise, and only recommended it
as a compromise.

Mr. Bigland raised a question as to how a co-operative
society which acted in a duel capacity, both as small manu-
facturers and suppliers to the poor of coal, would stand under
the clause.