472

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

September 3, 1915.

reason for absenteeism is not drink. My view is that the
men have been accustomed for some years past to have a
certain amount of leisure which they spend in various ways,
in picture shows, at football matches, and in various other
methods of recreation, which are perfectly harmless in them-
selves. The circumstances have been such that they could
afford it; the wages they have been getting have been suffi-
cient in their view to make it unnecessary for them to work
every time the pit was open, and every time there was an
opportunity. They accustomed themselves to those methods
of recreation. You can fancy it is an awkward thing for
them to change those habits now. If this output must be
maintained, those habits have to be changed. Now, the
question is, whether or not they consider they ought to con-
tinue those habits of leisure when the country demands
greater exertions from every one of us, and demands a
greater increase in the output of coal. I do not know of any
better way than obtaining the assistance of the men’s repre-
sentatives. I do not put it for a moment that it is want of
patriotism on the part of the men. They are not satisfied
that it is necessary to alter the habits which have been per-
fectly right and proper in the past, and they are not satisfied
that the change of circumstances and the present condition of
the country require that those habits should be altered. The
miners’ representatives might be directly invited to co-operate
in that direction. My own view would be that the men
would pay greater attention to representations from their
own representatives than to representations from employers’
and miners’ representatives.

Witness said the Eight Hours Act in Lancashire and
Cheshire had involved a very considerable re-organisation
of mine arrangements. If it was intended that it should
operate directly with a view to increasing the get of coal,
and that men should work longer than eight hours, he
thought it would disarrange the general 'arrangements.
For instance, there were the day wage men, whose hours
would have to be extended. ■Questions of wages might
arise there. So that there would be a certain amount of
disorganisation in reverting to the old system. But in the
specific cases he had mentioned, which might be covered
now by an emergency, it might be suspended. There should
be no difficulty in the persons who had to use the extension
and the persons for whose benefit it was going to be used,
consulting together and seeing if it was a desirable change
to make. They could both then ask that permission might
be given by a suspension of the Act for that purpose. But
he did not think it was quite fair to leave the manager in
risk of violating the Act.

Witness said he did not think the 60 hours were being
taken advantage of in Lancashire in any way.

Referring to the question of export, witness said if the
whole of the distribution of the fuel were in one hand, and
Lancashire were fully represented on that committee so that
they could take care there was not any unnecessary surplus
sent into their county, the difficulty he anticipated would,
of course, be avoided. But that was a big “ if.” He had
had dreams of that sort of thing; but he had never been
able to get anybody to think seriously about it—not for the
getting, but for the distribution. In dealing with a big
question like that, they must not consider one corner of
it; they must consider what the general effect was going to
be. The danger of trusts was that if they placed in the hands
of somebody, the coal owners, for instance, the power to
dole out what they considered was sufficient to meet the
demand, they would rive them the power to charge any prices
they thought fit. He should say it was not possible for
the Government to do anything of the sort. Collieries at
certain times did not pay, and they had to sell their coal
at less than it cost them to produce it. Was the Govern-
ment, under those circumstances, to make up the deficiency?

Witness said the absenteeism with regard to day wage
men was not nearly so much as amongst the colliers and
drawers. Speaking generally, and taking Saturday into
account, they had a margin of practically half a day to
draw on so far as the colliers were concerned, deducting
the five per cent, of unavoidable absenteeism. But there
were some collieries in Lancashire who never did work more
than 11 days a fortnight, and there was that extra day still
that might be brought in to increase the output.

Mr. Orchard here pointed out that when more than 20 per
cent, of the haulage hands and day wage men were drawn
from the colliery they had taken all the reserve; so that
if a haulage man stopped away, they could not take a day
wage man, because it required a fixed number of day wage
men to keep the reserves right. The only reserve was at the
coal face; so that every man who was drawn above a
certain percentage must come from the coal face. In such
a case if they could revert to the condition of things prior
to the passing of the Eight Hours Act, by which a man could
be told to stop on for a quarter or half shift, and a “ snap ”
would be sent to him, and he could deal with a certain
number of men’s output, it would be of great assistance.
It was the day men they wanted, to repair the roads by
working overtime.

Speaking generally of the reduction of hours, Sir Thomas
said there was a time when a man’s labour became ineffec-
tive, whether he was a lawyer, or collier, or whatever he
might be. Exactly when that time was, whether it was
eight hours, or whatever it was, it was very difficult to say.
Still, it might be that, although the colliers in Lancashire
and Cheshire were working shorter hours than they used to
do, it did not follow that there would be a proportionate
diminution in output. South Wales and Lancashire were
the two places with regard to which it was said if eight
hours was justifiable at all, it was justifiable. It hit Lanca-
shire harder than any place.

Witness said there were rather more days worked in
February of this year than in February of last year. In
February of 1914 there were 750| days worked, and in
February of 1915 there were 778f. So that really made the
12f per cent, decrease in the output a little less favourable.
It might be also that the demand this year would be some-
what greater than last year. The output had not fallen by
anything approaching the men employed. Witness coufd
not say whether the correct inference to draw from that was
that if all the men wTho were on the books came, there was
not room for them. They had not many “ market men ” in
Lancashire. He had heard it said that if all the men who
were available came to work suddenly some day, there would
be difficulty in accommodating them all. Since these men
went, there had been a good deal of concentration. Districts
had been closed, and they had all been brought into other
districts where it was better to go on with the working. If
it were a fact that if all the men on the books came to work
they could not be accommodated, it would to that extent
lessen the value of the figures he bad put forward; because
he had assumed they could all be allowed to work, and that
facilities would be given to them for a proper output. On

the other hand, it also showed that if, say, 10 per cent, of
absenteeism was made good, it would be much more valu-
able than 10 per cent, of absenteeism being made good in
normal times, because they worked to greater advantage, and
they would have greater facilities for getting more coal out.
He was told, according to the figures, the output per shift
in these collieries was about the same, that is, the individual
shift worked by every underground man.

Mr. Stephen Walsh said, in his opinion, five per cent,
did not anywhere near touch the unavoidable absenteeism in
the county.

Witness, in answer to further questions, said the only
places where boy labour was employed was at Brooks
and Brooks, the executors of John Hargreaves, and Platt
Brothers; it was a local question. He did not put it forward
that it would have any great effect on the general industry,
or that it was necessary; but in these particular collieries
in that district they had asked him to put it forward as a
local question. Personally, he should not be in sympathy
with reducing the age; nor should he like to see female
labour extended on pit banks, although he believed that the
women employed in Lancashire were well conducted women.
He was told by clergymen who had experience in those
districts, that they were much more domesticated, as a rule,
and did more to help in the house, than girls who worked
in the factories : that these young women were free early
in the day, and they were quite willing to assist in the
household work, whereas a girl who did not get out of the
factory until five or six o’clock at night considered she
ought to have a night out. So that he should not like to
interfere with them, although in his view it was not the
sort of labour he should like to see very much extended.
He should not think there was likely to be a material
increase in the output of coal by employing women on the
pit banks instead of boys or men, as they were now employed.
The game would hardly be worth the candle. Their labour
was restricted to picking bands and work of that sort, a
a great deal of which work was already done by men who
could not be sent into the pits—compensation men and
elderly men.

Referring to the bonus question, Sir Thomas said he had
been told that the more a man got, the less he produced. He
knew that if they took a few months of the last half-year,
when things were very bad in Lancashire, and the pits were
working very short time, the absenteeism was much less than
it was when the pits were working full time. The entire
question of bonus depended upon this, that the men should
recognise that if they would they could make up this
deficiency. In what way it could be given would depend, of
course, as far as the owners were concerned, upon the amount
out of which they could give it.

In regard to the proposal to restrict exports, the witness
said the country would suffer, because they would not have
the money for the coal that was exported, which they got
now from the supply in other directions, but if they got the
same price for this coal from inside the country as thev got
from the countries to which that coal was exported, he did
not see how they would be worse off. If the export was
restricted, then they only had the home market to find the
money, and if the home market did not absorb this output,
then to that extent they would be out of pocket. The persons
who would benefit then would be the consumers of the coal,
not those concerned in the industry. On the other hand, he
should doubt whether there was any country to which we
exported coal from which we did not get something which
was of use to us here. They might certainly retaliate, and
it was very difficult to know quite what the effect of that
retaliation would be. It might be the ruination of some trade
dr trades in this country. Take Sweden, for instance. In
any circumstances, if coal did not go to Sweden, and the
export of pit props to this country were not prohibited, the
cost of bringing them across would be necessarily a great
deal higher, because in those circumstances they could not
take the coal one way and bring the pit props the other.
Freights consequently would be much higher. In fact, the
export of coal was such a very big question that one did not
know where it would catch one. He did not want to pass
judgment upon the report of the Retail Prices Committee.
What occurred to him was, that in order to reduce the price
of household coal in London (which was a very small part
of the total production of coal, the proposal was to
dislocate the whole of the coal trade of the kingdom. He
agreed with Mr. Nimmo that so long as the home price was
not too high, it would be better financially for the country to
allow the coal to go out of the country, so as to get the
money that would be restored to the country from outside.
In Lancashire and Cheshire the difference in the present
price of house coal was lOd. between now and what it was
12 months ago. The figures supplied for Conciliation Board
purposes would show that the price throughout the Federated
area was not more than 10s. a ton at the pit. It had gone
up 6d. or 8d. in the last 12 months. That included the
collieries’ share of any advance under the sliding scale con-
tracts. He thought any interference by the Government
with the normal distribution of the trade would be
unfortunate.

Asked for information as to how royalty rents were fixed
in Lancashire, witness said they were not fixed on a sliding
scale, rising and falling with the prices. There might be
some exceptional cases, but there were very few, if any, and
those were under very old leases. The royalty rent was fixed
at so much per foot thick per acre for the various mines. In
Lancashire, as they had no new coal to find, they had come
to have a fixed rate per foot per acre as the ordinary rate
which should be paid for a particular mine. There might be
some particular cases where an area was specially wanted in
which a landlord might get something more than the normal
footage rate, but generally it was pretty well known what
the footage rate should be, and that was the rate which was
charged for the royalty rent. There was almost invariably
in a lease an undertaking to pay a fixed rent, whether they
got coal or whether they did not get coal, with a right to
recoup that by any excess that they might get in a future
year over the fixed rent; that was to say, if they had a fixed
rent of 4-100 a year and a royalty, say, of £70 or £80 per ft.
per acre, if they did not get as much coal as at the royalty
rent would make their fixed rent, they must pay their fixed
rent. They were entitled to get without any further demands
for royalty as much coal as would pay their fixed rent. If
for several years the amount of rent payable at the footage
rate did not amount to the fixed rent, they had to pay the
fixed rent. But if in subsequent years they got sufficient or
more coal which at the footage rate would exceed the amount
of the fixed rent, they paid the fixed rent until they had
recouped themselves for the payment made in excess of the
coal actually got. He had heard of such things as the rent
being fixed -upon the basis of the increase or decrease over a

fixed sum in proportion to the selling price of the coal. As
to the period during which they were allowed to make up
“ shorts,” witness said their usual period was the whole
length of the term of the lease. There were some cases
where it was for a limited period of five or seven years, and
then there was a provision in the lease that they did not
recoup any further. When a person was going to sink a pit
he must put his hand upon sufficient coal to secure that he
got his money back. If it was in one large area there was
not much difficulty; but where there was a number of owners
each man said, “ Well, I want to be drawing something,”
and it might be a long time before his coal was got. There
were cases, which were not unusual, where on a small estate
they had paid for the whole of the coal before they began to
get any at all. Therefore, if they had only a very small
period for recouping, it would be very hard indeed upon the
man who had paid for the coal in the estate and never had a
chance of getting it. If there was a limit to the time in
which he could recoup, and the term ran out before he could
recoup, then unless he could get a renewal of the term and a
renewal of the right to recoup, he had paid his money and
got nothing. There were some collieries which had a very
large overpaid rent.

Witness said that some contracts for slack were made last
December. In the month of December there was rather a
slump in Lancashire. Those contracts were made for 12
months, and were 6d. to Is. per ton lower than the contracts
made in the previous December. People could not afford to
have coal uncontracted for; they had wages to pay, and all
sorts of obligations to meet, which had to be met out of the
sale of coal, and therefore they must assure themselves that
they had a certain market for their coal.

Sir Thomas said in the Federated area the regulations
provided that the selling price was to be a factor in the
adjustment of wages, but not the sole factor. They did
not say it was the chief factor, but his own opinion was
that it made a primd facie case for an adjustment in wages.
House coal, said witness, certainly was not more than 10 per
cent, of the total output of the kingdom, and perhaps not
that. Every attempt was being made in the different
districts certainly in the Federated area to keep prices down
as much as possible. At a meeting the previous week of gas
producers in the Midland district, a resolution was passed,
which had been communicated to the various districts, that
every endeavour should be make to keep down the price of
gas fuel. In the different districts of the Federated area
at various meetings which had been held, it had been urged
that, consistently with a remunerative price, an endeavour
should be made to keep the price within reasonable limits.
He could not imagine any coal owner selling at a price
much less than he could get. If there was an increase in
the quantity of coal available for the general market, why
the Lancashire coal owners should wish to sell it for less
than they could get for it, he did not see, except to the
extent that they did not want merely to exploit the coal
trade for the war. They would not keep the price down for
the purpose of keeping the men’s wages down. On the other
hand, it would be very difficult indeed for any colliery owner
entirely to transform the character of his business and say
to the merchants with whom he had been dealing for years :
“ I can get a better price than you can give me, and I shall
sell my coal in the open market.”

As to the sliding scale system of contracts, witness thought
it was very unfortunate that the Retail Committee did not
in their report give the percentage of coal that came to
London that was sold on those terms; because the impression
made by the report really was that that was the general
practice of the London market, and he was told it was
exceptional.

Reverting once more to the bonus question, Sir Thomas
said he had known of a manager being paid by results. He
had not heard of a bonus in connection with output, but he
had heard, in connection with profits, that if the profits were
above a certain amount they would get some consideration;
but it was not merely a question of output, because the
manager there would have to have a great deal of skill in
order to keep the costs of working in such a condition as
to enable even an increased output to yield an increased
profit.

Witness said he knew of no case at the collieries in
Lancashire where coal was got on a Sunday. In many cases
repairing had to be done on the Sunday, but they would not
employ more men than were necessary for the purpose.
He had not suggested that colliers should work on Sunday.
If they worked on every other day of the week it would be
sufficient. If it were shown to be necessary that in this
crisis we should all work on a Sunday, we should be bound
to work on Sunday. But he did not think it was necessary,
because the output could be maintained without working on
a Sunday, except in regard to the necessary repairs, which
was normal Sunday work.

Sir Thomas said he was of opinion that, instead of
attempting to regulate the price of coal and fix what it
should be, the more correct economic remedy would be to
endeavour to adjust the supply to the demand by increasing
the output. Restriction of output would be very serious
indeed, and its consequences were rather difficult to foresee.

Mr. Smillie said this Committee had been told and had
information from certain Government offices, that a few
weeks previous there was a very serious danger of certain
factories producing munitions of war having to step for want
of coal, and of important gas-producing and electrical-
producing plants being within a few weeks of having to shut
down for want of coal.

Witness said, with reference to the factories for producing
munitions of war, he looked upon those as very different
purchasers from gas companies. A gas company practically
made its own contracts, and it did not allow the coal owner
to have any voice in the conditions of the contract. Inas-
much as gas companies by Act of Parliament were
limited in the amount which they might pay as profit, and
as he had not heard of any great disposition to reduce the
price of coke, which was sold to the poorer classes, gas
companies were not entitled to very much sympathy as
regards price. Charity began at home, but one should not
cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. If by refusing tc
supply coal to other countries we were preventing this
country getting something from those other countries which
would be of great use to us, it was a matter that must be
taken into consideration. But if we could do without all
these ingenious expedients, if we could produce sufficient
coal for our purposes without going to these expedients to
bring the supply of the coal up to the demand, why not do
that? If the export to some particular country was very
largely in excess of what we usually exported there, he
should be rather suspicious as to what it was being used
for.

(To be continued.}