MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 23 August 1916 vol 85 cc2701-46

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. JOWETT (resuming):

Before the interruption, I was proceeding to give an example of the way in which the Board of Trade had neglected to take action with regard to different industries so as to safeguard the public against high prices, and I was reminding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that in November, 1914, suggestions were made in this House for dealing with the wool industry. The suggestion was that the Government should enter into nego- tiations with the Australian, New Zealand, and Cape Governments in order to take the whole of the extensive wool supply of these very large producing Colonies in order to help to control prices. That suggestion might well have been adopted judging by what has since been found to be necessary in dealing with the home supply. If the Government had, to begin with, approached the Colonial Governments with the object of taking the full supply at the pre-war rate, plus any percentage that might have been found on inquiry to be justifiable, it is quite certain from all that we know of the attitude of the Colonial Governments, and their willingness and desire to help, that they would willingly have fallen in with any such suggestion. It would have prevented the tremendous leaps—they cannot be described in any other way—that prices have taken since then to the profit, the enormous profit, of a very small number of individuals, comparatively speaking, to the rest of the population.

There are ways in which, by means of the application of the principle of working on commission, the whole of the khaki output of the West Riding of Yorkshire could have been executed at a very modest cost, and so far from helping to drive up prices by the fact that the Government were in the market, it would have helped to steady prices for the public generally. But, of course, when the Board of Trade follows a line such as it has followed, of just getting certain persons in to give advice, calling them an Advisory Committee, those persons being men in business, and in that very business, it cannot be expected that the suggestions they make will be of the drastic character that alone will fit the necessities of a time such as that in which we are now living. I mention this particular industry because I know most about it; but it seems, so far as one can judge, that in regard to other commodities the same principle could have been followed. What was there to prevent the Government, at the beginning of the War, getting into negotiation with Canada in order to take its enormous wheat supply, and so on? It is not for private Members, at any rate it is not their particular duty, to suggest means, but it is for the Government in some way or other to protect the people of this country from starvation and privation, because, although there is a very general belief that the working people have had their wages advanced sufficiently to cover the increased cost, a greater fallacy could not be imagined. A certain small proportion of the workers may be in that position, but a far larger proportion are in this position: that they have received their bonuses, but not sufficient to cover the extra cost. There is still another considerable proportion of the population whose wage rates are as they were before the War, and whose only advantage, whose only means of getting more money in order to meet these higher prices, is to work longer hours, and to have more members of the family bringing in and contributing to the family income. I am not saying that in the circumstances that is not justifiable and right, but it must be borne in mind that it is only in such cases as those to which I am now referring, due to the number of workers in the family bringing in a bigger family income, and by more regular work and longer hours of work they are able to exist at all in these times when things are so hard. What I want to say, so far as my Constituents are concerned, is that the Government should get a move on on this question, and that they should take some drastic action. If necessary, put the people on rations. Why not? Whatever is necessary, do it; but do protect the working people of this country against the fearful charges of food they have to meet, with the inevitable result that they cannot get sufficient of it, and that they have to have recourse to means of substitution, and so on, that are against the interests of the people and against the interests of the State.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The prolongation of this Debate to a second day was, in my opinion, rendered necessary by the very grave importance of the topic to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I am sure it will be amply justified if the two Departments represented by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Acland and Mr. Pretyman) will give us some assurance that something is being done in reference to this very important subject. That it is an important subject there is no doubt, and it is a fallacy, if I may say so, to limit the importance of it to the duration of the War. The subject will be just as important for two or three years after the War as it is now, and therefore it is not merely a war problem, but a post- war problem also that the Government Departments have to take into account. I need not say that the primary importance of it consists in the fact that this rise of prices deals harshly with the poorest of the community. I agree entirely with, and adopt, what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, namely, that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country who, although they may get higher wages, are worse off now than they were in pre-war days. That is the first question that has to be taken into account. It does not end there. A great deal of the industrial unrest is also due to this matter. We may say what we like about a demand for a 10s. increase, in spite of a final settlement in October last, by the railwaymen, but if their wages remain stationary and the price of necessary commodities goes up, I do not think there is anyone who can blame those men for saying, "It is absolutely necessary for us, in our own interest, to have higher wages to deal with this problem." We are therefore confronted with a vicious circle, and it is a matter with which the Government must deal. The hon. Gentleman referred to the callous attitude of the Board of Trade. That is strong language to use, but what I think they have done is this: that they have postponed dealing with it. They have been hoping against hope that something will turn up, but nothing does turn up, and I do not know how anything will turn up unless they see themselves that it does. I think the object of this Debate will be secured to a great extent if the Government will tell us in general terms what their attitude is towards this question. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Harcourt), when he was acting on behalf of the Board of Trade a few days ago, said that the rise in the price of bread was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Government. Is that really the attitude of the Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman)

It is true.

Mr. GRIFFITH

If it is, as I understand it, and the circumstances are beyond their control, then the Government is unable to deal with this question. The hon. Member himself, in a very important answer he gave to a question yesterday, said: Mr Pretyman denied Mr. Thorne's statement that there was a corner in wheat in London to the extent of 1 200,000 quarters. I do not think he denied it. He said he did not know. That is my recollection—that he had not been able to discover any attempt at cornering. He stated: The price of No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat quoted ex ship in London was reported as 52s. per quarter of 4SI6 lb. on 3rd July and 72s. 6d. per quarter on 11th August. In that interval the price of the same quality and quantity of wheat in New York rose from 43s. 9d. to 57s. 9d. It will be seen from these figures that the greater part of the rise in the London price was consequent on the rise in New York which followed the receipt of unfavourable reports of the condition of the growing crop of the United States, and was not due to any causes within the control of His Majesty's Government. A very small portion of the rise, not more than 3s., was accounted for by freight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd August, 1916, col. 2471.] Are we to understand that the Government's attitude is that this very serious rise in prices is due to circumstances beyond their control, that they cannot alleviate it, and that they are really unable to deal with this problem? If that is the position it is a very serious one; but if it is the position, the sooner they let us know it the better. It would be a pity to waste time over the matter if they simply told us that the problem is insoluble. The Government have done so many things in the past which appeared to be impossible that I do not despair of their finding a solution even of this question. Let us consider the question of Manitoba wheat, to which the hon. Member referred yesterday. I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that this is an example of what the Government might have done: They could have gone to the Canadian Government and bought all the Manitoba wheat for the two years past. If the Canadian Government had been asked to do it, they would have done it. Would the Canadian Government not have done it if the suggestion had been made to them by His Majesty's Government? Of course they would. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture appears to be amused at that suggestion. I do not see anything irrelevant in it. The Australian Government do these things. They do commandeer. Why should not we, by friendly arrangements with the Canadian Government, get the whole of the supply of Manitoba wheat? The Government have taken no such steps. Instead of consulting the Canadian Government and getting this Manitoba wheat they are the victims of the Chicago speculators. I do not think that is a very dignified position for the Government to take up. There was an obvious remedy so far as this case was concerned. The hon. Gentleman repre- senting the Board of Trade said that only 3s. of the rise was due to the rise in freights. The question of freights is rather a difficult matter, especially in regard to the manner in which it has affected the rise. It is said that in respect of the 9d. loaf, 2d. is due to freights. It may be so, or it may not. It would be very interesting for us to know the facts with regard to that.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I will deal with that.

Mr. GRIFFITH

The hon. Gentleman said the advance' in respect of freights was only 3s., which is not very much. It is an astounding thing that he should have given the answer he gave to-day to Question 42, namely, that starred labour is now engaged in building three large ships for shipowners in neutral countries at a time when we want every ship we can get to carry this wheat.

Mr. PRETYMAN

After the War.

Mr. GRIFFITH

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that after the War he would have no control at all over these ships. If he looks at the OFFICIAL REPOET to-morrow morning he will see what his attitude was. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that his attitude was that after the War was over it did not matter about these ships.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Not at all.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Then it is important. If it is, I hope he will have a condition put in the contract for the delivery of the ships that we shall have control of them not only during the War, but also after the War for a certain number of years. With regard to the foreign supply of wheat, what we ask the Government is this: Is this rise in prices, or is it not, beyond the control of the Government? If it is beyond their control there is an end of it, and we need not discuss it further; but if it is within the Government's control, will they exercise that control over possible wheat supplies? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that a great amount of Australian wheat is now held up and cannot come to this country. I should have thought that these three neutral ships might very well be engaged upon the work of bringing that wheat over. If they had that Australian wheat at their disposal, not only would they have more wheat, but they would not be to the same extent the victims of Chicago speculators, who are driving up the price of wheat. With regard to foreign supplies of wheat, I admit that there are circumstances which make it difficult for the Government to interfere. As regards the home supply, I understand that it represents one-fifth or one-sixth of the total supply of wheat for this country. I turn to the consideration of another question. Can we do anything to increase the supply of wheat within this country? Those of us who have been advocating National Service in this House for a long time—I advocated it more than twelve months ago—I am bound to say thought that the first duty of the Government would be, knowing that they were likely to be confronted with a situation of this kind, to give orders that the land of England should be used in the best possible way during the War. It was an obvious thing to do. What did they do? They issued circulars and gave advice. What was wanted was not circulars, but commands to these people. I would put the farm of every farmer in the country and every acre at the public disposal. I know that that may be a laughable proposition for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Hear, hear

Mr. GRIFFITH

I do not think it is laughable at all. The high prices are so serious that we can afford to take a little risk in doing new things in order to deal with a situation of this kind. The farmers are advised how to till their farms. That, of course, is quite right; but why not compel them to take the right course for the public good? Why do you not give commands instead of exhortations, and tell these people to do what is in the interests of the country? I have seen some of these circulars, and I have heard the perorations of Ministers. To give one steam plough to a farmer would be far better than all the perorations to all your speeches. If you do nothing more than give a farmer a steam plough that would be better than all your advice. It may be said that this only applies to between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total of the wheat supply required for this country. I know it is only a small portion, but the circumstances are such that you must take every step you can in order to remedy the position. The control of British agriculture is not a negligible matter so far as this problem is concerned. Perhaps I may be told—it would be a very relevant observation—that if you make your arable land produce more, the labour problem might be a more difficult subject than it is now. I admit that, but the Govvernment must take all these things into account. Although the claims of the Army are considerable and stand paramount with the Government, I am bound to say that the food of the people is almost of equal importance at the present juncture, because you cannot win the War, whatever the soldiers may do, unless you keep the supply of food at a certain level. Not only must you have it for the purposes of the soldiers, but you must have it also to prevent dissatisfaction in this country.

A few years ago the hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Captain C. Bathurst) wrote a very interesting book upon this problem, in which he anticipated some of the problems with which we now have to deal. He made it quite clear that it is a great mistake to contrast on the one hand the production of bread-stuffs with the production of meat-stuffs on the other. We speak of them sometimes as if the more bread the less meat, and the more meat the less bread. That is a clear fallacy. In his book, for which I have a great admiration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman compares our country with Denmark, and says about Denmark: There the dairying industry is taken concurrently with that of wheat growing and market gardening. Here such industries are deemed to be mutually exclusive. They are not exclusive. My hon. Friend has referred to wool. There are other questions. Coal is as much a necessity as meat in this country, or will be in a few months. There is the question of milk—a very serious question, especially for young children. My hon. Friend has referred to rations. Really, is there anyone, whatever his preconceived opinion may have been, who objects to rations on principle? I should have thought not. Any course that the Government can take, provided that it answers the purpose and if it does not solve the problem mitigates the hardship, will have the support of the House and the country. The Government is much too nervous as to what it will do. It has the support of the country, perhaps more than it deserves, but certainly much more than it seems to recognise, and any step that it may take I am sure will be supported; and, with regard to rations, at any rate, it would be a great thing for the poorest people, and it will give them some security that they would have sufficient meat and sufficient bread. I may be told they have tried that in Germany and prices have gone up. That is quite true, but that does not dispose of the point, at all, because if they had not got the bread tickets and meat tickets prices would have probably been very much higher than they now are.

I really think we are very well justified in having this second day in order to raise this question. It is a question that has been agitated by the Press and has really made a great impression upon the country. It has not only led to a great deal of hardship, but it will lead more and more to industrial disputes, and I ask the Government to make up its mind once for all whether anything can be done. If anything can be done let them, as frankly as they are able, with due regard to the public-safety, take the House of Commons into its confidence and tell them upon what lines they propose to act. I feel sure this is one of the most urgent problems we have to deal with, and I hope during this Recess they will apply their mind to the subject. One of the advantages of a Recess is that the Government will have more time to apply themselves to a solution of this question. They may not be able to say anything definite to-day, but with regard to anything being done for home agriculture time is pressing. If anything is to be done with regard to the next harvest now is the time to move in the matter, for the matter is urgent, and I hope very much that with regard to these outstanding questions, now that Ministers have a Recess, not that they have a holiday, but, at any rate, they will be relieved from daily attendance at the House, they will really apply their minds to this question and will come to a conclusion whether it is soluble or insoluble, because the moment they say it is insoluble, and produce reasons in support of that view, a great many people would say, "Very well, we must bear it and suffer." I do not understand how the Government really can take 60 per cent, of the excess profits of the shipowners. My hon. Friend complained with regard to these excess profits. To whatever extent these huge profits are related by way of cause and effect to the high price of bread, it must be remembered that the Government itself takes much of it—to the extent of six-tenths—and, therefore the Government is making money at the expense of the poorest people. We must remember that in justice to the shipowners. They themselves are tak- ing advantage of the financial policy that is raising the price of bread. That has really been put forward more than once as a defence. It is a very grave aggravation of the difficulty we are in, and I hope the Government will, in the Recess, try and solve this question, and I am sure if the Recess leads to a solution of this question it will be welcomed in the country. Something at length will have been done after two years of war, and it is high time we solved this important question.

Mr. HOUSTON

I should not have intervened had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) yesterday, a speech which I see described in leaded headlines in the Press as a very remarkable speech. It was remarkable in more senses than one. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, although he had notice that I intended to criticise his speech. It is a pity he has been absent from the Debates in this House, more especially during February and April, when this question of food prices and the shortage of shipping and various other matters were discussed. Further, if he had been here lie might have seen a good deal of correspondence in the "Times" and other newspapers regarding the question of freight, more particularly directed to Italy. I listened to the speech with attention and astonishment. It was remarkable for the ignorance which it displayed of a subject upon which he spoke with authority. He appeared to me to be entirely ignorant of the most elementary parts of the question. He dealt with shipping as if it was the most simple of all problems, whereas it is not one problem but a multiplicity of problems—very intricate, involved and elaborate. And when an amateur like the right hon. Gentleman enters upon it he gets hopelessly lost. On a memorable occasion, when he returned to this House to make a severe attack upon his late Department—the Admiralty—he told us that he had been clearing his mind in the trenches. I thought he had cleared his mind most effectively, for he appeared to have emptied it of every particle of information which he ought to have obtained when he was' First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with shipping. He made a serious attack upon shipowners, and at the same time evidently overlooked the fact that he, of all men, was most responsible for the rise in freights, to which he attributes the rise in the price of food, because of the wasteful methods of the Admiralty in regard to British shipping, and he is credited, I know not with what truth, with being the author of the Dardanelles Expedition, which was the first impetus to the great rise in shipping. If he had known anything at all about the question he would have remembered that at the outbreak of the War freights remained normal and the prices of food were normal, and it was only when the Admiralty requisition so much shipping and wasted it so uselessly that prices began to rise, and they have gone on ever since.

Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY

When was that?

Mr. HOUSTON

It began at the end of 1914. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that this rise was not due to natural causes nor to military causes. I maintain that it is due almost entirely to military causes. We are at war. And not only has some 60 per cent., I believe, of the merchant tonnage of this country being employed for military purposes, but we are told on the authority of Lord Curzon that some 500 other steamers have been handed over to our Allies for their purposes. Is it surprising that owing to the shortage of tonnage freights have risen considerably? It is a misfortune, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with the crude methods of the amateur, suggests that the whole tonnage of this country should be commandeered and controlled by the Government he shows how utterly ignorant he is of what is going on. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman's métier at the present moment is to attack his late colleagues and the Government. I should have thought the severe verbal castigation he received at the hands of the present First Lord of the Admiralty would have taught him discretion, but he now returns to attack the Board of Trade. I hold no brief for the Government, and certainly not for any department of the Government, but in justice I must say that the Government have been exerting themselves considerably. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be entirely ignorant of what the Government was doing. Ha evidently was unaware that every British ship is under the direction of the Government, and must have a licence for the trade in which she is engaged. He was evidently unaware that the Deputy-Speaker of this House is the. chairman of the Food Requisitioning Committee. In fact, he was so ignorant that he appeared to be unaware of anything and everything in connection with shipping. His ignorance is displayed when he says that so far as the shipowners are concerned, freights are fixed by a stroke of the pen in the offices of persons living in this country. One can quite see now what an attractive, pleasant, and profitable occupation shipowning must be and it makes one surprised that there are not more shipowners in this country, when all they have got to do is by a stroke of the pen to fix the prices in order to get increased freights, and to create profits in the enormous manner of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday.

He alleges that the rise in the price of food is due entirely to freights. What about the price of meat? Has that been increased by freights? It is well known, or ought to be well known, that in the early part of the War, by a perfectly friendly, pleasant arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade—I regret he is not in his place to-day, as I ventured to express the hope on the Adjournment last night that he would be— and the shipowners of this country, the whole of the British refrigerating tonnage employed in the carriage of meat to this country was fixed at a rate of freight which did not exceed the pre-war rates more than from one-eighth of a 1d. to ¼d. per pound. On the other hand, however, we find that the prices of meat have increased enormously. I understand that even the cheaper portions of meat in the poor districts have increased to 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound, when previously they were only 4d. per pound. I am speaking of imported meat. In the poor districts of this country a certain class of meat which was sold sometimes at 2½d. per pound before the War is now being sold at 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound That is not due to freights. What about wheat? The right hon. Gentleman tried to argue that freights were responsible for the rise in the price of bread. I do not want to follow him into his argument, nor do I want to be tempted to follow the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would say that freights have not had the effect of increasing the price of the loaf no its present price. It seems to be forgotten that although the shipowners of this country are accused of making enormous profits, the Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ellis Griffith) bas justly pointed out, take 60 per cent, of those profits, in addition to heavy taxation in the form of Income Tax and Super-tax. Then there is the wheat produced by the British farmer in this country. I do not want to make any attack upon the British farmer, far from it, but I want to point out that the British farmer is not subject to Excess Profits Tax. The Government does not take from the British farmer 60 per cent of those enormous and, as the right hon. Member for Dundee said, "those scandalous profits." The Government does not interfere with the British farmer, and the British farmer is exempt from several charges for the simple reason that he pleads ignorance that he cannot keep books—a very easy way of avoiding taxation. My right hon. and learned Friend in dealing with this question has suggested that we should increase the production of wheat in this country. For many years I have advocated that we not only ought to increase the production of wheat in this country by giving the farmer the inducement of a fixed price for his wheat, but that we ought to follow the example of the great Israelitish statesman when living in Egypt, and ought to have national granaries. We would not then be subject to fluctuations in price, which may be brought about by many circumstances living in an island as we do, such as failure of the wheat crop in various parts of the world. The crops have been affected in Manitoba and the United States, and this has been taken advantage of very promptly by our acute American and Canadian friends. The price has gone up, I understand, within the last five weeks in the United States and in Canada 50 per cent., while the price of wheat in this country during that period has only increased 10 per cent. Is that due to the British shipowner, or is the British shipowner going to be credited by the moderation of the increase in the price of wheat in this country, as against the enormous increase in the price of wheat in the United States and Canada, due entirely to the operations of the Chicago wheat pit.

2.0 P.M.

When the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and denounces the Government and the British shipowner—who, I suppose, is the companion in crime of the British Government—he ought to know a little more of his facts. I understand, although I may be wrongly informed, that the attack on the shipowner and the Government from this point of view was arranged at a little convivial party in a room off the Terrace, and it was decided that the great increase in the price of food would be a popular cry and a popular argument for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, since he left this House and went to the front, where he remained a short time, and has now returned to the political arena, has knocked at many doors. He tried the Socialistic door, only to meet with a very severe rebuff from the hon. Member for Blackburn, who pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that his Socialism was of a very late and tender growth. The right hon. Gentleman might decide on better duties than to return here merely to attack his late colleagues, who, when he was with them, of course, were everything that could be desired, and indispensable in every way. The right hon. Gentleman has proved, however, that one member of the Cabinet is not indispensable by leaving the Cabinet himself. In his very crude amateurish way he suggests that the Government should commandeer, requisition, or take over all the British shipping. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten about the neutral shipowner. It will be remembered that a distinguished relation of the right hon. Gentleman on one memorable occasion came to grief because he forgot the existence of Goschen, and the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, so far as his arguments are concerned, came to utter grief when he forgot about the existence of the neutral shipowner. He says that it is just as easy, even more easy, to control the whole of the shipping of this country than it is to control the railways or the munition works. He is a great believer, evidently, in absolute and universal control. It will be interesting to learn whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in the Cabinet, was an advocate or an opponent of controlled establishments. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, with regard to shipping, we have the same conditions as before the War, and that we have a moderate insurance. He forgets that, so far as insurance is concerned, a 5 per cent, premium is being paid at present on ships going from this country to the Mediterranean, so that if a ship worth £150,000 made a voyage of about a month's duration from this country to a Mediterranean port and back, the cost of insurance would be £7,500, and if the ship were taken at Admiralty Blue Book rates, which the right hon. Gentleman advocates, the owner would receive £4,500, out of which he would have to pay the crew's wages, the expense of provisions, and various other matters. But the right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary suggestion, which I have not yet, even with the experience which I have as a shipowner, been able to understand. He said: I have in former times entered considerably into detail on this matter from the Government point of view, and I say that there is no reason whatever why we should not charter every ship at Admiralty rates and then re-charter it to the owner under such conditions as the interests of the State may require. There may be some hon. Member in this House who may be able to explain that operation to me. I cannot understand it. Does he suggest that the ships to be chartered should be chartered from the owners at the Blue Book rates, which the owners at the present time do not find generally fair, and that the Admiralty shall then re-charter these ships to the same owners under such conditions as the interests of the State may require? Presumably that would be at a higher rate of freight. If it is at a higher rate of freight, who is going to receive the difference? Is it the owner or the Government? The right hon. Gentleman has already denounced the Government for receiving portions of the profits of the shipowner in the 60 per cent., and if there is any difference between the Admiralty rates and the rates at which the ships are to be re-chartered to the owner, which would be higher, is that going to decrease the cost of food? Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) may be able to explain this operation to me. He may have inquired from the officials in his Department as to what it means, but I cannot understand it, and I question whether anyone else can. The right hon. Gentleman objects very strongly to the shipowners making profits and having in hand reserve capital at the end of the War, and he described this as wholly vicious and illegitimate from the point of view of State policy. Again I say that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely forgotten the existence of the neutral shipowners who at the present moment, because so many of our ships are engaged in military operations and in the service of our Allies, are rapidly capturing our trades in various other directions, thereby piling up enormous profits. It is well known that neutral shipowners can obtain anything from 10s. to 15s. per ton higher rates than the British shipowner, and they are not subject to the taxes to which the British shipowner is. Anyone who follows this subject will have observed the rapid increase in the mercantile navies of the neutrals—for instance, the Norwegians, the Americans, and others—and how the Americans and Japanese are capturing, not only our shipping, but our manufacturing trade in many directions. The right hon. Gentleman claims, I suppose, to be a statesman, but he cannot see that this country is an island and depends entirely upon ships for its existence. He evidently has overlooked the fact that if it had not been for the mercantile shipping it would have been impossible to have carried on this War as we have done.

Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY

What about the Navy?

Mr. HOUSTON

The Navy could not have existed without the help of the merchant shipping. What about the colliers who keep the Navy at sea in provisions, in food, in meat, and other things? What about the merchant ships which supply our Armies in Flanders and elsewhere? My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think that that was a very sensible or helpful interruption. If he wishes to underrate the services of the British mercantile marine, then ho is doing a disservice to this country. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a remarkable speech. No doubt if it had appeared in the columns of the "Sunday Pictorial" it would have had some money value, but to come down to this House and make a speech like that which he made yesterday was neither informative nor helpful. I do not think that his attempts to injure the Government have been more successful than his attempts to injure the British shipowner in the eyes of sensible people. I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman paragraph by paragraph through his speech of yesterday, but time will not permit, and other Gentlemen wish to follow in Debate. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman and turn my attention to the Board of Trade. I do not think that anyone can accuse me of being a friendly advocate of the Government. I do not hold a brief for them, but in the interests of justice and in face of the attacks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee upon the Government I felt bound to take up the cudgels in their defence. So far as the Board of Trade are concerned, I want some explanation from my hon. Friend. Again I say I regret that the President has not been here. I want to know what he has been doing during his absence? Has he yielded, shall I say, to the seductive demands of our Italian friends for more British merchant ships, because the more shipping we give away to help our Allies the less shipping we shall have to carry food for our own people.

I must return for one moment to the right hon. Gentleman. When he was talking about the British shipper he forgot all about the Allies. Evidently he had not taken the trouble to look into the question and to learn for himself that from one-third to one-half of the foodstuffs of this country is carried in neutral bottoms? How is he going to control the neutral shipowner? This, which is such a simple proposition according to him, is a proposition which has exercised the minds of the Cabinet and more particularly of the Board of Trade. It has exercised the minds of the Committees which have been appointed by the Government to deal with these things and they have not offered any solution. The only result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy of requisitioning the whole of the British mercantile marine would be disaster. Neutrals would be driven away from this country, and suppose the right hon. Gentleman is encouraged to ask for control over the whole British shipping by reason of the success at his Department, when he entered into it, made with the 50 or 60 per cent, which he requisitioned, are you going to see such a glaring case of scandal as the "Aragon," which was left for eleven months lying in the Mediterranean as a sort of club for officers? Is that the kind of management which will reduce the price of food in this country? I think that my hon. Friend, though probably he does not like to agree with me, does agree with me in his innermost heart. I am quite sure from the speeches which were made in the past, and more particularly in February, when the representative of the Board of Trade followed me immediately in Debate, he did not and could not contradict a single allegation which I have made.

I see my hon. Friend, who is a Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, and who has lately earned fame by writing a biography of the right hon. Member for Dundee, is taking notes, and I hope he will incorporate them in his next edition. Again, I regret that the right hon. Member for Dundee is not here, for I should? like to have asked him who was the genius—was it himself?—who was responsible for the requisitioning of oil-tankers which were converted into troopships. I should have liked to have asked him various other questions to-day, but his absence to-day is in strange contrast to his audacity of yesterday. I should like to have asked him who is responsible for these many changes in connection with the fitting out, the dismantling, the refitting, and the dismantling again of various ships. There are many questions of that kind I should have liked to ask him, and, frankly, I regret I cannot ask him. We have been told that at last, a long last, we are going to get fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government, which have been requisitioned, or, if you like, have been seized by the Portuguese Government, being German ships sheltering in Portuguese ports. The hon. Gentleman told us that the British Government were taking these fifty-two steamers over from the Portuguese Government at 14s. 3d. per gross register ton, and that we were paying all expenses. Surely my hon. Friend must be mistaken. I have endeavoured to point out that this 14s. 3d. per ton surely covered the expenses as regards repairs, insurance, and various other things. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us some explanation. He tells us that these fifty-two ships which have been taken over have been hired by the British Government from the Portuguese Government and put into the hands of one particular firm to manage, the firm of Furness, Withy and Company. It really strikes me that a firm which has already recently acquired a further large number of ships from the Prince Line will be overburdened with the management of a further fifty-two vessels, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Lewis, one of the directors of that company who is devoting the largest portion of his time to Lord Curzon's Committee, will not be called on to give up his services on that Committee for the purpose of managing these steamers.

I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara), who has just entered the House, that it would be more economical if, instead of these fifty-two steamers being left in the hands of this company, they were handed over to the Admiralty—my right hon. Friend will see the confidence I place in the Admiralty—so that they might be employed as colliers for the Navy, or as transports, or for the service of the Allies, releasing the ships requisitioned from British owners to go back to their regular trade, and, if they are allowed to go back to their regular trade, competition, above all things, will tend to bring down freights and the price of food. People talk about rings, but the Chairman of the Food Regulations Committee (the Deputy-Speaker) has established a very excellent method, whereby he insists upon ships fixing 75 per cent, of the cargo carrying space for wheat. Sometimes the wheat is not there, and the result is, the regulation having to be complied with, that the owners take wheat at any price, with the result that freights are reduced. Really the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee appears to be entirely ignorant of all these sort of things, and, indeed, of the whole subject. I trust that my hon. Friend, when ho comes to deal with the subject of the Portuguese ships, will deal with those questions I have raised. I should be extremely sorry to sec Mr. Lewis taken away from the service of Lord Curzon's Committee, and I again suggest that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty should take over these fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government and thus save all trouble. I apologise for detaining the House; I should have liked to refer to the speech of the Member for Derby dealing with the question of food, which, in importance, is only second to the conduct of the War, and is quite as serious. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee had taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Derby, and had dealt with the subject in the same calm, temperate, dispassionate, and statesmanlike manner, it would have been better for this House, better for the country, and better for the right hon. Gentleman's reputation.

Mr. JAMES MASON

The hon. Member for Derby, in the course of his remarks, levelled some criticisms at the Great Western Railway Company, of which I have the honour to be a director, and he referred to the case of a certain man who had recently been in the service of the company. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member, I think, insinuated that the company was making use of the Military Service Act in a some- what vindictive spirit. I would assure him, if he were in his place, that this is very far from the truth. This company, and I believe all the other companies, have carefully avoided raising any real grounds for insinuations of that kind. He also, in the course of his remarks, expressed the hope that those of us who are directors of railway companies, would adopt, a conciliatory attitude towards the men. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Great Western Railway Company, and I believe all the other railway companies, are only too desirous of being conciliatory, and on living on the best of terms with our employés, and that the last thing they desire, either intentionally or unintentionally, is to make use of any position arising through, I may say, of any special legislation which has been found necessary, to do anything which would be in the least unfair So any of the men. I think it will be generally admitted by the hon. Member that the proper working of the railways, which after all is a matter of most important national interest, and a subject of interest to all Members of this House, can only be accomplished in a way to satisfy public needs, where there is a certain amount of discipline and efficiency maintained amongst the people who are employed on those railways. The working of the railways is in the hands of the Government for the moment, but whether the railways are controlled by the Government, or whether they are worked and controlled by the companies, it is necessary that there should be a reasonable measure of discipline maintained What are the facts of the case which the hon. Member brought forward yesterday? He said that a. man called Davis was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour for distributing circulars which were held to be likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, or discipline of His Majesty's Forces. That is to say, that the man was convicted before a magistrate and sentenced to a month's hard labour for a breach of the law. In common, I think, with most railways, this company has a regulation, and at any rate this regulation has been in existence for over thirty years, and it provides that whenever any person in the employment of the company is charged with having committed a criminal charge he must, immediately on his being summoned or taken into custody, if such a course has not been previously taken, be suspended, and the suspension must be followed by formal dismissal on conviction. That is a regulation which has worked for a great many years, and I think will be regarded by everybody as a reasonable regulation. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted yesterday that if this had been a case of theft or drunkenness he would have considered it perfectly reasonable that dismissal should follow conviction. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman suggested that in this case it was hard that the man should receive what he considered to be double punishment, because he described it as a political offence. I cannot help thinking that, if double punishment is wrong, it is illogical to try and discriminate which class of offence should be visited with double punishment and which class should not. In any case, I cannot see how the company or any individual employer can take upon itself or himself to discriminate between various classes of crime and place themselves above the law in interpreting what are criminal offences and what are what the hon. Member would call political offences.

Mr. THOMAS

The Cabinet itself finds there is some distinction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), after six weeks' imprisonment, was made a Cabinet Minister. Clearly no notice was taken of that case. If it were an imprisonment for stealing something, it would be an entirely different matter, and the same distinction applies in this case.

Mr. MASON

It is quite possible that a Cabinet Minister has not the life of people under his charge, as on the railways. The Government as such might undertake to discriminate between these various classes of offences, but I do not think it is possible for a company or individual to take upon themselves to discriminate between one class of criminal act and another. I think the rule that a conviction for a criminal offence is to be followed by dismissal is one which everybody would hold to be just. Let me refer further to the facts. This man Davis, after he had served his month of hard labour, appealed for reinstatement and interviewed the general manager, but the application could not be agreed to. I think it must be admitted that it would be a very difficult position if a railway company were to be held bound to keep the positions for men holding peculiar or political opinions, and I think it could hardly be contended that the company should keep positions open for men who owing to their political opinions have got themselves put into gaol for periods of varying sentences. If a man is sentenced to two or three months' imprisonment it is obviously impossible for the company to hold open his position in the present conditions during the War. It is not a case so much of reinstatement. It is a case of having to certify that this man, who is subject by age to the condition of military service, is indispensable to the service of the country, and it is suggested that the company should do so, because he belonged to a grade of work which is of course indispensable to the carrying on of railways—namely, shunting. But this man has actually been away for three months—that is, a month in gaol and two months since—and it would be impossible for the railway company, in doing its duty to the Government and to the War Office, to certify that a man who had already been away for three months, and whose work therefore was being done, was indispensable to the working of the railway. I cannot imagine that it can be contended that the company could certify in such a case.

The general tenour of the hon. Member's criticism was that the man was being punished because he was refused this certificate and because, being a single man of thirty-five, he would, of course, automatically become liable for military service. The Great Western Railway Company has lost 20,000 of its employés, and the greater number of them before the Military Service Act came into operation. The men flocked from the service of the railways to the Colours, and there was great danger in the earlier parts of the War of the railways being placed in great difficulty owing to the number of men who had gone. Those men did not regard it as a punishment that they were not compelled to remain at home, and in many cases very large numbers of them are very disappointed that they come within categories of work in which they have to be certified as indispensable. Therefore, I cannot see that this man has any reason to say that the fact that he is not being certified as indispensable is a punishment. The fact is, of course, that a certain number of men in all services do not like military service and are not in favour of carrying out the Military Service Act in an energetic spirit. I do not believe that the numbers of those men in any class in the country are very large, and I can hardly believe that a case of this sort will meet with very general support among the fellows of the man himself. This man Davis certainly cannot be described as indispensable for the reasons I have given. I think that if the company certified, as is desired, that he was indispensable they would be acting dishonestly to the Government, and I think that the company most certainly has a duty to the country and to the Government to let men go to the greatest extent that they can be spared.

Regulations have been issued by the company stating under what conditions men will be spared, and, if I may be allowed, I should like to read one of those regulations which says: That, in releasing men for service with the Colours, the youngest unmarried man tit for foreign service should he first chosen from the same grade and station or depot from which a man can be spared. If no single man is available, a married man without children, or the married man with fewest children under fourteen years of age, should be selected. That is obviously a very proper regulation. Another regulation says: Subject to the efficient working of the railway being maintained, it must be understood that every effort must continue to be made to release as many men as possible for service with the Colours. This applies more particularly to the younger men. Each officer should, therefore, periodically review the list of men retained in his department. I think that shows that the whole question has been dealt with as fairly as is possible between the various men, and that there is really no cause to complain of the manner in which this difficult matter has been carried out. It is impossible in the case of this man to certify that be is indispensable, and I think the company would be acting in a dishonest way to the Government if it did anything of the sort. If, as I presume he will do, the man will see that it is his duty, not being indispensable, to serve his country as so many of his fellows have done very willingly, then I do not see why the railway company should not, on his return with a great number of his fellow-workers to civil life, favourably consider his position with that of many others, and endeavour, if possible, to make it smoother than it might otherwise have been. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) will consider that in the spirit in which it is made on behalf of the railway company.

Mr. THOMAS

May I have it clear what the offer means? Let me say at once I appreciate to the full the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matter. Do I gather from him the company could not now certify that a man was indispensable who, for over three months, has not been in the company's service, but that, in the event of his taking up his position, whatever it might be, after the War, the company then would be prepared to reinstate him as if he had never left the service? That is to say that they would wipe out the old offence, to put it in that way? Is that really what the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Mr. MASON

My hon. Friend knows, of course, that it is impossible for me absolutely to commit the board of directors of a railway company. But it seems to me that, although we cannot absolutely reinstate this man at the present time, and we cannot certify that he is indispensable, yet I suggest that if the man joins the forces and serves his country in a patriotic way it seems to me only reasonable that we, the railway company, should try and stretch a point when he comes back and not go into past grievances, but consider his case with that of all those who come back. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to try and suggest some conciliatory way of meeting the case. I hope he will -consider that I have done as much as I could in the circumstances to suggest what would be a reasonable solution of a rather difficult position.

Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON

I think after the very interesting discussion that we have had to-day there surely cannot be any question as to the wisdom of the decision of the Government in having given a second day, or part of a second day, for a Debate on the Adjournment Motion. The discussion raised by my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) on the question of food prices I hope will be received not only by the House, but by the Government as one of those questions which are of urgent and of pressing importance, and I sincerely hope that the Government are going to act with enterprise and courage and are going to deal with that very urgent and pressing problem in a much more effective way than they have attempted to deal with it for the last two years. But I rose more particularly to refer to the question of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), in a very interesting speech, enumerated several points of importance, and incidentally made some reference to the question of coal. I want to raise one or two very specific points in regard to that subject with special reference to the operations and the administrations of the Limitation of Coal Prices Act, 1915. I think it will be within the recollection of the House that the Act referred to was passed only as a result of a very strong agitation in the country demanding that the Government should do something to protect the British public against the power of large financial interests imposing their will upon the consumers of coal in this country. I remember attending the conference that was held in the precincts of this House Not only were the consumers of coal represented at that conference, but our municipalities, our utility companies, and our large gas companies, in conjunction with the public, all joined in making an appeal to the Government to take some action to prevent the upward tendency in the price of coal, and after some considerable delay the Act referred to was placed upon the Statute Book.

Some little time ago the Welsh coal-owners made a request to the Board of Trade that they should be allowed to raise the minimum price of coal, and, as is known to the House, the Board of Trade, in the judgment not only of the miners but of the public generally, very erroneously and unfortunately succumbed to the pressure and pleadings of the coalowners in Wales on that particular occasion. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain, which is an important industrial organisation, and I think I may say with due modesty, one of those organisations that has been in very close touch with the Board of Trade and the Government, and has rendered to the State, very special and signal services during the last two years—that important industrial organisation at once registered its protest against the action of the Board of Trade. I would like to point out that they not only protested against the concession that had been given to the coal-owners, but also, and I think justly, protested that they, as an important part of the mining industry of Great Britain, had not been consulted or conferred with in the least. I want to ask a very specific question of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade. That is this: When the coalowners of South Wales, put their case before the Board of Trade, and when the Board of Trade were discussing the representations that were made to them by the coalowners, was there any regard had, and, if so, to what extent, to the margin of profit enjoyed by the coalowners? I want to submit that it is not sufficient to be able to prove that the cost of production has gone up. I want to suggest that the question of the margin of profit is a fundamental and very important one indeed. It is a matter of common knowledge, a matter that has been the subject of much comment, editorial as well as on the public platform, that in South Wales in particular the margin of profit enjoyed not only in war time, but in peace time, by the coalowners is one of the striking features of the success of the mining industry in this country. Yet the coalowners come before the Board of Trade! I notice that in a letter sent to the Press by the representatives of the Coalowners Association there is this very significant statement made: Without this concession many of the collieries would have been compelled to close. In the "South Wales Daily News" of 12th August that letter is given. In the leading article the editor not only repudiates the suggestion contained in it, but very wisely and very pertinently calls for evidence in support of the statement made, namely, that some of these collieries were being worked at a loss. When the Board of Trade and the Government have had as much experience of dealing with coalowners as some Members of this House have had, I venture to say that they will not be so impressed by, or so convinced of, the reality of some of these statements when those concerned speak, as they do in this manifesto that was sent to the daily Press, that unless certain concessions are made certain collieries will have to close. Going back upwards of twenty years, I have before my mind the fact of having to negotiate with certain colliery companies, sometimes on the question of wages, sometimes on the question of the water supply, or of sanitation, and the old argument was trotted out, that if we pressed our claim it meant that the collieries would be closed. Needless to say, the collieries are still in operation, and are still a very successful and profitable enterprise.

I fear there is some ground and justification for the feeling, not only in this House, but outside, that large financial interests are able to exercise a power and influence that is not consonant with the interests of the larger body, that is the community as a whole. I think it is to the credit of the miners and their representatives, the executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, that they registered their protest against the action of the Board of Trade in that particular connection. In addition to the question which I have already quoted as to the margin of profits, and as to the evidence, if any, that the Board of Trade had submitted to them when the case was put on behalf of the South Wales coalowners, I want to ask this further question: Has a request been made by the coalowners in any other mining counties, and, if so, has any other mining county been granted the same concession that was granted to the South Whales coalowners? In the statement that was issued by the coalowners of South Wales they affirmed that unless the concession was granted certain collieries would close. Another point they put—and put with emphasis—was: because of the increase of the wages paid to the miners, added, of course, to the increase in the cost of stores, etc., it was imperative that they must have this concession, and be allowed to raise the standard basis of their coal prices. The point I want to make is this: I should have thought it was within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that wages are governed by prices. There are some of us who have believed that the reverse should be the case, and that prices should be governed by wages, but the fundamental fact is that the wages the coalowners in Wales were paying prior to the concession being granted by the Board of Trade were wages that we were entitled to on ascertained prices. I submit that the argument, at least in that particular, is not entitled to the consideration of the Board of Trade. I respectfully, and with all the emphasis of which I am capable, suggest to the Board of Trade that the coalowners did not make out a case, that the Board of Trade gave a concession to the coalowners without discrimination, and that the vast majority of them have been paying and are paying, not ordinary but abnormally high dividends, and to have given to them the power, which they have exercised, to raise the price of coal to the consumer, added to the very heavy burdens which have been imposed, especially upon the poorer people of this coun- try, is, consciously or unconsciously, to have done a very great injustice, especially to the poorest of our people.

There is one other point. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to tell us if the question of the margin of profit was subject to consideration by his Department. When I speak of the margin of profit I do not want the hon. Gentleman to confuse it with dividend. They are not necessarily the same thing. I have been reading with interest the recent balance sheets of some of our large mining companies. Previously I have had occasion especially to refer to the system which is almost universal with our large mining companies in particular at the present day—that is that their dividend only represents a part of their profits. For instance, I read in the balance sheet of a certain mining company that it is paying a 50 per cent, dividend. But that dividend of 50 per cent, does not represent more than two-thirds of the gross profits. The amount of money out of current profits which is transferred, not only to reserve funds and to depreciation accounts, but is handed aver for the purpose of extensions and developments is very substantial. I refer to this not only because of its bearing upon this particular question and the probability of further requests coming from the other mining areas, but because of its relationship to the question of the Excess Profits Tax. I hope that the Government are having due regard to the important aspect of that particular question. I should think the probabilities are that the Department have seen a copy of the report that was published on Monday, headed "The Price of Coal. Attitude of Derbyshire Miners." It was a meeting of the Derbyshire Miners' Council, at which the following resolution was passed: That should the Home Secretary give the coalowners in the Conciliation Board area similar permission to advance the price of coal beyond that allowed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Bill, as had been given to the South Wales colliery owners, the men's section of the Conciliation Board will immediately make application for a corresponding advance in wages. I am sure no one can be surprised, no matter what agreement there may be as between the mine owners and the workmen, if the Government are to give a further concession, that the miners must of necessity urge their claim for further increase of wages. On the other hand, I think the spirit expressed in that resolution that they do not desire or intend, unless that concession is granted, to press for further increase of wages, certainly ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Trade, and ought to be placed to the credit of the miners in that particular locality.

The only other word I wish to say is this: The question of the price of coal has been and is urgent, and I am with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), who, in referring to coal, said that in the coming months it would probably be more important from many points of view. I hope the Government are going to anticipate, and, with enterprise, initiative, and fairness, seek to secure to the poor people in particular that they should have coal at a reasonable price, and that they will have due regard not only to the margin of profit, but the cost of production as compared with the selling price of coal. I know some people imagine that the miners are getting unlimited wages in these days. It is true that a very large number of miners are getting substantially higher wages, but it is also true that there are large numbers of miners in this country who, notwithstanding the relative increase in wages, are finding it very difficult in these days to make ends meet. My point is this, and I think the Government have got to face it, that the selling price of coal bears no relationship to the cost of production in the vast majority of collieries in this country. I merely state the point. I know a village where the only industry is mining, where the workmen themselves who go down into the mine and produce the coal are being called upon in these days to pay 27s. 6d. a ton for coal. That is not in London, but in a mining village near my own Constituency. The last time I was there coal was 1s. 3d. a cwt. The power of a coalowner to impose his will upon the consuming public must not be allowed to go unchallenged. The Board of Trade must operate and administer the Act, not with a view to the minimum, but with a view to securing the maximum of results for the consumers of coal. Of course I know the Act is very imperfect and is a very weak measure, but I venture to say that the public have got the minimum and not the maximum, and that in many particulars the Board of Trade might have administered that Act with more vigour and with much less regard to the coalowners of this country. Therefore, I say that I hope in the coming winter the Board of Trade will act with that enterprise and initiative so as to secure, especially for the poorest of the poor, that they shall have at least coal at a reasonable market price.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I apologise for intervening now, but I think I have waited twelve or thirteen hours on this bench, and there is a limit to the powers of nature, and I will now answer to the best of my ability the various points that have been raised. First, I will say a word or two on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I gather he accepted the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), and therefore I do not think I need say much about that beyond this, that the position is, as the House will clearly understand from the two hon. Members who have spoken about it, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, that Shunter Davis was convicted for circulating leaflets contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, not the Military Service Act, and that in that action he was certainly not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in any way supported by his union. My hon. Friend will also admit that netiher was the prosecution in any sense on the initiative of the railway company. Neither the union nor the railway company were concerned. The railway company have a definite rule that every man who is convicted of an offence thereby is dismissed from the service of the company. Under that automatic rule Shunter Davis lost his employment. Therefore, if the Board of Trade have to intervene, they have not to ask the railway company to reverse a special penalty which they have placed upon their servant, but we have, on the other hand, to ask them, and to press them, to make a special exception in his favour. Further than that, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, mere reinstatement would not meet the case, because, under the Military Service Act, every man of military age who is not treated as indispensable is taken for service with the Colours, and it is pretty clear, I think, that as Shunter Davis has now been absent from his work for three months, and has been replaced, it would not be very easy for the company to give that certificate, and, in the absence of that certificate, whether he is reinstated now or is not reinstated, Mr. Davis would come to serve with the Colours. He is a single man, a point which has not been mentioned.

Mr. THOMAS

I did mention it.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I admit that there are circumstances of difficulty in the case. The offence, I entirely agree, is not exactly in the same position as an offence of stealing or dishonesty. It is not in the same category as that. I think the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is a very happy one, and if Davis can see his way to meet that suggestion and serve honourably, and thereby purge any offence he may have committed, and afterwards returns to the service of the company, I think all the essential features of the case will be most happily met. I rather gather my hon. Friend will seek to bring that about.

Mr. THOMAS

I will convey it.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. PRETYMAN

My hon. Friend raised a further point about the Belfast boats. I need not go over the whole ground which has been debated here about a very unfortunate strike, which covered a large area, and was not confined to this particular service of boats but extended to five lines of boats running across the Irish Channel, and which has been settled in every case except in this particular one. In this case the company has replaced the men who have either gone elsewhere or are doing other work. The complaint is that the Military Service Act has been utilised for that purpose.

Mr. THOMAS

Just as the hon. Gentleman has said that the Great Western Railway could not be expected to give a card of indispensability to a man who had been away for three months, I now want the hon. Gentleman to say that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company cannot give cards of indispensability for twenty men who have never been in their employment before.

Mr. PRETYMAN

One man is doing the work and the other is not. As far as the railway company is concerned the question of indispensability does not depend upon the individual, but upon whether the work could be done by somebody else. Davis has been replaced, and somebody is doing his work. Therefore Davis is not indispensable.

Mr. THOMAS

They gave the cards as a condition of doing the work, and Davis should be given a card to do the work.

Mr. PRETYMAN

The railway company absolutely deny that. It does not necessarily follow that men who are serving in the merchant fleet of this country are indispensable and cannot be taken.

Mr. THOMAS

The hon. Gentleman has got a photograph of the card.

Mr. PRETYMAN

It is a special card.

Mr. THOMAS

That is the only card.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Every servant of the railway company serving on their line in certain branches of work and particularly on vessels at sea receives necessarily one of these cards, and all these men have joined and are doing the work and necessarily and automatically they receive one of these cards. But that it not the charge. The charge is that this card has been given beforehand as an inducement to these men to go and serve, but the railway company deny that. They must get one of these cards when they are serving. These boats have to be run, and somebody must run them. It is alleged that these men who were engaged had no previous experience at sea at all, and that the ships are therefore being run under dangerous conditions and contrary to the regulations of the Board of Trade with regard to safety, which it is alleged are not being complied with. That is a matter which certainly will be looked into, and that is all I can really say upon that point. Before I come to the main subject of the Debate I should like to answer the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Richardson) in regard to the question of coal prices. He raised a question which has been very much discussed on the extra 2s. 6d. allowed to the South Wales coalowners on inland coal to meet the increased working cost. The reason that 2s. 6d. was given was because definite proof was forthcoming to the Board of Trade that since the fixing of the standard above which the Act allows an increase of 4s. there has been an increase of cost of at least 2s. 6d. A very much larger claim was put forward, but the Board of Trade did not consider the larger claim had been definitely proved. Of that 2s. 6d., 1s. 10½d. per ton was for increased wages, and the other items amounted to 7£d.

It arises in this way. By far the larger proportion of coal in South Wales is export coal which does not come under the Limitation of Prices of Coal Act, and under these circumstances the average price of coal upon which the rate of wages is based has risen very largely. There have been three changes of wages since the Limitation of Prices Act was passed. There has been an addition of 12½ per cent., a reduction of 5 per cent., and a further increase of 15 per cent., bringing the total rise up to 22½ per cent. The effect of that rise was equally felt by the collieries which are mainly engaged in export coal trade, and who obtained the advantage of high prices which produce the higher wages, and also by the other coalowners who are mainly engaged in inland coal trade, but who receive no advantage whatever from the rise in price of export coal.

Mr. RICHARDSON

How many collieries does that affects?

Mr. PRETYMAN

My hon. Friend has asked rue a very pertinent question. Here we get at the root evil of fixing prices, and it is very instructive that this point should be brought forward when it is being suggested that heroic measures are always possible, and as long as they are heroic it is said they are bound to succeed. That is the spirit which has rather pervaded this Debate. It is thought that as long as the Government do something bold and heroic everything is sure to be well. In this particular case we have taken certain steps. I do not say that they are heroic, but it is a step in the direction of fixing prices. We can only fix a maximum price. I think hon. Members will agree that we cannot go on fixing prices for every producer and say, "Your profits and costs are so much, and therefore you shall sell at this price, and your neighbours profits and conditions are so-and-so, and therefore you shall sell at a rather higher or a lower price." You can only fix the maximum price. If the prices are left alone everybody is in competition, and each man can take advantage of his own particular circumstances and opportunities, and by that competition and opportunities the price is regulated without any definite fixing at all. The maximum price has been fixed, not with reference to the majority or in reference to one or two special cases, and it is not suggested that we have fixed this maximum price, because there was one or two pits which were nearly worked out, and which could not make a profit. I do say that where there is any considerable fraction, or any single fraction at all, you have to fix your maximum, so as not to drive particular pits out of work altogether, and thus reduce the production of coal. You fix your maximum, not on the average or on the majority, but on the lowest fraction which you can adopt. The consequence is that your maximum, at once becomes a minimum. It is a necessary evil of fixing prices that you fix your maximum in reference to the worst circumstances of producing, and the moment you fix it there it is a minimum. Then you get into that vicious circle which my hon. Friend described. You have wages raised because of the high price of export coal, and that rise in wages is imposed equally upon the people who are producing inland coal. That involves a demand, which you are unable to resist, to raise the price of inland coal, and so you go round the vicious circle. It is unfortunate, but in this particular case it was unanswerable.

My hon. Friend asked if the question was considered merely on the basis of dividends paid. It was most certainly considered; and it was not only considered on a basis of dividends, but also on a basis of profits. I quite agree that dividends by no means reflect the profits. There may be profits devoted to purposes such as those he described. He asked another very important question: "Have we had any similar demands for authority to raise prices from other colliery districts?" I may say that we have had none except from the Forest of Dean, which has already been mentioned in this House. That is a small matter. It is contiguous to South Wales, and it has not yet been decided. That is the only other application which we have had, and I sincerely trust that it may not be necessary to take any further steps in this direction. I have pointed out the evil of it, and I think it is only fair that I should also point out that there is some considerable advantage derived from it; otherwise, we should not have been justified in passing it. For instance, in this particular month of August certain cases have been dealt with. I do not think it would be right of me to give the actual name of the consumer, but a large public utility company in a large town in the North raised a complaint as to a quantity of 120,000 tons spread over twelve months, and the Board of Trade intervened and obtained a reduction of 9d. per ton, representing £4,500 per annum. In another case of a munition firm there were 800 tons per week and a reduction of 1s. 7d. per ton was obtained, representing £3,000 per annum. In the case of a railway company involving 50,000 tons spread over twelve months a reduction of 9d. per ton was obtained, representing £2,000. In the case of a local authority with 500 tons spread over twelve months a reduction of Is. 2d. per ton was obtained, and in the case of another local authority in Wales with 350 tons, a reduction of 1s. 9d. per ton was obtained. In the case of certain water companies reductions of 2s. 3d. and 2s. per ton have been obtained. I am glad to be able to tell the House that some reductions have been obtained.

The difficulty is not only, or even chiefly, with coalowners. If facts can be clearly brought home to coalowners there is not any great difficulty in obtaining the reduction which is prescribed by the Act. The difficulty is to get the consumer concerned to come forward. There are a great many consumers whom, I am afraid, are rather more keen on getting the coal they want for themselves than of maintaining the general level of supply in the country, and they are very apt to go to the coalowner and say, "I want this coal. If you will only give it me, I will say nothing about it. I will give you an extra 6d. or Is. per ton." If consumers, instead of doing that, will come and ask the Board of Trade to see that they get their coal at the proper price, I undertake to administer the Act as firmly and as strongly as we can possibly do it, and in the spirit in which it was passed by this House. We have, as my hon. Friend knows, got in every coal area district committees who are working this Act. The whole question is obviously a difficult one. The moment you fix the price of any commodity, you come across the difficulty of providing the supplies required. It at once gives rise to the question of Government regulation and Government assistance in order to obtain the supply required by some body who is precluded from offering a higher price than his neighbour is prepared to give. We are dealing with that difficult matter through these district committees, and on the whole I think that considerable benefit has been derived. I do not think that I should be overstating the case if I said that if it had not been for this Act the price of coal might have been considerably higher than it is now, but it is going further than is reason able to expect to fulfil all the hopes and aspirations of hon. Members who assisted to pass it.

I will now answer as well as I can the main question which has been raised in this Debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) who opened this Debate, and by several hon. Members below the Gangway. That is, the question of food prices. May I say, first of all, that you cannot consider such a large question as this isolated from the general conduct of the War. It is only part of the whole of the great problem of war in which we are engaged, and, important as it is, it is not of the first importance, though it may be second. The first thing, obviously, is to win the War as quickly as possible. I will take the question of ships to illustrate my point. You have conflicting calls upon a ship. It is required for the direct purpose of winning the War by carrying troops or munitions. It is also very desirable that ship should be utilised for carrying food to this country.

Mr. HOUSTON

And also to meet the demands of the Allies.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I do not pretend to be covering the whole, ground, but what I have stated is sufficient illustration. There is that conflict, and therefore I am justified in saying that the question of food supplies cannot be regarded as an isolated problem. It is part of the general problem of winning the War. It has not been dealt with on that basis in this Debate, and I rather complain of it. It is so very easy, comparatively, to criticise and to suggest this or that remedy if you isolate your problem and produce one particular difficulty, and say, "This can be dealt with." Hon. Gentlemen who make that sort of proposal have, perhaps, never really considered what the effect of that action is going to be in other directions. I think my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Ellis Griffith) suggested that we should take the Australian wheat. It never probably occurred to him—it is perfectly simple—that it takes three times as long to bring wheat from Australia than it does from America, and, as the real problem is one of tonnage and shipping, would it really be wise policy to bring one cargo from Australia when you could be bringing three cargoes from America for the sake of getting your wheat a few shillings cheaper? That brings me to the point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. He said that the argument had been used here, in defence of these high prices, that they tended to reduce consumption—that because the price was high less quantities of the article were consumed, and that was desirable in war-time.

I never heard that argument used on this Bench, and I do not believe that the argument has ever been used by any responsible Minister in this House. I should most certainly not use it myself, and I should say that it is a direct reversal of the fact. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman making such a suggestion at all. I do not think he can really have studied the position. There is no doubt an advantage in high prices, but I do not say that it is a corresponding advantage. High prices are a great evil which we desire to check in every possible way, but there is no evil without some compensating benefit, and the benefit of high prices is that while they decrease consumption, they tend to increase production. Take shipping, for instance; if you have large profits in the shipping trade there follows an increase of shipbuilding and a putting of more ships on the sea, with the result that we get cheaper food and more food. It is a question not so much of price as of quantity. Quantity governs price. If you have more of any particular article than you desire to consume, that article will be cheap. Correspondingly, a scarcity of any particular article increases its price. All our efforts should be directed, as far as possible, to increase the supply, but to say that a rise of price is an advantage because it reduces consumption is a direct reversal of the whole facts of the case.

It is very difficult from this side of the House to debate this question, for this reason: that the whole effort of the Government is directed to trying to get the price down. We are in daily negotiation with the different interests concerned, with different groups of shipowners, different groups of producers, and all the different elements which are engaged over this enormous area. If, in answer to the kind of criticism which has been made here in the House, I got up and entered into the defence of high prices, by giving all the various reasons which I could discover why the price of this or that article is high, that would be very injurious to our policy. I can- not come here and defend a state of things which I am trying by every possible means in my power to alter. If I advance arguments in defence of high prices, that will be brought up against me when I am trying to negotiate with private owners to get prices down. Therefore, I would prefer not to make a strong case when prices are high, or to state the kind of means the Board of Trade possess to try to keep prices down. I hope the House will accept that. But I will say this, that prices with which we are dealing are not prices in Great Britain; they are not prices in the British Empire; they are world prices, and before this War began the whole trade of the world was becoming very largely cosmopolitan. Communications are now so easy, especially by telegraph, information is so easily obtained from any part of the world, that the price of any particular commodity is a world price. The main reason why prices are so high throughout the world is owing to the War, which is a world war. If two small nations, or even two great nations, alone were concerned in the war at this time, the effect of that war would be comparatively small upon the world's prices, which cover the whole area of the globe. But the whole world is at war.

May I take one fact alone. It is calculated that the consumption of food by a soldier, whether at the front or not—for every man serving the Crown as a soldier—is about half as much again as it would be in normal civilian life. That is the case with us, and probably it is still more accentuated in the case of other nations. In France, I believe, the proportion would be still higher, because the normal scale of living is not quite so high in that country as it is here; and if you take Italy and Russia, the fact would be found to be even more accentuated. If you calculate the untold millions of men in all the countries engaged in this great War who are now serving under their respective flags, you will find that the consumption of food amongst them is anything from half as much again to twice as much as in normal civilian life. That enormous increase in consumption throughout the world is quite enough to account for a considerable rise in price. That element is entirely beyond Government control, unless you would suggest that the Government should give less food to the troops who are fighting, a suggestion which I do not think any Member in this House would make. At the same time, it must be remembered that the matter is accentuated in every direction by the fact that supplies are simultaneously decreased by the withdrawal of labour from the land, so that every man who goes to serve under the Colours eats more and produces less. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellis Griffith) challenged me to give reasons why prices are so high He did so in what I think was rather an aggressive manner, and he asked why the Government cannot control prices, and if they cannot control prices, why do not they say so; whereas if they can control prices, why do not they do so? You cannot answer a question of that sort in that way. I say that the main factor in the rise is that while you increase consumption on the one hand you reduce production on the other, and that is a matter beyond the control of the Government.

I do not deny that there are minor directions in which something could be done, and every attempt is being made to do that. It would obviously not assist us if I went in detail into the negotiations which are being carried on. The question whether any change in policy can be adopted is the question which is being considered by the Committee which has been appointed and which is presided over by my predecessor at the Board of Trade. I do not want the House to think for a moment that we are waiting for the Report from the Committee, and that we are doing nothing meantime. Our activities are being carried on in the direction of negotiation and in the direction in which we can make safe regulations. Take, for instance, the Regulations which we issued two or three days ago for the inspection of stocks. They are intended to be utilised to the full, and every advantage is to be taken of them. We have now full power to obtain full information and to ascertain the whole of the stocks of particular articles which are held in this country, and we can see whether they are being held in a manner contrary to the national interest. That covers not only the War now, but also the possibility of stocks being accumulated in this country awaiting the end of the War, when they could be sold at an advantageous price, and even be exported to our enemies. These Regulations would give us great facilities for dealing with that subject. The point which has been most discussed in relation to prices is the question of shipping and freights. Perhaps I may deal with that, in the first instance, in relation to the point raised as to the price of wheat by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Griffith). It is an interesting thing to remember that 5s. a quarter on the freight of wheat from the United States or Canada here represents a halfpenny on a 4 lb loaf. That is just what the figures come to.

Mr. HOUSTON

I think the hon. Gentleman is rather overstating the matter.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think not. That is just about the figure. In regard to the question of freights, the Government are accused of doing nothing, but, as a matter of fact, the Government have taken virtual control of the whole of the shipping trade of this country. That fact has not been mentioned in Debate except by the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division (Mr. Houston). None of the critics of the Government mentioned the fact that the Government have already taken control of the whole of the shipping of the country and are utilising it partly in the national interest directly for the work of the War, and partly so as to conserve over the widest field the national interests of the country, both during the War and after the War too. There, again, you enter a wider area than that of the mere maintenance of the food supply of the country. In this connection the point was raised of the three ships now being built for neutrals in this country. Is it not a matter of great importance that after the War we should maintain our pre-eminence in shipbuilding, not only in respect of ships for this country, but also for the supply of ships to other countries? Is not our trade in building and selling ships in this country a matter of great importance?

Mr. HOUSTON

It is an export trade.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Yes. I do not say that it is equally important with the supply of food to the people of this country, but you cannot ignore it. The Government cannot afford to ignore it. When we are asked whether we will allow a certain number of ships to be built for neutrals we cannot ignore that consideration, and the question is, Can you, having regard to the requirements of the food supply of this country, afford in this particular case, and in one or two other cases, to ignore that which is to retain some of your export trade in shipping? You cannot ignore it. The Government have exercised their control by directing a very large amount of tonnage to the purpose of carrying wheat to this country. The effect of that has been to reduce freights. The freights which were about 17s. 6d. per quarter at the beginning of this year were brought down in the week of 1st July for a very short time. I do not make any claim that it was long enough to count. In the answer that I gave yesterday I did not base the figure of 3s. on the figure for the 1st July. The figure was actually brought down to 7s. For a considerable period it was down to 9s. Since then there has been a rise. The figures are as follows: On 1st July it was 7s.; 8th July, 8s. 5d.; 15th July, 8s. 9d.; 22nd July, 11s. 8d.; 29th July, 10s. 11d.; and on 19th August, which is the last figure available, it was 12s. 2½d. So that it has gone up from 7s. or 8s. to 12s. That rise of 5s. represents a ½d. on a 4 lb. loaf. If you take what is really more important, namely, the whole area of the rise in prices, and take the pre-war figures, you find that the pre-war figure was about 2s. 6d., and that it is now roughly 12s. 6d. Therefore you get 10s., and on a 4 lb. loaf you get your 1d. It is, therefore, quite easy for the House to see at once, if at the outbreak of war the 4 lb. loaf was 5½d. and it is now 9d., that it is perfectly clear that the rise in freights represents Id. out of the rise of 3½d.

It is quite possible that these figures may show that the question of freights bulks rather less in the food prices than is supposed. The kind of language used by several hon. Gentlemen, including no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), was to the effect that the main factor in this rise was freights. Another figure which is worth while remembering—it is so obvious, but people do not always have it in their minds—is that £5 a ton on freight represents a ½d. in the £. Therefore, if things are consumed at so much per pound, and you look at the freight market, you know that if there has been a rise of £5 in the price of freights it involves a rise in the price of the commodity of ½d. a pound. That shows that freights, high as they are, do not form the largest part of the rise. This confirms the argument I have ventured to put before the House, that the main portion of the rise is due to the decreased production and the increased consumption which are directly caused by the War. I may mention another fact to show that the Board of Trade is doing something. A small Regulation has been made which has proved of great value in one direction. There are ships now going to neutral countries with coal. We make it a condition that ships going to neutral countries with coal are not allowed to take that coal to a neutral country unless they undertake to return here with a freight. That has had some considerable effect. That is the kind of direction in which we are working. I have given three or four instances of what we are doing— the appointment of these Committees, the direction of ships into the wheat trade, the Regulation as to ships which take coal being compelled to bring back food supplies or other necessaries that we require, and the Eegulation which enables us to examine all the stocks of the country and to take immediate measures if there is any evidence whatever of cornering or holding up. I am afraid I cannot deal with the whole of the ground which has been covered in this Debate; there are other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak; therefore I think I have occupied quite enough of the time of the House.

Mr. HOUSTON

Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the Portuguese steamers?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Yes. The hon. Member asked me a particular question about the 14s. 3d. That is the rate paid to the Portuguese Government. The managers of these ships—Furness, Withy and Company—will run these ships and pay all expenses, and any profits left over after the expenses are paid will be handed to the Government. That is the position.

Mr. HOUSTON

The hon. Gentleman cannot be right.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think I am right. That is the information given to me.

Mr. HOUSTON

Surely the Portuguese Government out of the sum received will pay the cost of the crews' wages, and provisioning and insurance?

Mr. PRETYMAN

That price has been obtained by bargaining.

Mr. HOUSTON

It is a very bad bargain.

Mr. PRETYMAN

The hon. Member may think it is a bad bargain, but that is the bargain which has been made. It is very valuable indeed to us to get the services of these additional ships.

Mr. HOUSTON

Quite so.

Mr. PRETYMAN

When we want something very badly we very often have to pay for it. I am afraid in war time it is vain to seek for the same equality which we could obtain in peace time. One of the main facts of war is the unevenness with which the conditions of war affect different people and different interests. Take it in the principal factor. Two men go to the front, equally brave and in every way equal to each other. One man is killed or maimed for life and the other goes home loaded with honour. Take the case of persons engaged in industry, both equally honourable and both in every way on a parity. One man's trade, equally legitimate with the other, happens to be adversely affected by the War. His business is not required in war time. His income goes. There are many individuals engaged in commerce whose whole business has been extinguished at a moment's notice, without warning of any kind, upon the outbreak of the War. Others, no more worthy or unworthy, happen to be engaged in an equally legitimate business in producing some article which is badly required in war time. Their incomes are doubled or trebled. That is inevitable. The same is found in different classes of labour.

In this House we are always striving to see that everyone shall get the same chances, the same opportunities and the same conditions of living, as his neighbour in the same sphere of life. I dare say if we were at war for ten years we might succeed in arriving at it, but I hope we shall not find ourselves in that position. All we can do is to deal with these conditions as they arise, but we must do what we can to temper the hardships which fall upon those who are suffering and do what we can to see that those profits which are made are as far as possible deducted by the State and do not merely go into the pockets of the individual. I quite agree on principle with what my right hon. Friend said, that the State is sharing in the crime by taking part of the profits in the form of taxation. From one point of view I agree, but is it not better to do that than to stop trades and industries which are essential for the carrying on of the War? If we could find a better way, I would much sooner see the prices down and the profits not made than that a profits tax should be imposed. But if we cannot get the prices down and the profits are made, as a pis alter, because it is the only alternative left to us, we say those profits shall not all go into the pockets of the individual—the community, at any rate, shall benefit by them—and the State takes, in the first place, 60 per cent., in the second place 25 per cent, of the remaining 40 per cent., which is another 10 per cent.—that is 70 per cent.—and then in cases where Super-tax is paid another 8s. 6d. on the 40 per cent., which is another 7 per cent. That makes 77 per cent, in Super-tax cases, leaving 23 per cent, to the man who makes the profit. It is not very far from the truth to say that in an average case of large companies, where the profits go to wealthy people, something like 75 per cent, of extra profit is therefore taken for the State. I do not put that forward as a justification for high prices for a moment, but under the circumstances it is a desirable thing to do, although we very much wish that prices would go down and that profits were not made. My right hon. Friend made a definite suggestion and asked, "Why does not the Government provide every farmer with a steam plough?"

Mr. GRIFFITH

Not every farmer. I said one steam plough was better than all the perorations.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I will leave my hon. Friend to reply to that. I assure the House that the Board of Trade is as alive as any hon. Member who has spoken to the evils of high prices and the vicious circle which they involve in the matter of wages and labour disputes, and the great hardships which they cause to certain individuals, and no effort is being spared to deal with the evil, and we welcome this Debate as giving us an opportunity of answering criticism.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland)

I rise because my right hon. Friend (Mr. Griffith) asked me some definite questions. I hope I shall be able to a small extent to relieve certain anxieties with regard to our condition as to food supplies. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is always so nice to be told just how one's job ought to be done. He made two quite definite suggestions as to how we ought to give orders in order to do our job properly. One was that we should give orders that calves should not be slaughtered. We have done it. Over a year ago we passed legislation which enabled us to deal with this question, and we have since issued a regular series of Maintenance of Live Stock Orders which, without going into details, have the effect of checking the slaughter of calves. It is a very small matter and I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend has not heard about it. We do not claim that it has done very much. We have mainly acted by. those other means which he rather deprecated—advice, circulars, appeals to farmers and trying to help them where we could in regard to their labour, their feeding-stuffs and railway difficulties, and so on, and the result is that the figures of the stocks existing in England and Wales that we take every year for the beginning of June show that the stock of horned animals in this country is a record for the whole history of the War up to date. There has never been more. There has been an appreciable increase this year over and above any other year we have ever had. I wonder how much any German Minister connected with agriculture would give to be able to say that. I think it is rather a tribute to the farming community, but possibly also to the many methods of encouragement that the Board of Agriculture has been able to undertake.

The second suggestion was that we should give a command that more land should be placed under the plough. That again is not quite so easy. I have a great hope that agriculture will develop in the direction suggested. I believe that to put a very great deal of land under the plough might decrease the amount of stock which it feeds, although it increases clearly the amount of crop that is produced. I believe we need something like a revolution in agriculture in that direction. But I am afraid if we simply gave orders now that it was to be done the ordinary farmer would have some very pertinent questions to ask us. He would say, "Will you please give me implements?" That is the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the steam plough. Although we cannot provide a steam plough to every farmer who wants it, we have for months been negotiating and arranging with the Ministry of Munitions for firms of agricultural implement makers to be liberated, as the supplies of certain classes of shells they were making became sufficient, for the manufacture of agricultural implements. The farmer would say, "If you want more corn area, give me implements and give me sheds in which to house them; give me horses and give me stables in which to house them, give me labour and give me money to pay it, and give me houses in which to house the extra labour which I should require on my farm if I turned it into an arable farm from a grass farm." He would also say one or two practical things like, "Give me a guarantee that there will not be any wire worm in the land which I plough up when I attempt to take up the first grain crop from it."

These things, I think, must be left to be worked out gradually after full consideration in time of peace. We cannot simply by giving an order secure that the things shall be done in time of war, particularly with difficulties as to labour and other things so great as they are now. However, I think the result shows that less drastic methods, less mandatory methods have had a reasonable success. The area under corn crops in England and Wales, so far as we can estimate it at the present time this year, although it shows a moderate decline from the area under grain crops last year, still shows an appreciable increase over the pre-war year 1914, and when you consider the real difficulties the farmers have had to contend with, I do not think that is a bad result. Cattle represent an absolute record, and the grain area represents an increase on the pre-war figures. I think that, for an industry which at the beginning of the War had less than 1,000,000 men engaged in it, including all the farmers, and which has been reduced by certainly 300,000 men since then, is not a bad record, and it is not a bad contribution that agriculture is making to the safety of the country. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I will do my best during the Recess to study whether more can be done in the direction he indicates. If I may make a suggestion, it is this, that if he would find out what we are doing, his suggestions in future would be even more valuable than they are.