Sitting of 19 July 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barnoldswick Urban District Council Water Bill,
Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation Transfer) Bill,
Southend Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Wolverhampton Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Plymouth Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent and Prince of Wales' Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ashington Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Derbyshire, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the principal statutory provisions affecting payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and (2) the amount of such payments for the financial year 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
Copy presented of Statement exhibiting the moral and material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1913–14. Fiftieth number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commisioners during the quarter ender 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rule constituting Tramore an additional Centre of Examination in 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (DISPENSING POWERS).
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of the Cases in which they have exercised their powers under Section 78 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]
NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, ETC.
Supplementary Estimate presented of the sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 297.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

County borough of Burnley;

Borough of Cheltenham

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Minister of Munitions with respect to the general ordering of the Work in a controlled Establishment [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 300.]
WAR CHARGES.
Return ordered, "showing (1) the estimated amount of War Charges incurred up to the 31st day of March, 1915; (2) how these charges have been met; and (3) how the money borrowed has been raised."— [Mr. Molteno.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Mackintosh Macleod, esquire, for the Burgh of Glasgow (Central Division).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    COTTON.

      IMPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM.
      Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Netherlands Overseas Trust deals with all cotton imported, and not only with cotton re-exported from the United Kingdom?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer is in the affirmative.

      CARGOES IN PRIZE COURTS.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade how many cargoes
      1146
      of cotton have been brought into British ports under the Order in Council of 11th March last; and in how many cases has payment been made in respect of the cargo?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The number of vessels, with cargoes wholly or partly composed of cotton, which have, since the 11th March, 1915, been diverted to United Kingdom ports is forty-nine, and to other British ports eleven. Payments, amounting in all to nearly £700,000, have been made in respect of twenty-five shipments purchased in pursuance of an arrangement made with representatives of the American cotton shippers.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Attorney-General whether any cases of cargoes of cotton diverted into British ports under the Order in Council of 11th March last have been brought before the Prize Court; and with what result?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): No cases of cargoes of cotton diverted into British ports under the Order in Council of 11th March last have as yet been adjudicated upon by the Prize Court. Writs have been issued in some cases.

    ENEMY TRADE IN CHINA.
    Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to inform the House whether Japan has agreed to prohibit enemy trading in China; and will he say how many of the Allies are taking action similar, in this respect, to that of Great Britain?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: With a view to co-operating with His Majesty's Government the Japanese Government have issued Orders to their shipping lines prohibiting the carriage of merchandise handled by or destined for enemy subjects in China as from the 26th instant, the date on which the British Proclamation of the 25th June comes into force. This action on the part of the Japanese Government is much appreciated by His Majesty's Government. As regards the second part of the question, both France and Russia some time ago adopted measures which have the effect of prohibiting all trading with enemy subjects in China. I am, however, unaware as to what prohibitions, if any, have been imposed by the remaining Allied Powers.

    RUSSIA AND GREAT BRITAIN (DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the circular recently issued by the Odessa branch of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce calling attention to the importance of the development of trade between Russia and Great Britain; and, if so, whether his Department is co-operating with the said chamber in respect of the objects set out in the said circular?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I have seen the circular to which my hon. Friend refers. The Board of Trade are prepared, as they have always been to co-operate so far as practicable with any responsible organisation formed for the development of Anglo-Russian commercial relations.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the London County Council or other public bodies have made any provision for acquiring stocks of household coal for sale during the winter to traders engaged in supplying small consumers; and whether he can state particulars of any action taken to carry out the recommendation contained in paragraph 38 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Retail Coal Prices?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The recommendation of the Retail Coal Prices Committee with regard to the accumulation of a public stock of coal in London was brought to the notice of the London County Council, but they did not consider the proposal a practicable one. Coal has recently been coming in to London in considerable quantities, and merchants' stocks of household coal at the end of June were somewhat larger than a year ago.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Has the recommendation been carried out by any local body with regard to the coming winter?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There are great difficulties with regard to that.

    VOLUNTEER CORPS (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what are the Regulations regarding the admission of Eurasians
    1148
    or East Indians (now called Anglo-Indians) into Indian Volunteer Corps; and whether such persons, when Christians, are eligible in cases in which Hindus and Mahomedans are ineligible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Under the Regulations only Europeans, or persons of European descent, or naturalised British subjects, are eligible for admission to Indian Volunteer Corps, and their enrolment rests with the officer commanding the corps. There is no religious qualification or disqualification.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether action will be taken by the Government of India on the memorials received from chambers of commerce and European associations in time to allow the Indian empire to benefit by the patriotic feeling the War has elicited in actual and potential British Volunteers in India, who are anxious that the Force should be given a definite place in the Indian military organisation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 5th inst. to my hon. Friend the Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex. The Government of India have the memorial of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce suggesting the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under their consideration.

    FOOTBALL MATCHES.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that arrangements are now being made for football matches during the forthcoming season; and whether he is prepared to give timely intimation of the views of the Government to those who arrange such matters, with the view of preventing professional football matches and their detrimental consequences under present circumstances?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Although the measures which were taken last year did not realise all that was hoped, in the main the results obtained were satisfactory, and I should like it to be known that the Government look with confidence to those responsible in this matter to restrict the programme of football matches in accordance with the general feeling of the public.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will it not be possible to convey to those responsible an intimation of the feeling of the Government?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman will remember that last year I had repeated conferences with the Football Association; but if the hon. Member so desires, I will undertake to do so.

    SINGAPORE RIOT.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official or other information to the effect that the mutiny at Singapore in February when forty person were murdered was the outcome of German intrigue; if he is aware that white opinion in the Colony holds the Government of Singapore to be largely responsible for the seriousness of the outbreak through neglect of warnings received before the event and irresolution in dealing with it; that no confidence is felt in the Commission of three local officials appointed by the military authority in the Colony to inquire into the circumstances; and whether, in view of the attempts that have been made to conceal the gravity of the crisis that occurred and of the suspicions locally entertained as to the loyalty of one or more persons holding authority in the Colony, ho will appoint a Commission to go out from England with full powers from the Imperial Government to investigate and report upon the whole case.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The information which I have received does not indicate that German intrigue was responsible for the riot, but this question cannot be completely answered until the report of the Court of Inquiry is received. I have no information as to the second or third parts of the question, but I may mention that the Commission now consist of

    Brigadier-General F. A. Hoghton (President).

    Lieutenant - Colonel J. D. Ferguson, R.A.M.C.

    Captain A. R. Chancellor, Inspector-General of Police.

    I am not aware that the loyalty of any persons holding authority in the Colony has been suspected. Until the report of the Court of Inquiry has been received and considered, it does not appear necessary to consider the possibility of a further inquiry.

    GERMAN MISSIONARIES (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked (1) whether Father Stosch, principal of the German Lutheran mission at Ranchi and member of the local district board, has recently been invited to serve for a further term of three years upon that body; whether 110 German, of whom fifty are male missionaries, are still at large in the Chota Nagpur district, and 442 alien missionaries throughout India, of whom most are Germans; if so, why such lenient treatment has been given to alien enemies in the present crisis; and (2) what action has been taken upon the memorial presented by the European Association to the Government of India regarding the liberty accorded to German firms, missionaries, and others in India, asking whether German firms in liquidation are to be allowed to recommence trading after the War, complaining of the licence given to German missionaries, representing that Germans who have become naturalised British subjects have unusual opportunities of making mischief and should be segregated and interned, and that the conditions of internment should be made more stringent?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Father Stosch has not been reappointed to the local district board. I ought perhaps to say that he received in the ordinary course a form asking whether he would be willing to accept the appointment, and he replied in the affirmative, but it was not thought desirable to reappoint him. On the general question of the treatment of alien enemies in India I have just received a telegraphic report from the Government of India, who inform me that they consider that the time has come to take greater precautions against abuse of the leniency they have hitherto shown. They will probably proceed on the same lines as are now followed in this country.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Home Secretary how many alien enemies and how many persons of hostile origin or association have been interned or repatriated during the past week; and how many alien enemies now remain unin-terned in the United Kingdom?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): I have given the hon. Member figures on

    1151
    this matter on the 5th and on the 12th. I do not think I should be justified in collecting the figures afresh every week. The frequent preparation of statistics takes up time which ought to be available for carrying out the policy of internment and repatriation.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to make a statement on the subject before the House adjourns?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, with pleasure.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many aliens are still at large in prohibited areas?
    Sir J. SIMON: I presume the hon. Member is referring to alien enemies. I stated the numbers as they stood on the 10th June. Until the measures now being pressed forward for the internment or repatriation of alien enemies are complete, I do not think I should be justified in taking up the time of the police by asking for a fresh count. I will get the figures before the House rises.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the undertaking of the late Government, that the Press Censorship would not be used to prevent criticism of the Government or of its policy, holds good under the present administration and throughout the United Kingdom; and, if so, how he accounts for the fact that such criticism is prevented throughout the United Kingdom, except London, where it is allowed in newspapers circulating throughout the United Kingdom?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Press Bureau does not discriminate between London newspapers and newspapers in other parts of the country.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask how it is that the papers themselves are allowed to discriminate so pointedly?
    Sir J. SIMON: It may be that papers in one part of the country think a matter of more interest than those in another part do.

    WEYBRIDGE RESIDENT.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a man of hostile origin or association, called Reuter, resides at Normannia, Byfleet Road, Weybridge, overlooking the aerodrome at Brooklands; and that he and his wife openly express sympathy with the enemy and are believed to carry on an active correspondence by post with the Continent; and if he will say what course he intends to pursue as regards the internment or otherwise of these people?
    Sir J. SIMON: The person named, though of German extraction, is a native of Finland and possessed Russian nationality when he obtained British naturalisation in 1904. I am not aware of the matters alleged in the second part of the question and I can obtain no confirmation of them. If the hon. Member will give me the information on which his question is based, I will make further inquiry.

    ALIEN RIOTS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether the Government have come to any agreement with the London and local authorities in connection with paying compensation to British tradespeople whose property was destroyed during the alien riots in last May?
    Sir J. SIMON: Compensation for damage by riot is payable, under the Riot (Damages) Act, by the local police authority. Any claims made are now being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to grant separation allowances to the wives of chief warrant officers, in view of the fact that these wives belong to the same class as warrant officers' wives who have received the concession?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): These officers hold commissions and rank with second lieutenants in the Army. Separation allowance is not an allowance

    1153
    applicable to commissioned officers, and I cannot hold out hope of any further extension of the concession.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the case of the widow and six children (four totally dependent) of the late Driver J. Woolley, 91,907, Royal Field Artillery, whose death was reported on the 22nd of February last, and whose widow has been informed that as the accident which led to her husband's death was not sustained in the performance of military duty she is not eligible for a pension from Army funds; whether he is aware that it has been claimed that the deceased soldier met his death when crossing a bridge with his gun; whether he is aware that Mrs. Woolley has been informed that the separation allowance and allotment of pay will continue to be paid temporarily; and whether he will consider the possibility of granting his widow a permanent allowance?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that it has been claimed that this man met his death when crossing a bridge with his gun. The facts as officially reported show clearly that he was not on duty at the time of his death and was accidentally drowned. Under these circumstances his widow is not entitled to a pension from Army funds.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it proposed to continue the allowance?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware, but if my hon. Friend will put down another question to the Financial Secretary no doubt he will get an answer.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: The letter was sent on the 6th of this month, and there was no reply: hence the question on the Paper. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that fact. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive the delay.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the London District Order, No. 115, stating that non-commissioned officers will draw pay according to their rank from and including 29th May, 1915, has been so interpreted by the command paymaster of the London District that it does not affect the Territorial Force, and that the noncommissioned officers of that Force will cease to draw the pay of their appointment from 29th May, 1915; why was the
    1154
    differentiation made; is he aware that this interpretation is causing dissatisfaction among the non-commissioned officers of the Territorial Force, many of whom have been at the front, returned home wounded, and are now engaged in recruiting work; and whether, having regard to these facts, steps will be taken to annul the interpretation given and restore the rate of pay that obtained prior to the issue of such interpretation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I think my hon. Friend must have inadvertently misquoted the number of the London District Order. Perhaps he would communicate with me on the subject.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Has the hon. Gentleman any particulars regarding the cases of lance-corporals and lance-sergeants in the Territorial Force?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I have no particulars.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the reasons for non-payment of the usual dependant's allowance to Mrs. Catherine Fewer, Aglish, Carrigeen, county Kilkenny, in respect of her son, Gunner Patrick Fewer, No. 75,932, of the 24th Battery Royal Field Artillery, who has been on active service since September last?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mrs. Fewer was found not to have been dependent on her son before the outbreak of war, he being then already a soldier, and therefore was not entitled to any allowance from Government.
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now state when the new scale of pensions to widows of officers will be issued?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope that the Select Committee will report on this at a very early date.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no date at all?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not a member of the Select Committee.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Order of 31st May to the effect that soldiers must make application for separation allowances within one calendar month of enlistment is now in force; whether he is aware that the shortness of the notice given is resulting in many soldiers, being unaware of the order before it

    1155
    came into operation; and whether, in view of the varying circumstances connected with the families of soldiers, he will either have the order withdrawn or extend the period wherein a soldier may make application?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire on the 24th June last, to which I have nothing to add.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (CHARGEMEN'S LEAVE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the chargemen in His Majesty's dockyards have been working at high pressure for the last twelve months, he can see his way to allow them to take their nine days' leave as opportunity occurs during the next two months?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The dockyard officers will deal with applications for leave with every consideration, subject to the requirements of the Service, but it is not proposed to give them precise directions as to the manner in which the charge-men shall be permitted to take the annual leave which was conceded to them in 1912. General instructions on the subject have been issued.

    NAVAL INVENTIONS COMMITTEE.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the Inventions Committee, to be presided over by Lord Fisher, has yet been constituted; and, if so, what is its composition and where it will be housed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has no doubt seen the full announcement made in the Press this morning. If he so desires, I will circulate it with the Votes.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked whether arrangements have been made for the establishment of an inventions committee on the same lines as that constituted by the Admiralty; and, if not, will he say what alternative plans he is adopting or proposing?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions to a question put to him on this subject on
    1156
    the 8th instant by the hon. Member for West Clare, and to an answer which I gave myself on the 23rd June to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. Measures are being concerted with the Ministry with a view to co-ordinating all the work on inventions so far as they relate to supplies for the Army.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (LONDON) CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether it is proposed to transfer the Anti-Aircraft (London) Corps from the Admiralty to the War Office; if so, what are the reasons for this change; and whether public expense will be involved by a change of the uniforms of the corps or otherwise?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is under consideration, but no final decision has yet been come to in the matter.
    Mr. KING: If carried through, will the point in the last part of the question be duly considered with a view to economy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall certainly take due care of economy.

    UNREGISTERED NEWSPAPER.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Post master-General under what power he exempts from the necessity of registration as a newspaper, and has allowed to pass through the post during the last nine months as a newspaper, unregistered, the weekly recruiting publication, purporting to be a newspaper, printed by the "Free man's Journal," Dublin, over a false imprint; and, having regard to the matter contained in this publication and to the facility non-registration affords for evading the consequences, will he say who is responsible for that publication?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not aware that any such publication has been allowed to pass through the post at the newspaper rate or to receive telegrams at the Press rates. In order to take advantage of those rates any publication must be registered under the Post Office Act of 1908. There is no general obligation in the way of registration so far as the Post Office is concerned.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the Post Office allow a paper purporting to be a newspaper to pass through the post for nine months unregistered?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any newspaper may pass through the post unregistered, but if it desires to have the benefit of the special newspaper rate it must be registered.
    Mr. GINNELL: I have asked nothing whatever about the rate; what I have asked is, Who is responsible for this publication? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that information, and also say whether he requires me to keep on advertising this paper in the House of Commons by naming it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not at all. I have no idea whatever to what publication the hon. Gentleman is referring, and unless he informs me in the House, or by correspondence, I cannot make inquiries.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the Postmaster-General take care not to inquire?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, if the hon. Member so desires.

    "FATHERLAND" PUBLICATIONS.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British postal service is being used as the. medium for circulating to Members of Parliament and others in this country the publications issued from the office in New York of the paper called the "Fatherland," a press controlled by Germans resident in the United States and devoted to the adovcacy of the German cause; whether his attention has been called to one of such publications, entitled "England on the Witness Stand," containing a series of articles by British writers intended to prejudice this country and advocate the cause of Germany; and whether he will take steps to confiscate and destroy this and similar publications, or adopt such other action which shall effectively prevent the Post Office from participating in the distribution of this and similar seditious publications?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the interesting information in these articles, showing the weakness of the German position, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we get these papers for use in this country?
    Mr. KING: In view of the fact that this publication is well printed and extravagantly got up, and therefore wastes the resources of the enemy, will it be allowed to go on?
    Mr. NIELD: May I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be drawn off the track by these supplementary questions?

    WAR LOAN.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a minimum price is to be fixed for the new Loan?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): No minimum price has been fixed.
    Sir J. D. REES: "Has been," or "will be"?
    Mr. McKENNA: No minimum price has been fixed. It is impossible to say what will be the case in the future. There is no present minimum price.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a small investor in War Loan who subsequently desires to secure cash for his holding will receive the market value of such holding within a reasonable time from the Post Office in cash; whether there is any limit to the amount he can have cashed in this way; and whether he can say how many days' notice requires to be given?
    Mr. McKENNA: War Loan registered at the Post Office may be sold through the Post Office, at the market price of the day. The maximum amount which can be so registered is at present £200, stock applied for in excess of that amount being registered at the Bank of England. When the register has been completed the sales will be carried through, as a rule, within four days, but in view of the very large number of subscriptions I fear that there will be some delay during the first few months.
    Mr. HOGGE: In the event of the person holding the maximum amount, all the circumstances being equal, will he get cash for the £200?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; he will be able to sell the whole £200. There may be a delay of a day or two owing to the large amount to be dealt with.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the notices posted in certain savings banks advising their clients not to take War Loan; and whether he proposes to take any action in such cases?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will make inquiries if my hon. Friend will give me further particulars in regard to the notices referred to which have not hitherto been brought to my attention. I have no desire to discourage depositors in Government savings banks from withdrawing money for the purposes of subscribing to the War Loan, but I may point out that such action does not increase the amounts at the disposal of the State unless it leads, as I hope it will, to new savings being effected and deposited.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the subject of the profits made by agents and go-betweens on Government contracts and the question of making the contractors themselves the agents of the Government for the collection of Income Tax on such profits at least for the period of the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 29th June, Income Tax will be collected in the ordinary course, and I am unable to adopt his suggestion.
    Mr. FELL: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that these profits will be included by the people who get them in their next return? I do not know.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope so.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government are taking with regard to contractors to the Government who are losing heavily on contracts made prior to the War owing to the increased cost; and whether similar losses to contractors to other public bodies have been considered by the Government with a view to any emergency legislation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is that each case is being dealt with on its merits: the answer to the second part is in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases in connection with the municipalities, workhouses, and asylums contractors have been held to their contracts, obviously at a greatly increased cost; and can he do anything to approach the municipalities and those who take the same view as the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: That will be a question for the President of the Local Government Board. I understand, however, that everything possible is being done in the direction indicated.
    Mr. W. THORNE: When these matters are considered, will the right hon. Gentleman see that if any concessions are made to contractors that consideration is given to the desirability of these firms increasing the wages of their men to meet the increased high cost of living?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, it is not a question of the increase of wages; it is a question of the increase of the cost of the material.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If any concessions are made to the firms in question in consequence of the high cost of raw material, by the same method of reasoning ought not the Chancellor of the Exchequer see that the wages are increased?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, because if wages are increased prices will become higher still. There is no question that the wages are too low, but the difficulty has arisen owing to raw materials being too expensive.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that many of the asylum authorities in this country have made concessions to these contractors?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; I believe that to be the case.

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister whether Members of the Cabinet at home and British censors abroad are subject to the regulations and penalties imposed by the Official Secrets Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer in each case is in the affirmative.

    DARDANELLES OPERATIONS.

      CASUALTIES TO END OF JUNE.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister the total casualties in the Dardanelles expedition up to the end of June?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The total casualties sustained by both naval and military forces in the Dardanelles up to 30th June are as follows:—

      Officers:

      Killed

      …

      541

      Wounded

      …

      1,257

      Missing

      …

      135

      1,933

      Men:

      Killed

      …

      7,543

      Wounded

      …

      25,557

      Missing

      …

      7,401

      40,501

      Total casualties

      42,434

      Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether Sir Ian Hamilton's further dispatch, containing his recommendations promised in his dispatch of the 20th May, has yet been received; and, if so, when it will be published?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The names are being checked, and the list will be published as soon as this has been completed.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to publish the dispatches from the Admiral commanding at the Dardanelles, especially those, relating to the operations for the period prior to that covered by Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Admiral de Robeck's dispatch dealing with the landing operations will be published shortly.

    UNION OF DEMOCRATIC CONTROL.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether representations have been received by him from the Anti-Socialist Union of the Churches calling his attention to the propaganda of an organisation calling itself the Union of Democratic Control, and to the carrying on of a campaign against recruiting for His Majesty's Forces and also for the purpose of stopping the War and compelling peace to be concluded upon terms favourable to the enemy belligerents; whether he is aware that such union and kindred organisations,
    1162
    including the Independent Labour Party, are holding over 200 meetings weekly with this object and issuing quantities of literature in which the attitude of the late and present Governments, as also the true facts relating to the origin of the War, are misrepresented in order to mislead and dupe the public; whether he will cause prompt and effective measures to be taken to put an end to this agitation and to prosecute those who take part in it; has he any information as to who is financing the movement; whether there is any reason to believe that the expenses of this organisation are being defrayed by Germany; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into these matters?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether he is aware that the Union of Democratic Control have repeatedly repudiated anti-recruiting and stop-the-war propaganda, and have made it known that any subscription from enemy aliens would on no account be accepted?
    Sir E. CARSON: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. As to the question on the Paper, which the Prime Minister has asked me to answer: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part of the question, the avowed object of the Union of Democratic Control is to "bring about such a settlement at the close of the War and such changes of procedure between nations as will lead to a permanent peace instead of to a period of renewed armaments." I am informed that meetings have been held by the union, though I have not been furnished with any reports of such meetings. The union has also distributed literature of the kind mentioned in the question, no doubt with a view to influencing the public. As regards the third paragraph of the question, I must refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 15th July. I have no information as to who is financing the movement, except that subscriptions are paid by members.
    Mr. NIELD: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the immediate future take steps to have persons representing the Government attending these meetings for the purpose of reporting them?
    Sir E. CARSON: If the police can possibly attend them they will. But the hon.

    1163
    and learned Gentleman knows that it is not a very easy thing to know when and where these meetings are being held.
    Mr. NIELD: Oh, yes!
    Sir E. CARSON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me any information he has in his possession I shall be glad to have it.
    Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the Union of Democratic Control have repeatedly denied that they have received any money from German sources, that they are quite willing that the list of subscribers should be examined by any duly authorised person selected by the Government, and that they will only be too glad to have the members of the police force attend their meetings?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some members, at any rate, of this union have taken a very active part in the recruiting campaign?
    Mr. PRINGLE: The President of the Board of Education!
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps, if the police, owing to their other duties, cannot attend these meetings, to enlist the services of volunteers whom he can trust to give him reliable reports? These seditious utterances are very frequently made, and there are meetings practically every night.
    Sir E. CARSON: I did not say that the police had not time to attend the meetings. If the police are aware of the meetings they will no doubt try to obtain information about them. If the hon. Gentleman has reports of meetings such as he refers to, and which I have not, I shall be very glad to consider them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that a Member of the Cabinet only resigned from the union on his appointment to an office in the Cabinet?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Before he takes any action will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult his colleague, the President of the Board of Education, who was a member of this organisation before he joined the Cabinet?
    Sir E. CARSON: No, Sir.

    HALF-PAY OFFICERS RECALLED TO SERVICE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether officers of His Majesty's-Forces, retired on half-pay, who have been recalled to serve, are receiving full salary in addition to the half-pay retiring allowance; and is he aware that retired or pensioned postmen who offer their services for re-employment during the War have, in effect, to forfeit their pensions on re-engagement and are not allowed to receive in the aggregate a greater salary than that they were receiving at the time of retirement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to officers of His Majesty's Forces retired on half-pay and recalled to service, I am informed that half-pay is not given in addition to full pay in any case. The case to officers of His Majesty's Forces retired governed by Section 20 of the Superannuation Act of 1834.

    MUNITIONS.

      VOLUNTEER WORKERS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of the Government setting up a bureau where applications may be received and persons interviewed, with a view of placing men and women desirous of offering their services to the State in suitable employment?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tamworth, on the 15th July, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since he answered that question applications continue to come in for work, and that these applications have no answer whatsoever given to them?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not aware of that.

      SUPPLY OF SHELLS (CANADA).
      Notice had been given of the following question:—17. Sir A. MARKHAM: To ask the Home Secretary why the "Canadian Gazette" were recently refused permission to cable to Canada an

      1165
      interview which their London representative had with Mr. Butler, the manager of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company; and whether, in this interview, Mr. Butler stated that his company were able to turn out large quantities of shells, that Canada could multiply her output four or five times, that the War Office had declined to place orders, and that Canadian manufacturers resented skilled labour being brought from Canada to this country when the factories in Canada were only partially employed?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You passed my Question, No. 17.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I called on the hon. Member, but he was not here, and it is past the quarter of the hour. I am now taking questions addressed to Ministers who were absent.

      OVERTIME AND UNEMPLOYMENT.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that there are cases where men employed on the production of munitions are working a large amount of overtime while workmen belonging to the same trades are out of work; and whether he will take whatever steps are possible to ensure that no workmen shall work overtime so long as other capable workmen are out of work?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): If specfic instances of the state of affairs mentioned by my hon. Friend are brought to my notice, I will make inquiries.

      CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can give a list of the establishments that are now controlled establishments under the Munitions of War Act; whether he will issue a list of such establishments periodically for the information of persons concerned; and can he state if Messrs. Thomas Firth and Sons, Sheffield, is now a controlled establishment?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have already declared a number of establishments to be controlled establishments, and am adding to the list from time to time. I propose to publish a list shortly. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

      THOMAS FIRTH AND SONS, SHEFFIELD.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Minister of Munitions whether the firm of Thomas Firth and Sons, Sheffield, is engaged on war work; if so, whether he is aware that the firm is discharging moulders who are in possession of certificates that their services are required for the production of ordnance war material; and whether, in view of the appeals being made for skilled workmen for munitions work, he will make inquiries into this matter?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am making inquiries into the point raised by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him as to the result.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (EXPULSION, IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can now say for what offence Mr. Fawsitt, secretary of the Cork Industrial Development Association, was ordered by the military authorities out of the district in which he worked in that capacity; on what grounds the civil authorities made his business impossible outside that district by a constant accompaniment of police spies; why he has not been accused or tried for anything; whether it is the present practice, when the military authorities expel a man from a particular part of Ireland, for the civil authorities to make his business impossible in the remainder of the country without accusation or trial; under what law this is done; and under what regulation the general who signed the order for Mr. Fawsitt's transportation, in the absence of trial, refused to grant him even an interview?
    Mr. TENNANT: The person referred to in the question is one of the thirteen mentioned in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question asked by the hon. Member on the 29th ultimo, to which I would refer him for answers to the first and third parts of the question. Such supervision as may be exercised over an individual guilty or suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm is dictated by the necessity of preventing such action. I am informed that in the present case a lengthy interview was granted to the offender by a representative of the military authorities, and that he had thus every opportunity of making representations in his own behalf.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under whose instructions this man's business was made impossible in the rest of Ireland, after he had been expelled from his normal sphere?
    Mr. TENNANT: Does the hon. Gentleman ask me under whose authority?
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes.
    Mr. TENNANT: Under the authority of the military authorities.
    Mr. GINNELL: The military authorities having expelled him from one district, will the right hon. Gentleman say who expelled him from the remainder of Ireland?
    Mr. TENNANT: I imagine that the same authority who expelled him from one expelled him from the other.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he can give any information in reference to the order for deportation given to Mr. Ernest Blythe, at Ennistymon, West Clare, on Monday last, especially the reasons for this action?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member should address this question to the Under-Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. I gave the Chief Secretary notice of a question on a subject of which this question is a part, and I received a note from the Clerk at the Table saying that you, Sir, said that it could not be put as an urgent question. The point of Order is whether you rule that a question referring to the expulsion from Ireland for their political opinions of men who have not been accused of, or tried for, any offence whatever is not an urgent question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I read the hon. Member's question, and it seemed to me to be of a general character, and it was not one which I thought was so urgent that it should be put after the time limit for questions. If the hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Paper in the ordinary way he will get an answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes, but a question regarding the expulsion of men from a country in which they are entitled to live without accusation or trial is, I respectfully submit, urgent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not think that it was when I looked at the nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. It contained a great number of questions, most of which were of a general character.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (OFFICERS IN MILITARY SERVICE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary the number of officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary force at the time the War began; the number of them who have since volunteered and been accepted for military service; whether their places have been filled up or their districts amalgamated with those adjoining; whether there is still a county inspector in each of the counties of Louth, Carlow, and Wicklow, while one is sufficient for Donegal, a wider area than the other three together; whether there is any reason to think the district inspectors and sub-inspectors, now usually engaged at golf and tennis, could not or would not discharge all the duties if the county inspectors were withdrawn; the number of horses kept by and for this force and the use made of them; and, if those officers and horses are of any military value, whether he will, in the interest of economy and utility, offer them all for the purposes of the War?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer to the first part of the question is 233, and to the second part seventeen. The vacancies created by the absence of officers on military duty have not been filled up, and their districts have been amalgamated with those adjoining. There is a county inspector in charge of county Louth, and at the present time one for the two counties of Wicklow and Carlow. I am satisfied that the existing officers are fully employed, and that it would be undesirable in the interests of the public service to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion as to the withdrawal of county inspectors. One hundred and seventeen horses are employed by the constabulary in the performance of various duties. These horses are of military value, but it would not be possible, without incurring other expenditure, to spare any of them from their present work.

    VOLUNTARY RECRUITING LEAGUE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office authorises the activities of the Voluntary Recruiting League; whether he is aware that the league has obtained tens of thousands of recruits; and whether the lines on which the league is working have the sanction of the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: The activities of the Voluntary Recruiting League are unauthorised by the War Office. No encouragement was given to the advances made by the league for official recognition. I have no information as to the number of recruits obtained by this body or even that any have been obtained through its instrumentality. No sanction by the War Office has been given to or is in contemplation for the methods of this organisation.

    CHEMICAL CORPS.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) how many commissions in the Army have been granted to chemical scholars experienced in analytical, sanitary, research, or other similar matters, and, as regards non-commissioned officers and privates in the chemical company attached to the Royal Engineers, what terms of service are offered; and whether any special arrangements are made or attractions offered to secure men of capacity; and (2) as regards men enlisted as non-commissioned officers and privates in the Chemical Corps, established as part of the Royal Engineers, whether any record is made of the man's university degrees, or whether he has passed any other learned examination with or without honours, so that his attainments may be known at the time of selection for commissions?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is undesirable to state in public what is being done in this matter; but I will send my hon. Friend information privately.

    OFFICERS' PROMOTION (TEMPORARY MAJORS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that lieutenants commanding companies at the front are to be promoted to temporary captains and officers
    1170
    commanding battalions to temporary lieutenant-colonels, but that no captains are to be promoted to temporary majors, and considering that the widows of senior captains who may lose their lives will thus be deprived of the higher pensions that they would have been entitled to had their husbands been promoted to the temporary rank of major, he will issue a notification that the widows of captains who would, in the ordinary course have been entitled to promotion to temporary majors shall not be deprived of their majors' pension by reason of their husbands not having been gazetted to that temporary rank?
    Mr. TENNANT: Promotion to temporary major is given in cases where a captain is left in command of a battalion; but it is not practicable to impute to an officer a rank which he did not hold, in cases where such promotion is not given, in order to pay his widow a higher pension.
    Colonel YATE: Was not the whole object of this temporary promotion to give higher pensions to widows? Are not all these officers specially deserving of every consideration as regards pensions to their widows?
    Mr. TENNANT: Higher rank, of course, carries higher pay, and the whole object was really to do justice. I really do not think any injustice is done.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who volunteered and joined the Royal Army Medical Corps are being subjected to pressure to transfer to fighting regiments; that in some cases the men are paraded and asked to fall out as evidence of their willingness to transfer; and that men who did not fall out have been transferred; and will he say if the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps will in future be left free to remain in the corps for which they volunteered, especially as there are among this corps many members of the Society of Friends, who have conscientious objections to joining the combatant regiments?
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to continue the practice of compelling men enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps, a non-combatant branch of the Army, to transfer to Infantry or other combatant branches of the Army; and whether the

    1171
    reason for this compulsion is or was that sufficient combatant soldiers could not be obtained under our voluntary system?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already explained, in reply to the hon. Member for West Bradford, that men who have conscientious objections to taking life will be specially dealt with. As regards others, I would point out that Parliament has deliberately conferred on the Army Council certain powers, and, as I have also stated, I cannot give any pledge that these powers will not be used, though I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that they will be used with discrimination.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to conclude that if these young men, who have, against their will, been transferred from the Royal Army Medical Corps to a fighting regiment, make a petition, they will be permitted to return to their old regiment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend is rather jumping to conclusions—[Mr. SNOWDEN: "I am not!"]—when making that suggestion. What I have said was that the cases of men so transferred will be considered. I cannot, of course, give a pledge that in all cases they will be reinstated in their original corps, but I hope the great bulk of them may be.
    Colonel WHITE: With regard to these men, members of the Society of Friends, who have conscientious objections to taking life, will he consider attaching them to regiments as regimental stretcher-bearers, thereby relieving men trained to the use of arms for other duties, and thus prevent any stigma being placed upon them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for the suggestion.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked whether, in consequence of the War, a large number of Royal Army Medical Corps lieutenant-colonels have been promoted to colonels and similarly a large number of majors have been made lieutenant-colonels; whether all lieutenants have been made captains; and why no captians have also received accelerated promotion?
    Mr. TENNANT: A number of captains have received accelerated promotion and further promotions will be made when the necessity arises. The names of several have been recently submitted for gazette.

    TERRITORIAL TROOPS (PERMANENT COMMISSIONS).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Under-Seretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the case of the London Scottish two gentlemen were recommended last December for permanent commissions by their late commanding officer, Colonel Malcolm, and by their brigadier, General Lowther; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding these recommendations, general headquarters recently stated in writing that there was a ruling of the War Office that no permanent commissions could be granted unless the applicants had been at a public school or had passed through Woolwich or Sandhurst; whether Sir John French has no power to grant a permanent commission to a Territorial; and whether he will take steps to see these disabilities on Territorials are removed?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of any of the matters referred to in the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question. Territorial officers are not debarred from receiving permanent commissions. The conditions under which they may normally obtain such commissions are laid down in an Army Order issued last September, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. Permanent commissions are also given on the recommendation of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief for services in the field. My hon. Friend will be relieved to see that there are no disabilities of this kind upon Territorial soldiers which require removal.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If I send my right hon. Friend the letter from general headquarters, will he instruct general headquarters that the order issued by the War Office is incorrect?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall be very glad to consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    HOSPITAL SHIP "OXFORDSHIRE" (BLACK WATCH WOUNDED).
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the hospital ship "Oxfordshire," from Havre to Southampton, on the 19th March, sixty wounded British soldiers, the majority of them from the Black Watch and 6th Gordon Regiments, were taken out of their cots to make room for sixty Germans; that one of the British soldiers subsequently died in Perth; and that, in

    1173
    addition, the Germans were supplied with fresh eggs and bread while the British wounded soldiers had only biscuits; and if in the future he will see that the British soldier when wounded is not subjected to any worse treatment than wounded German prisoners?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend and the House generally will be glad to know that there is no truth in the allegation brought to notice in the question, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of correcting a rumour, as unpleasant as it was ill-founded, which had obtained widespread credence.

    AEROPLANE ENGINES AND GUNS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether a number of German aeroplanes have recently appeared driven by more than one engine, or carrying a gun larger than the ordinary machine gun; and, if so, whether such German aeroplanes have inflicted loss on the aerial forces of our Allies?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that German aeroplanes have been seen which appear to be propelled by more than one engine, but that there is no evidence of German aeroplanes carrying guns larger than machine guns. There is no detailed information regarding the aerial losses of our Allies.
    Mr. LYNCH: Now that the Germans are hypnotised by the Zeppelin idea, is not this just the opportunity for going ahead and gaining predominance?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman refers to.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the Royal Aircraft Factory took any steps before the War to provide the multiple-engine aeroplane advocated by General Henderson; and, if so, whether any such aeroplane produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory ever flew before the War broke out or has flown since?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, the preliminary questions of design had been considered before the War. I think it undesirable to give an answer to the second part of the question. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the types of aeroplanes to be constructed for war are not selected by the Royal Aircraft Factory but by the Director of Military Aeronautics.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the production of aeroplanes with more than one engine or carrying a gun larger than a machine gun was advocated by General Henderson, Director-General of Military Aeronautics, and by other persons closely connected with aviation in this country, some months before the War; whether such aeroplanes were in the possession of the Royal Flying Corps on active service before the appearance of the multiple-engine German aeroplane recently mentioned by the official eye-witness; and, if not, will he say why not?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The provision of other types of aeroplane was more urgent, and it is very doubtful whether the two-engined German aeroplanes which have been seen are of the type advocated by Sir David Henderson, and I am informed that they are not necessarily more efficient than single-engined machines.

    HAY (COMPULSORY PURCHASE).
    Mr. BALDWINasked whether the compulsory purchase of hay is made direct from farmers or through dealers; and, if the former, whether any compensation will be made to dealers in consideration of loss of trade?
    Mr. FORSTER: Compulsory purchase is only resorted to when voluntary methods fail. It is applied to farmers and dealers alike. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    RAILWAY WAGGONS (INSPECTION).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the name of the station or stations, or siding or sidings, where railway waggons built by English railway companies for use abroad were sent by the War Office to be inspected; if the practice of sending numbers of waggons long distances to be inspected has ceased; and if waggons are now inspected at the works of the railway companies?
    Mr. TENNANT: All railway waggons built by English railway companies for use abroad by the War Office have been inspected at the works where they were built.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not my question. I want to know where they were sent for inspection?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that all these waggons were inspected at the works where they were built.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: From the commencement of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is my information.

    VACCINATION (TERRITORIAL TROOPS).
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that several men in the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment (Territorials), now stationed at Bedford, who are shortly expecting to be sent abroad, have been threatened with compulsory vaccination when on board ship; and whether he will stop this conduct on the part of Army officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is very undesirable that avoidable publicity should be given to statements such as that contained in my hon. Friend's question. I have caused special inquiry to be made, and the battalion staff, the medical officer, and all available company officers have been seen and questioned, and as a result I am informed that the statement that men of this battalion have been threatened with compulsory vaccination on board ship is absolutely unfounded.
    Mr. YEO: Supposing the letters were seen from these men, what would be their position?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that there really is no truth in the idea that there was any threat to vaccinate these men compulsorily.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that all this is merely a question of the imagination of the men?
    Mr. YEOasked how many cases of small-pox have occurred amongst unvaccinated Territorials on active service?
    Mr. TENNANT: This information is not available.

    INOCULATION (SUCCESS AGAINST ENTERIC FEVER).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked by what means the cases of typhoid, which on 4th May numbered 963, had been reduced eighteen days later, on 22nd May, to 827, although deaths from typhoid had increased from 100 to 128; and whether the reduction is due to mistakes in diagnosis or to the transfer of typhoid cases to other classifications so as to make the failure of inoculation as a preventive less apparent?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it would be well if my hon. Friend refrained from suggesting, as he does in the last part of his question, that the medical authorities are guilty of manipulating the statistics in an untruthful, unscientific, and ex parte manner. The reduction in the number of cases as stated for 4th May and as stated for 22nd May is due to the original (i.e., clinical) diagnosis not having been confirmed, in some cases, by the subsequent bacteriological examination, which disclosed that these cases, though originally returned as enteric fever, were not that disease at all.
    The House generally and the public at large will hear with satisfaction that inoculation is abundantly proving its efficacy in preventing enteric fever, and in lowering the incidence of death amongst those who are unfortunate enough to contract the disease.

    ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the block in promotion that exists in the armourer and artificer sections of the Army Ordnance Corps; will he, with a view to remedy this, cause inquiry to be made as to whether commissions may properly be given to men in these sections; and whether others might properly be appointed inspectors of ordnance machinery?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the prospects of promotion of armament artificers compare very favourably with those of any other branch of the Army Ordnance Corps. On enlistment they are at once made staff sergeants, so that they are practically certain of a quartermaster sergeant's pension. Some of them can well expect to become warrant officers, and a recent Amendment to the

    1177
    Royal Warrant has provided permanent commissions for six of them as assistant inspectors of ordnance machinery. In the armourer section the majority start as boys and armourer privates and on a vacancy occurring they go straight to staff sergeant and further promotions follow on much the same lines as armament artificers. Commissions have not, hitherto, been open to this section, but the question of according a limited number of commissions on somewhat similar lines to those obtaining with the armament artificers is at present receiving consideration.

    SADDLERS (GUNWHARF, DEVONPORT).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the position of saddlers employed in His Majesty's Gunwharf, Devonport; whether he is aware that, while smiths, carpenters, wheelwrights, and labourers were all advanced on the 21st October, 1914, no advance was made in the case of the saddlers, whose wages still remain at 28s., exclusive of the war bonus; whether he can say on what ground the exception was made; and will he consider the amendment of the rates in the case of the saddlers so as to remove the present inequality?
    Mr. FORSTER: In this matter we are guided by the Admiralty, who are the larger employers of labour at the station. The rate of pay is based on that paid by the Admiralty for leather workers.

    MESSRS. GUNNING AND SONS (CIVILIAN CARPENTERS).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether Messrs. Gunning and Sons have twelve soldiers working for them on Vickers' Extension at Crayford; whether within the last three weeks they have discharged eleven civilian carpenters; and have any of the other building firms engaged on these works any soldiers in their employ?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that in the course of the last three weeks Messrs. Gunning and Sons have discharged eleven civilian carpenters on the ground of incompetence. I hear to-day that the Royal Engineers who were sent to work on these factories have been ordered to return to Ireland for military duty. I am
    1178
    not sure whether the soldiers referred to by my hon. Friend were Royal Engineers or soldiers released from military duty, but I am making further inquiries on the subject.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I hope my hon. Friend will see whether there is not labour there which can be employed on these works.

    HARVESTING (SOLDIERS' LEAVE).
    Major HUNTasked whether any of the soldiers now serving in this country are, as in the hay harvest, to be given one fortnight's leave in order that they may help farmers in the corn harvest; and, if so, will he give a clear definition as to what troops this regulation will apply to?
    Mr. TENNANT: The limits of the "harvest season" for the purpose of special furlough are from 15th July to 15th October. The troops eligible to receive such furlough are soldiers of the Regular and Territorial Forces, except those who are armed or being trained with arms or in training for draft purposes.

    LOST EQUIPMENT (WOUNDED AND SICK SOLDIERS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether wounded or sick soldiers who recover and return to service are compelled to pay for any part of their equipment lost on the battlefield or during illness?
    Mr. FORSTER: No charges are made against individuals for equipment lost through the incidents of the Service and not through their own default.

    RESERVISTS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether Reservists who were called up for service at the commencement of the War, and whose period of agreement has since expired, are obliged to serve for the duration of the War; and whether any gratuity or pension will be given for extra time served beyond the agreement?
    Mr. TENNANT: Under the Army Act a soldier may in time of war be compulsorily detained for a period of twelve months beyond the date on which he is due for discharge, and the period for

    1179
    which he is so detained reckons as qualifying service for pension or discharge gratuity subject to the conditions laid down in Regulations.

    NEW ARMIES (PERMANENT COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether young officers now serving in the New Armies will have the opportunity of permanently adopting a military career in the Regular Army; and, if so, will he say under what conditions as regards passing through military colleges?
    Mr. TENNANT: An officer who holds a temporary commission in the Regular Army may present himself as a candidate for a permanent commission through one of the prescribed channels provided he possesses the necessary qualifications. Those who enter the Royal Military Academy or Royal Military College are required to resign their temporary commissions before taking up cadetships. The question whether others who may be brought to notice for showing special aptitude for soldiering shall be allowed to remain in the Army after the cessation of hostilities must depend upon future peace requirements.
    Mr. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether young officers who desire to go through Sandhurst and who refrained from doing so at the wish of their commanding officers will suffer in their chance of being retained at the end of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not desirable that they should suffer at all. If they could get their names put forward through the regular channels—through the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief—then I think that the matter would be achieved in that way.
    Colonel YATE: Does this rule apply to officers of the Special Reserve or only to temporary officers in the New Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, no. The machinery which I have in mind of getting a recommendation put through by the General Officer Commanding the Army has reference to all the officers serving at the front, all temporary commissions, whether in the Regular Army, the Territorial Force, or the Special Reserve.

    TEMPORARY RANK.
    Mr. J. MASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the step of temporary rank given to officers commanding battalions for thirty days or more and to subalterns commanding companies for thirty days or more dates from the first day of the command or from the thirty-first day?
    Mr. TENNANT: From the thirty-first day.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that no officers from the Cavalry have yet been gazetted, and that some of these officers have been in command for seven months or more?
    Mr. TENNANT: That may be perfectly true, but it arises from the fact that we have been waiting for the lists from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.
    Mr. MASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when a senior officer is taken prisoner or reported missing and a temporary new rank is necessary, the step goes throughout the unit, so that in the case of a lieutenant-colonel being reported missing or a prisoner the senior major becomes a temporary lieutenant-colonel, the senior captain a temporary major, and the senior subaltern a temporary captain; and whether, when a senior officer is promoted and his duties take him away from his regiment or battalion, as when a lieutenant-colonel is promoted to be a brigadier-general, the senior major is promoted to be a temporary lieutenant-colonel, and the senior subaltern is promoted to be a temporary captain, but no temporary promotion is given to the senior captain and, if so, for what reasons are senior captains promoted temporarily in the one case and passed over in the other?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the last part of the question, the reason is that in one case the captain is promoted into a vacancy in the Establishment, in the other case he is not.

    LABOUR CLUB, BATLEY.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the reason for the presence

    1181
    of a major and a lieutenant at a trade union meeting held at the Labour Club, Town Street, Batley, on Tuesday, 29th June, at 7.30 p.m.?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend's question has been referred to the Northern Command, and the General Officer Commanding reports that though he has made exhaustive inquiries, he cannot find that the occurrence suggested took place. I do not know whether, in the circumstances, my hon. Friend thinks the matter worth pursuing any further.

    RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of public money paid to the "Freeman's Journal," Dublin, or in trust for it, for its services in connection with the War since the outbreak of hostilities; and whether all its services have been paid for collectively, or a special sum has been earmarked for the weekly recruiting publication, purporting to be a newspaper, which it prints?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of any payments made to this newspaper, or in trust for it, other than the ordinary payments for advertisements. These to the 31st May amounted to about £60 to the "Freeman's Journal" and £5 to the "Weekly Freeman."

    3RD EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will cause inquiry to be made into the fact that the non-commissioned officers and men of "B" Company, 3rd East Lancashire Regiment, stationed at Plymouth, are in many cases said to be in debt to the paymaster; that many of the men have booked their pay and deny that there has been any over-payment; and that similar complaints are common in other regiments; and, with a view of ascertaining whether the suspicion is well founded that systematic fraud is going on by which soldiers are deprived of their legal pay, whether he will cause a thorough inquiry to be made into this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this case.

  SUGAR SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he authorised the letter of the Royal Commission on Sugar Supply, dated the 2nd June, 1915, in which a rebate of 1s. per hundredweight was announced upon sugar purchased on or after the 1st June last, either directly or indirectly, from the stocks put upon the market by the Royal Commission through its authorised agents; and, if so, what is the reason for giving such rebate to confectioners, chocolate manufacturers, and jam makers and withholding it from other sugar users and from the grocery trade; for what purpose was that special rebate made; and what is the reason for giving it to a protected industry at a time when the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government are urging a policy of thrift upon all classes of the community, or is public money to be regarded as being outside the sphere of such exhortations?
  Mr. McKENNA: The rebate was given to the trade which competes with foreign sugared goods imported into this country, in order to put it upon a footing of equality with its foreign competitors. The rebate represents the difference in the average price at which sugar could have been bought forward to supply the British market and the actual price at which it is now sold. A further consideration arose out of the fact that the sugar using trade has a large export business and would have had a claim to a rebate on export unless sugar was sold to them at the price at which it could have been generally obtained by forward purchase.
  Mr. NIELD: Do I understand that the rebate is confined entirely to those trades which have an export business and because of the export business?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is confined to those trades which have to compete with foreign imported goods and which have an export business.

  SOUTH WALES COAL STRIKE.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give to the House as to the efforts being made to bring about a settlement of the South Wales coal strike?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir. At this stage I am afraid that there is no information which I can usefully give to the House beyond that which is published in the newspapers.

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA OPERATIONS.

    APPRECIATION OF GENERAL BOTHA AND GENERAL SMUTS.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have received the following telegram from the Governor-General of South Africa acknowledging the Resolution passed by this House the other day, as follows:—
    "With reference to your telegram of the 14th July, Ministers request me to inform you that they have received, with deep gratification, the Motion carried in the House of Commons, and would be glad to express to the House the high appreciation felt by General Botha, General Smuts, and by the officers and forces of the Union at its terms."

    Registration of Newspaper, Dublin.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the weekly recruiting publication, purporting to be a newspaper printed by the "Freeman's Journal," Dublin, but published elsewhere under a false imprint, belongs to a company incorporated under the Companies Act; if it does will he say to what company; if it does not will he say under what law or on what principle it is allowed, unregistered, to be printed and circulated as a newspaper, in defiance of the requirements of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881; and, having regard to the matter contained in this publication and to the facility non-registration affords for evading the consequences, will he say who is responsible for that publication?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not seen the publication referred to by the hon. Member, and have no information as to who owns it. If the publication is one to which the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881 applies, I would remind him that the time for making a return under that Act has not yet expired.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the officers of the Board of Trade in Dublin to set this paper right, as it is publicly boomed in Dublin every week?

    Todmorden Co-operative Society.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department is aware that a strike of the employés of the Todmorton Co-operative Society has taken place after prolonged negotiations; if he is aware that the employés are willing to submit the matters in dispute to arbitration; and will he take action to bring the parties together under the direction of his Department with the object of effecting a settlement of the dispute?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed that this dispute has been settled.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has it been settled by the intervention of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There was correspondence with the Board of Trade and a telegram was received on Saturday to say that it was settled.

    Houses of Parliament (Labourers and Cleaners).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is able to report the decision of the Committee which four months ago was said to be sitting on the question of the wages of the labourers and cleaners employed about the Houses of Parliament; and if this Committee has recommended an increase of the wages of these men, seeing that no advance has been given to them in the last twenty-five years?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The Committee has recommended certain increases, which will apply to the men in question. The matter is now before the Treasury.

    Public Departments (Unestablished Staffs).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the unestablished staffs of solicitors to public Departments, the Treasury will bear in mind the view expressed by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service in their Report, dated 2nd April, 1914, and also the fact that many of the members of such staffs, having served continuously for fifteen to twenty-five, and in some cases more, years in such offices, the indefinite postponement of the carrying out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission may affect their

    1185
    prospects of superannuation on compulsory retirement from the service; and whether, in the event of it not being possible for the Treasury to proceed with such recommendations at present, he will give instructions that such staffs shall not be in any way prejudiced in receiving favourable consideration owing to such postponement of the recommendations of the Commission?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The necessary postponement of the consideration of this question in no way prejudges the decision which may ultimately be made, and all the relevant circumstances will be taken into account.

    Customs Non-pensioner Watchers.
    Mr W. THORNEasked whether the recent advance given to the various sections of postment by the Hobhouse award will be given to the non-pensioner watchers in His Majesty's Customs?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the award by Sir James Woodhouse. Before further considering the extension of "war bonus" to the Civil Service in general, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to consult the Committee the formation of which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 14th instant.

    Naval Reserve (Mechanics).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to form a naval reserve for men who have served as mechanics in the Royal Navy, so that these men may receive the same advantage as regards eligibility for the Greenwich age pension of 5d. a day as is now enjoyed by men of the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: At the present time men who are fit for the Naval Service are wanted to serve in the Navy and not to be put into a Reserve, and therefore I do not think that any useful purpose can be served by discussing now whether new reserve forces should be constituted.

    Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill.
    Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have yet been made for a conference between the parties chiefly interested in the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Home Secretary, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for West Denbighshire and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, is putting himself in touch with the various parties interested.
    Mr. KING: Will any action in this matter be taken before the Adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That I cannot say.

    German and Irish Languages.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary the number of students who entered for examination and the number of prizes awarded by the Irish Intermediate Education Board in German and Irish, respectively, in 1914?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In 1914 the numbers of candidates examined by the Board of Intermediate Education in Irish and in German were 6,033 and 1,859, respectively. In my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 30th ultimo I explained that the only direct payments made by the Board in respect of individual subjects are special prizes for proficiency in composition, and I gave the value of the prizes thus awarded in 1914.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the information asked for in the question, as to how many students won prizes in Irish, and how many in German?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I told the hon. Gentleman before, but unfortunately I have not a report of my previous reply. In 1914 prizes to the value of—
    Mr. GINNELL: How many?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how many, but prizes to the value of £82 were awarded for German, and to the value of £74 for Irish.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secreretary if he will ascertain and state the extent to which the teaching and study of German and Irish, respectively, are subsidised in Trinity College, Dublin, and Magee College, Derry, omitted from his recent Return; and, if those institutions refuse this information, will he say on what grounds, and how far it is open to other educational institutions in Ireland receiving State support to make themselves, by similar or other means, immune from responsibility to Parliament?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The information contained in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 30th ultimo, regarding the provision for the teaching and study of Irish and German in certain universities and colleges in Ireland was furnished by the courtesy of the heads of those institutions, all of which are in receipt of Parliamentary Grants under the Irish Universities Act, 1908. No such Grants are made in the case of Trinity College, Dublin, and Magee College, Derry.

    Foynes (County Limerick) Petty Sessions Clerk.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an election for Petty Sessions clerk in Foynes, county Limerick, was recently held, at which there were two candidates for the position, and that Mr. P. J. Ryan was elected by a majority of five votes to three, and that the election was declared void; whether, further, at a second election Mr. Ryan was elected by six votes to two, and this election has also been declared void, although Mr. Ryan is in every way qualified for the position; will he say why and at whose request was a new rule made on the 15th May, 1915, extending the age limit in favour of an ex-clerk of Petty Sessions of one year's standing; and, if not necessary, will he take steps to expunge this new rule and postpone the election to the vacant office at Foynes until the said new rule has been expunged?
    Mr. BIRRELL: An election of a Petty Sessions clerk for Foynes, county Limerick, was held on 2nd June at which five magistrates voted for Mr. P. J. Ryan and two for Mr. John Little, and Mr. Ryan was declared elected. As three of the votes given for Mr. Ryan were invalid, a fresh election was ordered. At the second election, on 30th June, invalid votes were again given for Mr. Ryan, and accordingly a third election has become necessary. A rule was made on 15th May last by the Lord Lieutenant, pursuant to Section 29 of the Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1858, putting ex-Petty Sessions clerks on the same footing, as regards the limits of age for election, as persons who have assisted Petty Sessions clerks, solicitors' clerks, and ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. This rule was not made at anybody's request, but on being suggested by one of the magistrates its reasonableness, especially in war time, recommended it to the Lord Lieutenant. It does not
    1188
    interfere with the discretion of the magistrates to elect any qualified person they choose, and I see no reason for expunging it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister what is the business for Wednesday and Thursday next?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Wednesday we shall take all the Reports of Supply, and on Thursday the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. All this week we shall take whatever opportunity offers to make progress with other Bills on the Order Paper. It may possibly be desirable to have a Sitting on Friday next in order to provide for an early Adjournment of the House next week.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: What Vote will be put down first for Wednesday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: When is it the intention of the Government to take the Committee stage of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, after the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the Prime Minister say when he is going to deal with the question of elections?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it proposed to take all the stages of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We shall see bow we get on.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION) [ALLOWANCES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and of moneys provided by Parliament of Superannuation Allowances to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Dublin Divisional Justices, and the Stipendiary Magistrate for Chatham and Sheerness (King's Recommendation Signified), Tomorrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
    "To give temporary power to Government Departments to extend the time limited for the performance of duties or the exercise of powers under Special Acts." Presented by Mr. PBETYMAN; supported by Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Montagu; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed, [Bill 129.]
    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWEBS) BILL.
    "To amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, so far as it relates to mortgagees in possession." Presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL; supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Trading with the Enemy Acts, 1914." Presented by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL; supported by the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
    CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915." Presented by Mr. PRETYMAN; supported by Lord Robert Cecil; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Runciman.]
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  In rising to oppose the Second Reading of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill, I wish it to be clearly understood that I would not allow either coal owners, or any others engaged in any trade or business, to enrich themselves by the retention of war profits. Any legislative proposal to prevent this on broad and equitable lines would have had my strongest support, but I condemn this Bill on the ground that it penalises one great industry only and leaves other great industries making huge

  1197
  war profits to go scot-free. I advocate the principle that the increased incomes of all taxpayers in excess of the average income of the two years ending 30th June, 1914, with one-fifth allowed for extra cost of living, and with equitable adjustment in each assessment as contemplated in case of controlled munitions factories, should be taken by legislative enactment and paid into the National Exchequer as a special war tax towards defraying the cost of the War. The Government, in my judgment, are embarking on the most dangerous and far-reaching policy, which, if not applied equally to all trades and industries affected by the War, is bound to operate unfairly. The only sound principle is to have the minimum of interference by the State in the trade and commerce of the country, and it is on that principles that Free Trade has been so successfully extended and built up for generations past.
  4.0 P.M.
  I shall be told that this Bill is of a temporary character to meet a special and urgent national emergency. It is difficult, however, to retrace a step of this sort if once it is taken, and I urge the House not to adopt a policy of the nature proposed in this Bill without very serious consideration, or in any haphazard fashion. To say the least the Bill is an alarming interference with the hitherto free right to contract, and it is a violation of the principle of Free Trade. It should not be overlooked in this popular crusade against the coal owners that they have, as a trade, along with their men, shown themselves to be possessed of a very high spirit of patriotism. We have sent no fewer than 230,000 of our splendid coal miners to join the Colours, and they have been encouraged in this by the great majority of their employers. The colliery owners also—that much abused class—are at the present moment paying large sums, to the dependants of the men who have gone to fight for their country in order to supplement the allowances which they get, and in recognition of the fact that they have given up work in which they were earning high wages and have enlisted from a sense of duty to fight the battles of their country. I would submit that the policy of having a maximum price fixed by the State, if adopted at all, must be applied equally in all trades and industries affected by the War. The Government intervention, so far as it has taken place has, I shall be able to show, acted unfairly and with disadvantage to the
  1198
  country's commercial interests and to the interests of individuals. Take the case of the railways. The State has guaranteed a higher dividend to railway shareholders than in all probability the railways would have earned, and it is also paying three fourths of the war bonus given to railway servants. I heartily approve of that bonus. On the other hand, the State has actually called upon the coal trade to give from 15 to 18¾ per cent, bonus to the miners. I also endorse that and say that miners were entitled to it. But the State did not authorise the coal owners to add that bonus to their pre-war contracts, which they are executing at the present time at a very heavy loss. The colliery owners are prepared to make great sacrifices for their country. They made little protest when the Government commandeered practically the whole of the steamers which had been legally chartered to convey coal to London at 3s. a ton. In my opinion that did not justify the Government in charging for interned German steamers performing the same service 13s. 6d. a ton, when they were allocated to replace the steamers which the Government had taken. I regret that the Government showed little disposition to fairly consider and properly settle claims for compensation. It should not be forgotten that, for several months after the outbreak of war, the majority of the collieries could only work short time, owing to lack of demand and difficulties in shipping, and that they then, in the autumn of the year and in December last, made large forward contracts at prices involving a loss to-day. The partial prohibition of exports has also forced down the price of coal already many shillings a ton. I do not object to supervision and to prohibition when either is necessary to prevent enemy countries receiving coal directly or indirectly, but under the prohibition of export we are losing markets which it will be difficult to regain. Having no outward cargoes of coal raises the cost of freight, and, consequently, the prices of meat, wheat, and other necessaries of life to the consumers in this country. Take the case of the Argentine. We sent out ships laden with coal, and they brought back meat and wheat. The coal paid for the meat and wheat. How are these to be paid for now? Only by decreasing our reserves of gold, selling foreign securities at an enormous sacrifice, or by borrowing at a great disadvantage. Surely

  1199
  such a policy, increasing as it does the balance of trade already so seriously against us, is likely to prove disastrous to our national interests and ought not to be lightly followed. I have a letter here from a representative of large Northumberland collieries, who says:—
  "Under the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill, it is going to be impossible for this company to make any profit this year, and, as you know, we suffered heavy losses last year. The refusal of licences for the export of Northumberland coal has brought down the market price nearly 10s. a ton, and has caused a lot of idle time in Northumberland, thereby creating an artificial competition between collieries. A few cargoes are permitted to be exported to the foreigner, the foreigner being the gainer thereby. No coal owner objects to suffering a loss if it is for the good of his country, but the experience of Newcastle shippers, merchants and exporters is that the Committee in London who are issuing and refusing licences display a lack of knowledge of the coal export trade. I feel quite confident that it is not this country but the foreigner who is benefiting by the manner in which the Licensing Committee are working."
  There is a widespread idea that all coal owners have made colossal profits since the outbreak of War. That is certainly not true so far as regards the majority of the collieries in the districts I know best. The average price realised for Durham coal, as ascertained by the auditors of both the men and the masters, in the first quarter of 1915, as compared with the first quarter of 1914, actually shows a reduction of 5d. per ton. We have heard a great deal from gas companies and railway companies about coal prices. At the end of last year nearly all of the railway companies bought coal for the whole of the year 1915 at prices involving less than cost price to-day. With regard to gas companies, the greatest exaggeration prevails. For instance, the great gas companies of London are receiving to-day, and will receive for months to come, large quantities of coal at less than cost price. If the State now intervenes and arbitrarily fixes the price that we are to be allowed to charge the gas companies, preventing us from recouping the loss—the heavy loss, in many cases—that we are at present sustaining, and at the same time leaves the gas companies free to charge, as they are doing, more than twice the price for gas coke and to exact from the Government enormous prices for toluol and other residual products, that is a one-sided and unfair arrangement. Collieries vary enormously in working cost and the quality of coal. I will not weary the House with further quotations, but I have a letter from the representative of a large group of collieries in Yorkshire, who states that, owing to having sold to the railway companies in December last the
  1200
  whole of their output for this year at less than cost price, he, having a trust and losing money heavily, is obliged to consider the question even of closing the collieries.
  There is no doubt whatever that the idea contemplated in the Bill of fixing a pit-head price and then apparently leaving the merchant free to exploit the consumer to his heart's content is one that is absolutely indefensible. The State, if it interferes at all, must treat all alike. The State cannot equitably fix coal prices and then allow coal consumers to sell their productions at the highest prices obtainable and to earn war profits. It cannot penalise one industry and let all the others go scot free. That is what this Bill proposes to do. If maximum prices are to be fixed for coal by the Government, they must also be fixed for woollen goods and khaki, for leather and boots, for the productions of armament works, shipbuilding yards, engineering works, munition and gas works, and also shipping freights, all of which industries are making war profits. For the State to limit the profit of the coal owner and to allow all great industrial consumers of coal to make unlimited profits is absolutely indefensible. We must go further to secure equality of treatment. Maximum prices must be fixed by the Government, not only for everything needed for the War, but for the whole life of the people, including wheat, flour and meat, and the other necessaries of life. I venture to say that my right hon. Friend never has had, and never will have, an opportunity of introducing a more popular measure. While human nature remains what it is, the consumers of coal, whether manufacturers or householders, will naturally welcome the forcing down of the price of coal below its market value, even if it has to be accomplished by State intervention, as long as they remain un-interfered with otherwise. This general acclamation does not necessarily prove it to be either wise or equitable in the national interest. I rather question if many Members can be found in this House who can give so impartial and disinterested a vote on this Bill as would justify their voting on it at all.
  With regard to the provisions of the Bill, I am afraid I cannot congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the clearness of the drafting. There is not much indication that the scheme has been carefully thought out in all its bearings. This

  1201
  does not surprise me, because we all know how strenuous a time my right hon. Friend has had recently. Clause 1 tells us that—
  "Coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold or offered for sale by the owner of the coal or on his behalf"
  at more than a standard amount of 4s. increase as compared with the price of coal at about the same date in the year ending 30th June, 1914, unless the sanction of the Board of Trade has been obtained to a slight additional price in consideration of certain special circumstances. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 provides that—
  "If any person sells or offers for sale any coal in contravention of this Section"
  he shall be liable to a penalty. If "any person" sells! That requires a legal interpretation as to who is or is not covered by those words. We are also told that the Bill shall not apply to the sale of coal for export. Export means all coal transported by us from one port to another, therefore, as I interpret it, this Bill does not apply to coal transported from port to port in Great Britain, neither do the provisions of the Bill extend to Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. If I am wrong in my interpretation of what "export" means perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me. There is another question on the Bill. Existing contracts are not to be interfered with.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Hear, hear!
  Sir J. WALTON: The hon. Baronet says "Hear, hear," but a great many contracts that the coal owners have made have been interfered with, and are being interfered with still further in this particular Bill. I would rather say, if the Bill is adopted at all, that the price fixed under the Bill should begin the day it comes into law, otherwise you will deal very unfairly by coal merchants. I met a merchant the other day who has bought the whole of his supply for next winter at an increase of 6s. a ton. He said his greatest competitor had pursued a safer line, and had refused to buy. Therefore unless it covers all contracts where the price is higher than the 4s. proposed, it really creates very unfair competition between one coal merchant and another. Certainly the extra wages coal owners have to give their miners ought to be added to pre-war contracts. I quite apprehend the position that once you begin to interfere with contracts you should go
  1202
  the whole hog and act fairly all round. If you begin at all, carry it right through and let everyone be treated fairly and equitably. The difficulty in regard to interfering with contracts entered into at higher prices than are contemplated to be allowed to be charged is that the question also must be considered of pre-war contracts, not yet fully executed, at much lower prices, and I admit that creates a considerable difficulty.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does my hon. Friend say that there are numbers of contracts made before the War which are still running?
  Sir J. WALTON: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend is always the fortunate man in the coal trade. If he has no contracts running which were made before the War I congratulate him. I have many contracts running which were made before the War at prices substantially below the present cost price. The effect of war conditions on different collieries varies enormously, and in large new collieries, with every modern appliance, thick seams, working coal close to the shaft, the diminution of output through the enlistment of men substantially recovered by drawing men from other pits with a lower wage average, the cost may not have risen more than 3s. per ton. My hon. Friend smiles. He is one of the fortunate ones whose output is not much, if anything diminished.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Twenty-five per cent.
  Sir J. WALTON: My hon. Friend is still fortunate. Many have diminished 45 per cent. In collieries of that description the increased cost owing to war conditions may probably not be more than 3s. per ton. Those collieries under this Bill are to be allowed to make an extra 1s. per ton profit. On the other hand, there are many old collieries working thin seams, often with bad roofs, which entail extra timbering and higher pumping charges, and with costs largely increased by the diminution of output, where the cost has risen 4s. per ton, or even more. The surplus over 4s., it is true, may be adjusted by the Board of Trade, but they are debarred by this Bill from making any extra profit such as the new large collieries can. The old collieries had a much lower margin of profit than the new ones before the War, and under the proposals of the Bill as it now stands, the benefit would be given to those who least need it, and it would operate unfairly. The

  1203
  vital question here is not the price at the pit, but the price that the consumer will have to pay, and the whole object of this Bill will be defeated if the merchants are left free to exploit the consumer. I see DO provision for the limitation of merchants' profits. I would ask my hon. Friend how much profit he intends to allow the merchants. I understand that he has already arranged with the London coal merchants to charge a reasonable profit, but this only touches the fringe of the question, because there are coal merchants all over the kingdom yet to be dealt with. My belief is that the most unfortunate and lamentable stoppage in South Wales would have been averted, as would many other labour difficulties, had the Government boldly declared months ago that the increased profits of coal-owners and of all other traders, manufacturers and taxpayers during the War would be taken as a War Tax into the Treasury. The Bill will only apply to a very small extent to South Wales, where the bulk of the coal is exported for our Navy or other destinations, and can therefore have but little effect on the present dispute in that country. I think there is coming a general recognition of the fact that the time has arrived when it is our duty to raise a larger contribution towards the cost of the War by taxation. The price of coal affects every householder, as well as every trader and manufacturer, and the surplus profit derived by the Treasury from the coal trade would in reality be a national war levy, so long as the whole of it was scooped in. This does not seem unfair at a time when wages are higher and unemployment practically nonexistent in most trades. If I am not successful in securing the rejection of the Bill on its Second Reading, and if the House will not sanction the taxing of the whole nation through its coal supply, I would suggest that this Bill be limited to fixing the prices which householders shall pay for coal for domestic purposes—not the pit price, but the price they pay when they receive the coal into their cellars—omitting altogether any attempt to fix a price for manufacturing and other purposes. I believe in the national interest this would be a far better and far simpler way of dealing with a most difficult problem. Were this method adopted, of taking into the Treasury all excess profits of coal owners, it would be the most effective means of reducing the price of coal to a reasonable figure, as the coal owner and coal merchant
  1204
  would have no object or no interest in inflating the price to the utmost degree possible. I fervently hope that in this hour of the country's extreme difficulty the simple plan of taking by legislative enactment the excess profits of all taypayers during the War on the lines I have stated, as a war levy, will be boldly and unhesitatingly adopted by the Government, instead of their bringing in piecemeal legislation such as we have in this Bill, which will operate unfairly between one trade interest and another.
  Sir RICHARD COOPER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  While one welcomes any legislation which is likely to assist the difficulty under which the whole population of the country is labouring, and would readily have confidence in the Government and, in case of difficulty, trust to the wisdom of the Minister in charge of the Bill and sink one's own opinion, I cannot understand how this Bill can touch the fringe of the subject. I think it is extremely unusual for a Bill of any importance to be introduced without the Minister at the very outset, and before one moves the rejection, explaining exactly how he thinks the Bill is going to meet the precise difficulties against which it is framed. That has not happened this afternoon, and to me it is a very extraordinary fact. No doubt later on we shall have the explanation, and when it comes I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear to us and to the people of the country—for, believe me, there is no backing in this country behind the Bill whatever. It may be that they do not understand it. If that is so, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fail to make extremely clear how the Bill is going to assist the people of the country in the direction which I understand the right hon. Gentleman intends it to do, and will later on profess it is going to do. Very few of us are interested in the price of coal at the pit's mouth. We are interested in what we have to pay when we buy it in the various towns, or where we make our contracts for industry, and we know quite well that this 4s. is not the limit of the increased price of coal which we are called upon to pay. There are other increases. They may be necessary or not. There are the great shipping freights, which we heard last time were largely due to the shortage of ships—probably quite a natural, proper and legitimate reason—but it is a difficulty that this Government ought to set itself

  1205
  to meet in some form or other if they possibly can. Then, lastly, it surely is wrong to say virtually, as this Bill does, that the only people who are bleeding the public are the coal owners, and not the merchants or dealers. I do not believe it. I believe that if anyone has been bleeding the public in the price of coal, it is the merchants and dealers far more than the coal owners. I cannot understand what earthly good the Bill is going to do, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lose little time in making it clear to us and the public how it can possibly meet the great difficulty which is exercising the mind of the whole community.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I propose to respond at once to the invitation just given me and address the House on this Bill. The object which the Government has in introducing it is to deal with the price of coal at its source, for the simple reason that the price of coal to the retailer must invariably be affected by the price of coal at the pit-head. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Cooper) suggested that no good would be done by a measure which limits the price of coal at the pit-head, but if he carries his memory back to the discussion which we had last autumn, when we discussed the price of food-stuffs and other materials for domestic use, the subject of coal was treated as being of an exceptional character. Almost everything that we consume in this country, with the exception of coal, is imported from abroad, and the prices of nearly all these articles are world prices. When we discussed the price of wheat we were always met in any proposal for the limitation of the prices of wheat or flour in this country by the fact that the world's price was independent or comparatively independent of the production of wheat in this country, which is not great in proportion to that of the whole world, and that any attempt to artificially lower the price of wheat or flour in this country would tend to drive away from this country supplies that were needed rather than to attract them in far greater abundance. Every speaker in that Debate realised that coal was in an entirely different position. Coal is not imported—it is produced entirely in Great Britain. It was obvious to the House then, as it must be obvious now, that whereas we cannot control the world's price of wheat with any benefit to Great Britain we can control the British price of coal,
  1206
  because it is produced in Great Britain. That is the first principle which lies behind this Bill. The necessity for it I need hardly say is great. It was perhaps greater then than it is now, but the difficulty of dealing with the situation then was greater than it is now. Last winter, household coal in London was up to a price certainly not below 9s. over the corresponding price of the previous winter. At the present moment it may be taken that the average increase in price over the summer price of 1914 is something like 6s. or thereabouts. That margin is made up partly, it is true, by increased charges made by the merchants for their increased expenses and, it may be, for increased profits, and it is also made up to a large extent by the increase in the pit-head prices.
  An HON. MEMBER: Freight also.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: When one is discussing the price of coal in London you cannot omit the cost of carriage. Coasting freights have gone up to a very high figure, almost unprecedented in the last twenty or thirty years, and the cost of carriage by rail which has remained about what it was before the War is still so high as not to greatly relieve the burdens thrown upon gas companies, electric light companies and corporations, who draw their supply from the banks of the Thames. In other places the rise was also very great, and, I think, due, more or less, to the same conditions. It is quite clear that if, in the coming winter, there was no check on the pit-head price of coal, those who produce and sell coal in the United Kingdom would, owing to the fall in the output and the smaller fall in the demand for coal, have the markets pretty much at their mercy. Large numbers of contracts have already been made, some at only 2s. 6d. or 3s. above last year's prices, and some a good deal more. The needs of some of the consumers have been so great that I have been told again and again that but for Government intervention in the coming winter, when the demands will be pressing from the householder who, as a rule, makes little provision for the winter, the price in London might run up to any conceivable figure. This would have added enormous burdens to the cost of households in London.
  As almost every town and village is in the same position it is only fair to point out that even a rise of one shilling represents millions of pounds out of the pockets of the consumer. A shilling rise

  1207
  in the price of coal used within these shores in a year represents no less than £9,000,000. Therefore, a rise of anything like 9s. a ton, which was the average last year, if it held all over the country—it does not hold all over the country—would come to a stupendous sum. Whatever the rise was, whatever the average over the country as a whole, there is no doubt that the increased cost of coal must have represented something more or less than £20,000,000 over the whole year. This affected every town, every corporation, and every public utility company. The House will remember that on this subject there was an informal Committee upstairs a few weeks ago, on which there were perhaps a larger number of private Members than have met regularly on any one Committee for a long time, all of whom were interested in the high price of coal. Whatever may be said by my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, there was no doubt that the consumers, whether manufacturers or householders, did feel the burden last winter more than they could bear, and we felt an apprehension as to what would happen in the coming season if nothing were done to limit prices.
  My hon. Friend suggested that this Bill should be limited only to household coal. I suggest that that would be unfair. It would be unfair not only to the householders, who themselves are depending on the manufacturing industries, but it would be unfair to the manufacturing industries and it would be unfair to the State. The State has now large interests in keeping down the working expenses of the rail-ways, and if coal for the railways were to go up 6s. per ton upon last year's prices the Exchequer would be millions out of pocket. Moreover, the demands of the Navy are larger than they have ever been in the history of the country, and an addition of 1s. per ton on the amount of coal which is now being consumed by the Navy would make an enormous difference in the expense of the Navy.
  Sir J. WALTON: You can get it back as a war levy.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no doubt that profits which are made by coal owners or any other business men, if they are in excess of last year's profits, are a taxable subject which will receive the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do
  1208
  not let my hon. Friend run away with the idea that because this Bill is introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not also going to lay his hands on what are called "war profits." There is no reason why we should not take both sides. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, in due course, what his taxation schemes are, but I shall be much surprised if he does not find it necessary to tax excess profits and to tax them pretty heavily. The unfairness to other trades to which my hon. Friend referred I think we may pass over. There is one justice we may do to other trades, and that is to enable them to get their fuel without an excessive charge being made upon them. The necessity for the Bill is proved beyond question, and the necessity for it is made all the greater if the House takes into consideration the great reduction in output and the less reduction in the consumption. The output in the first half of last year—that is, from January to June, 1914—was roughly 142,000,000 tons. From January to June this year the output has been reduced to 127,500,000 tons—that is to say, there has been a drop of 14,500,000 in output. The exports have gone down by about 13,000,000, so that the shortage is reduced or helped by a margin of something like 1,500,000 tons. If you take the internal consumption of coal for domestic purposes, household purposes, manufacturing establishments, works of all kinds, by the Fleet and on account of the Army, the consumption for the first half of 1914 was roughly 105,500,000 tons. In the first half of 1915 it will be about 104,000,000 tons. That just about makes the two balance. The naval consumption is so much heavier that it leaves less for the householder and the manufacturing establishments. With a drop in the output so great and with the demand for coal being maintained at such an abnormally high level in war time, it is quite clear that the producers of coal, had they been so minded, would have had the markets at their mercy. The coal owners as a class are not as extortionate as some people imagine, but they are pretty shrewd business men, and if they find offers coming along—
  Mr. W. THORNE: So are shipowners!
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: All business men are anxious to get the largest amount they can for what they have to sell. This applies to every section of the community—employers and employed alike. I was saying that if the coal owners find offers coming along week by week at increased

  1209
  prices it is more than we can expect of human nature that they should refuse these offers made to them. I know that many coal owners have been anxious to keep on good terms with their customers in past years, and they have not put prices up to the full limit which the market would demand. How many contracts that have been made have that sentiment behind them I cannot say, but it is obvious that unless some artificial limit is placed upon prices of coal at the pit-head there could certainly have been no reasonable limit of the burden placed upon the consumer. What has led up to this shortage must be obvious to anybody who has any acquaintance with the colliery districts. The heavy enlistment of miners has greatly reduced the numbers in the pits. Not far short of one in five of the miners have enlisted, a proportion which does credit to the miners and has added greatly to the effective strength of the Army during a period when trench warfare is the custom. There has been a fairly large replacement of those who have gone into the Army, but even allowing for that, we may say that the numbers employed in the pits have been reduced in the proportion of seven to six, and the outputs have been reduced by only 10 per cent. If hon. Members are apt in mental arithemetic they will see that the output has gone down less rapidly than the enlistment has gone up. That means that the men who are still employed in the pits have increased their get per man during the period of the War. The cost of working has also increased, but so far as I can ascertain—and the officials at the Board of Trade and I have taken a good deal of trouble over the figures put before us—it does not appear that the cost of working has gone up in the same proportion as the market price. There is no doubt that all materials have become more expensive, but I shall say a word or two about that later on.
  The problem by which we are faced is one of great magnitude, and like all problems which depend so largely on the great variety of producers in the districts from which it comes and the great variety of consumers, it has led to an immense number of solutions being suggested. Nearly everyone thinks that he has a simple way of dealing with the situation. I fear there is no one simple way that is likely to be satisfactory, and I must tell the House frankly that I do not believe that this Bill is or can pretend to be a water-tight measure. It is purely a
  1210
  measure of expediency. It is endeavouring by rough and ready methods, and the only practical method which has been suggested so far, to prevent prices going up at the pit-head to abnormal figures, and in so far as it does that it will have a dominating effect on the price of coal delivered to the consumer. One suggestion made is that we should take the full range of coal and fix maximum prices all over. Those who make that suggestion scarcely realise what an immense variety of coal is raised and sold in this country. Five or six brands of coal or names of coal are put up in the coal merchants establishments in London. They cover a very great variety of coal, although they are only five or six in number. Wallsend coal has long since ceased to come from Tyneside. Derby Brights may come from any one of the five or six counties in the Midlands. These coals have assumed a sort of nomenclature, which has no geographical significance, and there is no doubt that in arriving at a description of coal, nothing is more difficult than giving it a name which can be applied to it scientifically.
  I might point out the great trouble that arises even in a single colliery. Recently I have had brought to my notice one of the large collieries in the North of England where they raise coal from two or three seams, and the variety of coal from those seams is so great that when they get it to the surface they have a dozen different kinds of screenings. I should like any man from outside, when he proceeded to meet the problem in those collieries, to frame a list of maximum prices that would be a sufficient safeguard for the consumer, and would prevent those who had the chance of distributing the coal over the different screens, and also of arranging the different labels when they sell it, from getting to the windward of them. There is no possibility, with the immense variety of coal screenings and the treatment of coal, of framing a list of maximum prices which would be anything like scientific. Indeed, I am quite sure that if we had embarked on anything of the kind we should have been wasting our time over something purely illusory. The best safeguard which we can give to the consumer is that when he makes his contract with the coal owner he will be able to compare what is charged him now with what was charged him or somebody like him last year, that he may be able to see how many shillings above the price charged last year is charged for any description of coal in similar contracts,

  1211
  leaving the consumer to take care of himself, by enabling him to make sure that under his contracts he will not be charged more than the standard number of shillings per ton.
  Mr. BOOTH: The consumer never buys direct from the coal owner.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend is very much mistaken. Every gas company buys direct. Nearly all the large manufacturers buy direct in nearly every one of the mining districts. The only persons who, as a rule, do not buy direct are the ordinary householders, and even this rule is not without exception, because there are many parts of the United Kingdom where even the householders buy direct from the colliery. There is no doubt that the coal owner controls the price of coal. That is the first idea which underlies this Bill. The effort is made in this Bill to fix the coal owner in the price which he takes for his coal. How far can the Bill attempt to limit his prices? The standard of increase which is allowed is based largely on the increased expenses of collieries, expenses which are due to war conditions. During the speech of my hon. Friend who opposed this Bill he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), and in these two Gentlemen we had, I think, at once an illustration of the trouble which we have in arriving at anything like a standard by which to gauge these additional expenses incurred during the War. There is no doubt that in the case of some of the collieries with which I understand my hon. Friend is connected, being in rather old workings, the expenses went up in greater proportion than in the ease of the collieries with which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is connected. Even if that hon. Member were, as he very often does in this House, to give us the benefit of his private experience, I dare say that he would tell us that in the case of some of the older collieries with which he is connected the expenses have risen during the War in a much greater degree than in the case of some of the newer collieries.
  With the great variety of plant, workings, and coal-fields throughout Great Britain, it is almost impossible to say beforehand what has been the added expense of any one colliery. All that we have been able to do is to take out some of the various items and to attempt to assess them by the average. The first
  1212
  added expense to which the collieries have been put comes under the heading of wages. The war bonus awards have added in the Federated Area, which stretches from Lancashire to Warwickshire, and includes North Wales, about 15½ per cent, to the amount of wages paid before the War. In Scotland the war bonus amounts to 18¾ per cent, at the present time. In South Wales it amounts to 17½ per cent. In Durham it amounts to 15 per cent, on the average. Of course this depends on the basis on which it is calculated, but for the purpose of my argument it is immaterial to go into the full technical details with regard to these advances. The important thing is the average. As far as we can ascertain, this means, generally speaking, an added expense to the coal owner, in getting the coal, of something over 1s. a ton in the Federated Area, rather under Is. a ton in South Wales, and considerably under 1s. in many other districts. But of course the variations are upwards and downwards, and even in many districts it is quite common to find some cases where it runs up to 1s. 6d., and others where it runs as low at 7d. or 8d. In the Forest of Dean the addition to wages was 25 per cent, on the standard wages, and that represents something like 1s. 6d. extra added to the cost per ton. If you take the country as a whole, as far as I can ascertain, the extra cost of giving the bonus grant will not be below 9d. and will not be above 1s. That, however, deals with the war bonus charges only. There have been other rises in wages to which the miners were entitled, and that in it self will also add to the expense of getting coal. Then comes the second heading of materials, the cost of which varies very greatly according to the conditions in the different collieries and the different districts. In all cases there is a shortage of pit props. The closing of the Baltic against the export of pit props has added greatly to the cost of working. Pit props are not the only items; there are many others.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why not fix the price for pit props?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I suggest that if we were to limit the price for pit props below the market level they would be sent to other markets than our own, whereas we want to have them here. But if you allow for the great increase in the cost of pit props, and the increased cost

  1213
  of other materials, it may be said that the average throughout the whole country, although there are wide variations, will mean an increased cost of over 1s. a ton. After these items, then, we must take into account the reduction in output, which in iself has added to the expense of getting coal. Then there is the cost of maintenance, establishment charges, capital charges, all of which are something more or less constant, and being spread over a smaller output will increase the burden so much per ton. When all the extra expenses are added together, the total amount by which the expense of getting the coal has been increased is something over 3s. How much over I cannot say, but the average has not been less than 3s. Some happy coal owners have succeeded in keeping the cost lower than that. Some of them have already placed their contracts at prices under the standard rate named in the Bill. Four shillings was therefore inserted in the Bill as a figure which was fair to the coal owners as a class and individually, and fair also to the consumer.
  I may add that the position is complicated by the fact that, if less than 4s. had been taken as the amount, it would undoubtedly have an effect on the scale on which wages were measured. In some of the coal-fields—in the case of the Forest of Dean, for instance—they have already had a rise of wages based on a 5s. increase. I do not think that the House would care to embark in a reduction of miners' wages by Statute. I am quite sure that no Minister who attempted any such programme would succeed in getting a Bill through, and I do not intend to place the Forest of Dean miner under any disability so far as this Bill is concerned. But if we had taken less than 4s. per ton, it would have an effect not only in the Forest of Dean but in a great many coal areas, and we have to consider therefore, in fixing the standard, not only the coal owner but the miner who is employed. The suggestion has been made that, although this Bill may give relief for the future, it does not help those who have already made their contracts, and that appears to be the main ground on which the Bill is criticised in some quarters. But let the House face squarely the difficulty of dealing with these contracts.
  If the contract were a simple one, with merely the coal owners to consider in every case, I have no doubt that it would be possible for the House departing from its usual practice, to tear up existing
  1214
  contracts and put something else in their place. But the fact is that there are very large classes—and I think it is those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had in his mind—who do not buy at first hand. In many cases they buy third or fourth hand, or perhaps fifth or sixth hand. What would be the effect of tearing up existing contracts which had been made-with the merchant? The first effect would be that you would have to reduce the amount which he paid to the coal owner, and then there would be a merchant below him on a smaller scale. His figures would also have to be readjusted. You would have to go down lower to the retailer, whose figure again would have to be readjusted; until, last of all, five or six degrees, under the coal owner, you come to the consumer. Every one of these have made their business arrangements, and have plotted out their contracts for a certain period, and they may have named their prices for their manufactures, and based their profits, on the increased prices which they have paid. And I would suggest to-the House, therefore, that if we were to tear up existing contracts we would have torn up, not only the contract with the coal owner, but would have torn up also thousands of other contracts which have-no direct connection with the coal owner at all, and in all such cases we would have created business injustices and undertaken a task which no sane man would endeavour to undertake unless he were going to reconstruct the whole of commercial England on his own basis and under his own control.
  Such a proposition is certainly outside the range of practical politics, and I do not believe that the House could reasonably insist on existing contracts being disturbed by this Bill. But there need be no misapprehension on the part of those who have already fixed their contracts. A great many persons have been looking forward to the introduction of this Bill for some time and are deferring entering into contracts until the last moment, until this Bill is passed, in order that they may get the benefit of it. I hope that they may succeed in getting the benefit of it. If there are others who have not been so shrewd, or who have not been in a position to postpone making their contract, they will get the benefit of it when the new contracts come on. The other criticism of the Bill is that it does not apply to the merchants, and that it should have been made to apply to the middleman. I must

  1215
  confess that we have not been able to devise any means by which we could reasonably get hold of the middleman's profit, except that of taxation.
  Sir R. COOPER: And break the rings.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will come to that point in reference to London. There what is called the ring, though I have not been able to trace it in the ordinary sense, has certainly an effect on the price of coal as distributed here. But the ordinary factor, as he is called in some districts, or merchant, buys for all sorts of purposes. That has saved the coal owner a good deal of commercial trouble in many cases, and enabled a regular output to be effected. The efforts to control the prices of merchants have, so far as I know, baffled everyone who has attempted to deal with that question. If any suggestion can be made by any Member of the House, I need hardly say we will welcome it, but up till the present I must confess that I know of no way of getting at the middleman except by taxing him. I would like to make an exception, however, in the case of London, and the same may apply to other large centres where the distribution of coal for household purposes is at present in few hands. Immediately the report of the Retail Prices of Coal Committee was made I put myself in communication with coal merchants in London. Those who are members of the Coal Exchange may be reckoned as something approaching the ring to which the hon. Baronet opposite referred. I did not find a coal ring in the ordinary sense, but no doubt there is something in the nature of a market understanding which enables merchants to keep more or less in close proximity and to keep their prices in fairly close proximity.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: The same as a trade union.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Very much the same spirit, except that it has regard to prices. It enables them to keep prices in close proximity, and the prices of coal in London, both in the winter and summer, amongst the merchants proximate very much. There has been talk of extortion in this House and elsewhere, but they were prepared to meet me in the matter and to allow an official of the Board of Trade to look through their books for a long period of years in order that we might see accurately what the annual expenditure had
  1216
  been in many cases, and to find out how those expenses had risen during the period since the War broke out. So far as I can ascertain, the increase in the cost of handling coal in London has been greater than in any of the provincial towns: the absence of horses, the taking of a large number of motor lorries, and the shortage of labour, together with many other expenses, that have had to be borne by the merchants in London, have undoubtedly led to the expenses going up in a much greater proportion here than in most of the provincial towns. When I met the members of the London Coal Exchange they gave me an undertaking that the price of coal was not to exceed the price of coal delivered to depots in London by more than a certain number of shillings per ton in summer, and they gave me an undertaking that they will make a similar arrangement in the coming winter. In coming to that arrangement, I think I have given a fair basis, and I can assure the House we shall be satisfied so far as they are concerned if they adhere to that undertaking and do not exploit the London consumer, while they gain a fair profit and a fair recompense for the expenses they have incurred.
  This arrangement depends absolutely upon the publicity which is given to it, and I propose to ask the merchants to give their concurrence, because I wish to have them with me and would rather have them honourably supporting this scheme. I wish to get from them what would be reasonable prices for their household coal to be distributed in London from time to time, very much in the same way as we published the prices recommended for articles of groceries last August. If that is done it will not necessarily be binding on other coal merchants who are not members of the Coal Exchange, but the publicity that is given to it will, I hope, give an advantage to those who have entered into the undertaking, while not penalising those who are left outside, which was undoubtedly the fact after recommending prices last year in the grocery trade. When the winter comes undoubtedly we shall have to add to that publicity some particulars as to prices of coal of different qualities. So far as London is concerned, I feel more satisfied about the situation than I was last year, when prices went up in an abnormally short space of time to almost panic level. I propose to ask the local authorities in other parts of the country to do very much

  1217
  what we have done in London, and I hope that by publicity in other large and populous areas, like Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, and Edinburgh to make it a matter in which a merchant will feel pride in that he is not blackballed as one of the extortioners, and that he has made a, reasonable arrangement with the local authorities by his being within the limit recommended during the period of the War. That arrangement is the only substitute I can suggest instead of the fixing of a maximum price all round. As I have told the House, I do not believe that to be practicable.
  The House is entitled to ask why there was so much delay in introducing the Bill. I may tell the House candidly that I should have been glad to deal with the subject matter of the Bill at an earlier period in the War, but all the factors have been so variable since the War broke out that it would have been unfair to have taken any one of the prices and imagine that it could reach an equilibrium. Pit props fluctuated up to 200 per cent., and other materials also fluctuated. The prices at which byproducts have been sold have fluctuated considerably, and that is one reason why we should not rush into fixing standard rates when no one can tell what the expense of working coal is to be in the future. Another reason in regard to delay is that during the last twelve months there has teen a good deal of agitation and negotiation with regard to miners' wages. In every coalfield except South Wales arrangements have now been made that are to last during the period of the War, and I must say that I hope in the near future arrangements may be made in South Wales of the same reasonable character. Once those arrangements were made, it was possible for me to proceed with the Bill, and at the earliest possible moment 3 have introduced it. I hoped a week ago that the arrangements I had come to with the executive of the South Wales Miners' Federation would have been accepted by that conference. That hope has been frustrated, and although it has been frustrated for a time, I still believe that we have reached now a period in which we can ascertain with a certain amount of assurance what is likely to be the burden thrown upon the producers of coal. That is the justification of this Bill. I have introduced into this Bill an artificial figure, which must be the basis, as there is no common ground that can be accepted.
  1218
  With regard to the export of coal, I can only say that the Bill does not attempt to limit the price. Foreign exchanges are of more anxiety to us than almost any other financial problem at the present time, and it is by the export of coal that we are able to keep our exchanges equilibrium. If we stop the export of coal we shall have to take to the export of gold for trade purposes, and for the purposes of foreign exchanges coal is gold. If the export of coal is the only way that we have to keep our exchanges equilibrium, it is obvious that the best price Britain can get for her coal from the rest of the world will give us a better chance of keeping our exchanges level than if we were to artificially restrict the prices. I will illustrate this point by taking the case of South America. In this country we buy from South America enormous quantities of meat, maize, wheat, and other cereals. At the present moment the amount of manufactured goods going from this country wherewith to pay for those commodities is smaller than it has been for many long years. Railways are not being extended in the Argentine, and locomotives and rails, therefore, are not going out in the same quantities from this country to the Argentine as in previous years. All our manufacturing output has been limited. The only way, therefore, to keep our exchanges level in the Argentine and to prevent the running up of prices to an extortionate limit is by the export of coal, and the higher the price the coal brings the more likely it is to make exchanges turn in our favour rather than against us. Those whom I have consulted have been overwhelmingly of the view that we should not limit the price of export coal. My hon. Friend asked whether coal shipped from Cardiff for consumption in London is export coal. No; it is not and never has been counted as export coal. Coal which is shipped coastwise and is delivered within the United Kingdom is not export coal. My hon. Friend referred to the Isle of Man; that is within the United Kingdom.
  Sir J. WALTON: Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Ireland is within the United Kingdom. Export coal is that which is sent abroad. It may well be asked that if we leave the price of export coal without the limit it would tend to coal going out of the country, rather than being kept for consumers here. In this War we have had resort to many artificial

  1219
  schemes, and there is one artificial means of controlling the export of coal. We have at the present time an Export Coal Committee, which keeps control of the amount of coal that goes abroad to various destinations. We believe the exercise of the power that Committee possesses will check any tendency to allow an undue proportion of coal to go abroad, leaving in this country a greater shortage than would otherwise have occurred. That Committee must be entrusted with the task of looking after our interests as well, and preventing the coal going into hands believed to be detrimental to our interests. Their powers at present extend to neutral countries only. When this Bill is passed we propose to extend their powers to Allied countries as well. The Committee have means of obtaining a great deal more local knowledge than my hon. Friend suggested, and with the advice and information which they will be able to obtain from the various coal districts, they will be able to keep within this country the coal which we require. That is the reason for the existence of this Committee, and I am sure that it has done its duty well. I commend this Bill to the House, as I said before, not because it is a watertight, economic measure, but it is like a great many other Bills which have been passed since war broke out—it is a measure of expediency. It deals with the most troublesome of all subjects, the most troublesome in my experience—the subject of coal. It does so by checking any abnormal rise of price of coal at the pit's head, the place of origin, and in doing that it gives those who are consumers of coal the best possible chance of buying what they require for their household or for their works within reasonable limits.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: The hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) attacked the principle of this Bill and some of its details. He also attacked the Coal Exports Committee and the principles on which it worked. With your permission, Sir, I propose to speak on that subject.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I, with the permission of the House, make a short announcement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions and the President of the Board of Education and I are going to South Wales by the six o'clock train. I hope that, perhaps, under those circumstances, the House will forgive me for not being here.
  Mr. REA: I desire to interpose as soon as possible, because the criticisms which have been made may be followed by other criticisms of the same nature, and I may possibly, as chairman of the Coal Exports Committee, be able to give some account of the principles on which they are acting. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley said that, owing to the action of the Coal Exports Committee, prices had been reduced many shillings per ton, and' that by the refusal of licences to Northumberland collieries and Newcastle shippers prices had been reduced by 8s. per ton, and that collieries had been stopped and thrown out of work through the action of the Committee. That is a formidable indictment. It is formidable, but it is not altogether accurate. If the action of the Coal Exports Committee has contributed to the reduction in the price of coal, I do not think from the national point of view that it is altogether to be regretted; but if the action of the Coal Exports Committee has caused collieries to stop for want of orders from foreign countries, that is a pure national loss and is due to some error or fault of the Coal Exports Committee, if it has occurred. I deny that it has occurred.
  Sir J. WALTON: I know of my own personal knowledge of collieries that have been stopped. I am interested in them.
  Mr. REA: Nevertheless, I deny that it has occurred through the operation of the Coal Exports Committee. There are districts which are dependent on the export trade for their working. Those districts on the East Coast of England and Scotland have lost their largest customer, Germany, which took from them 9,000,000 tons per year. They have lost their second largest customer, Russia, which took 6,000,000 tons per year. They have also, but not by the action of this Committee, been very much restricted in shipments to Sweden. That has been the cause why collieries have stopped. To all the collieries in these districts which were left open to the operations of the Committee we have been most indulgent. We have given them every licence for which they have applied, except in cases where the shipper or consignee was a black-listed person or an alien enemy, or a suspected person. We have gone further than that, and we have refused to licence shipments from districts where they were able to dispose of their coal at home, and where they

  1221
  were not dependent on the export trade. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) cheers that sentence. He has reason to know, as nobody has probably suffered more than himself by the refusal of the Coal Exports Committee to sanction the export of coal from the Midlands of England. To that extent we have benefited those particular collieries of the purely exporting districts. We have actually not only given all the licences which it was within our power to give to approved people, but we have actually contributed to divert trade to those collieries.
  When the Coal Exports Committee began its operations we had to consider the question very broadly. We saw that the output of coal was deficient by something like three million tons per month, and we knew that in an article like coal a very, very small deficiency would cause an absolutely incommensurate rise in price. When we had a deficiency of three million tons per month it looked as if there would be no limit to the possible price to which coal might rise. We saw at the same time when we took charge that the exports during the first months of the War had also decreased considerably, by something like 40 per cent. That had been due to the shortage of tonnage and the congestion at foreign ports, especially French ports. We were prepared to find a very large increase in the demand for export coal as the tonnage was released, and better organised to turn round in less time, and as congestion in foreign ports was overcome. Up to that time the price had done nothing but rise, and freights had done nothing but rise. The home consumer was crying out about the deficiency of the supplies and that he was not able to get coal in some instances at any price. Several managers of railways came to us, and one of them told us that he was not able to renew contracts, regardless of price considerations at that time. Public utility works also found at that time their stocks growing dangerously low. I believe the South Metropolitan Gas Company was within eleven days of stoppage at one period. Therefore, the question was a very serious one. The principal object of the institution of our Committee was to preserve our supplies for home consumption, and we approached the question from that point of view. We found this problem: Here is a ton of coal, and is the Englishman who wants it to have it, or is the foreigner, and we preferred the
  1222
  Englishman to have it. So we began by endeavouring to reduce exports so far as we could safely do so.
  We had to look at the geographical situation and at the diplomatic situation, and we saw, to begin with, that the largest consumer of our exports in coal was ourselves, and that a great number of our exports were just as useful to us as the coal consumer at home. For instance, the largest consumer of all is the mercantile marine, and principally the mercantile marine of this country, and it was vitally important that the mercantile marine should be kept going and that all the foreign coaling stations should be supplied. That we took as our first rule. Then we had to distribute between country and country. To shut off coal entirely from the Argentine would have shut off our supplies from there of corn, meat, and other things. To shut off our supplies of coal from Spain would be to shut off our supply of other articles. To shut off our supplies to Sweden and Norway would be to deprive ourselves of pit props and magnetic ores. We had to consider our action in relation to foreign trade in general and foreign trade in particular. Then we had to consider our action in regard to the sources of supply and the different districts upon which coal is produced. In Fifeshire, for instance, 80 per cent, of the product is exported, and to refuse permission to export coal from the Fifeshire collieries would not have meant more coal for the home consumer but would have meant a stoppage of the collieries. If the export trade were stopped there would be no trucks or rolling stock to deal with the home trade, whereas formerly all that was necessary was the little journey from the pit to the ship. They would not have the means there of inland distribution. The railway companies are overtaxed, and they had neither rolling stock nor the means of organising any system of inland distribution, and therefore we found it quite necessary to allow such districts as Fifeshire to export. The same argument applied to South Wales, though the position in South Wales was, of course, immensely mitigated by the enormous demand of the British Navy and our Allies at the present time. The same conditions applied to the Northumberland district.
  We had all these things to consider, and our action has been based upon them. We have severely restricted licences from the inland districts of England for exportation, either from the Humber or the

  1223
  Mersey, because those inland collieries could sell all their coal at home. We have had, of course, from week to week particulars of production, and from day to day we acted in our judgment of supply and demand on the market reports which were sent to us. I may say since we began our operations the conditions have very much mitigated and prices have receded. Prices instead of perpetually advancing have considerably receded, and, those things having occurred, we have, of course, relaxed our operations, and I may say now that we are licensing very freely indeed, excepting to persons who are alien enemies or are suspects on the black lists of the Foreign Office or the Admiralty or other Departments. We find things are better in the London area. The London gas companies and all the companies engaged in works of public utility were extremely alarmed and in considerable danger two or three months ago, and they set themselves to work under an organisation to accumulate stocks in the summer. They calculated that they must get not only a supply equal to their weekly consumption, but also at least 25,000 tons a week in addition, in order to face the winter. I am happy to say that during the last two months or more they have succeeded in putting by not only the 25,000 tons a week which they required, but about 150,000 tons beyond that. So that, on the whole, the situation is not so bad as we feared it might become a few months ago when this Committee was appointed. The production of coal, when you consider the number of men who have left the collieries and gone to the front— and these are the best men—has been extremely satisfactory. The amount produced per man has actually gone up, although they have had in the collieries much less experienced men, who have in part taken the place of those who have gone to the front.
  I have now explained the principles upon which we are working, and I hope it may possibly save the time of the House by diverting from my head a good deal of criticism of the nature of that to which I have listened from the hon. Member for Barnsley. I approve the principle of this Bill. Coal is not an absolute but a limited monopoly. It is to a very considerable extent a monopoly, and a monopolist in times like the present can get a monopoly price. I approve the Bill being confined to the pit price, because I think that by
  1224
  organisation, by administration, the pit price can be reflected in the distribution, if the consumer knows what the pit price is. The consumer ought to be informed by the Board of Trade what the pit price is and what the relation of the legal pit price is to the retail price in his area. He ought to know roughly—that is, he ought to be informed—what is the proportionate advance that he may fairly be asked to pay. Nay, I go further and say that if the Board of Trade will receive complaints from any particular area or district when extortionate prices are being exacted, they can hold the distributor in the hollow of their hands through their command of the railways. Any misuse of the limited local monopoly on the part of a distributor or group of distributors might, if necessary, receive a very severe check from the Board of Trade through their control of the means of distribution.
  The new Bill has rightly exempted from the range of maximum prices all export coal, but it has added thereby very considerably to the responsibilities of my Committee. We shall have a much more invidious task in discrimination. A good many of the Midland colliery owners have acquiesced very loyally in the reduction of their export trade, but it will be rather a different matter if they find that perhaps 10s. or 15s. per ton extra can be obtained by exporting, if they can get a licence. I mention this fact because if our action in the past has brought upon us criticism, I must ask that in future we may be treated with considerable indulgence. We shall exercise our discretion as equitably as we possibly can under the circumstances and with our knowledge. Above almost all things, we bear in mind the national value of our coal exports at present. It is a real grief to put the word "refused" on a shipment of good South Wales coal to South America, a shipment which would make across the ocean a considerable credit of national as well as of individual value. I hope that all coal owners will believe that we bear this in mind, and that when the absolutely necessary consumption of this country is provided for we shall be only too willing to sanction exports. We have no wish to assert ourselves; our wish is to efface ourselves, and we look forward to the time when the exporter may even forget that we exist.
  Mr. WALSH: I think there will be few in this House, and no one outside, but will desire this Bill to pass and to accomplish the object which it has in view. The only

  1225
  doubt that is in my mind is whether it will accomplish its object at all. If we take our minds back eight or nine months, we may perhaps better understand or appreciate the reason for bringing in such a Bill. What took place in the London market? It is a simple term to use, to say that the London consumer was most disgracefully exploited. Leaving it at that is a simple enunciation of the truth. The President of the Board of Trade said that the reason why he is stopping at a particular increase of pit-head prices is that the pit-head price is the dominating price to the consumer. Nothing can really be more remote from the fact. At the very time when these tremendous prices were being charged to the London consumer the average pit-head price in the federated area, which commands over three-sevenths of the coal production of the Kingdom, was 5d. less than it was in July of the same year. That is to say, the price had fallen almost continuously from July, 1914, until December,]914, the very time at which these tremendous prices were being foisted upon the London public. How the Minister can be induced to believe that the dominant factor in the selling price is the pit-head price, and that once that is fixed upon a reasonable figure all other things will practically accommodate themselves thereto, passes my comprehension.
  May I remind hon. Members that the Durham miners send a good deal of coal to the London market? I do not know how much, but I should think that certainly one-half of the total production of the Durham mines comes into the London market and is sold as household coal. I am told by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham that it is fully one-half. I did not want to exaggerate. Certainly one-half of it comes into London and is used mainly for household purposes. At the very time these prices were being foisted upon the London public, the Durham miners were suffering a reduction of wages, because of a reduction in the pit-head selling price. It is very difficult indeed under such circumstances to reconcile the Minister's statement with the actual facts of the case. Will it be believed that for April last, only two months ago, the average selling price in the federated area was only 5d. per ton higher than it was in December of last year? Yet everybody knows that the selling prices in the London market, whence the great cry of despair came, were up 5s., 10s., or even more shillings per ton, although the total average
  1226
  increase per ton from December of last year to April of this — I have no later figures — was 5d. per ton. I suggest that, these being the facts, and they are indisputable, it is idle to talk about the dominant factor in the selling price being the pit-head figures. There are some people who come in after the pit-had price is fixed. They are legion, and they wear different garbs, but they all have the same purpose—that of making the greatest possible profit out of the people who are least able to defend themselves.
  I desire, and I am sure every miner in the Kingdom desires, that prices shall be placed at such a point as not to exploit the public. There is nothing more hateful to us than to think that that which is a necessary of life, a necessary of industry, a necessary in every sense of the word, should be used to exploit the miseries and hardships of the public. Unless you do something in this Bill to stop the middleman, the measure seems to me to be almost worthless. I do not know how you are going to stop him, but there is no attempt at all in this Bill to do it. I myself with half a dozen colleagues have been serving on a Committee for many months, doing our best to organise the industry in the national interests. We submitted the rough lines of a Bill of this character, but we certainly did not leave out the middleman. It would not be an easy thing, it never is, to catch the middleman; but I think it is well within the bounds of practicability to form committees in various areas, establishing zones, so to speak, to place upon those committees people thoroughly conversant with the trade, and to schedule the prices within which coal must be sold to the householder. He is the person for whom I, and, I think, all Members of the House, feel the most keenly. I believe that would be a good way of dealing with the middleman. At present the public are left altogether to his mercies. That is surely not a recommendation in a Bill of this character. We made some recommendations with regard to dealing with exports. I am bound to say that the very explicit, clear, eloquent and statesmanlike statement from the Minister, who stated that coal for the purposes of exchange was really gold, has considerably modified my view. But we do find in the exporting districts that prices are going up with exceeding greater speed than in the inland districts. In the Scottish coal-exporting

  1227
  districts, the Northumberland districts, and the South Wales districts prices are going up very rapidly. There is not a single person who wishes to interfere with profit so long as it can be kept within the lines of reason, but we do really believe that there should be an ad valorem tax, to go to the funds of the State when the figures reach a certain point, or beyond.
  If you can destroy the incentive to extra profit there is really no satisfaction in putting your figures beyond that. At the same time I can see that there is a great deal to be said for the statesmanlike point of view submitted by the Minister of the Board of Trade, and in view of that I do not propose to press my point any further. There is the greatest possible necessity for roping in the middleman. It is all very well to say that if they see the prices in the same way as we published the prices of provisions last year the people will know the proper prices that ought to be paid, and probably will not pay any more. There can be no belief more delusive than that. When you have your children starving for want of a little heat, or the cooking has to be done, with a dozen and one small needs of the family to be met, it is idle to say that a person who buys coal, perhaps by the 7 lbs., 14 lbs., or 28 lbs., knows perfectly well what the schedule prices are and ought to pay no more. It is, I say, idle to talk in that way. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister means very well, but we must prevent this exploitation. I understand that there is a committee now being formed in London with the object of preventing this exploitation in the London area. Similar committees could very well be set up in other parts of the country. I am perfectly certain that the people who are conversant with the mining industry, men who, from the employers' side, have passed their lives in it; men who have passed their lives in the retail business, men who have passed their lives from the trade union side —they could form a committee which had for its object the prevention of prices going to these famine figures, and could prevent this exploitation. They could do in other well-established areas of the country exactly what the Minister himself is trying to do here in London. We are all convinced that in the truest sense of the term the coal belongs to the people. We are not out for Socialistic objects at all. In this period, when everyone of us, whatever
  1228
  may be his political complexion, wants to pull together for the truest interests of the State, it is highly desirable that the middleman should be prevented from going upon the rampage to the horrible extent that he did last year. If this Bill in any way is instrumental in its object, then it will be a Bill worthy of support. Unless it does do something towards this end, it is hardly worth giving it its Second Reading.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I would like to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of the question which has escaped the attention of the other speakers. It is to emphasise the grounds for the statement which the President of the Board of Trade had to make at Question Time this afternoon. It is absolutely forced to the front by the situation which is still prevailing in South Wales. I will tell the House why. What is the essence of the Bill now before the House? The essence of this Bill is to limit the profits made in certain circumstances by the coal owners. How is that arrived at? It was made, not very long ago, as part of an arrangement between the Minister of Munitions and the trade unions. Unfortunately, however, one side of that arrangement has already been broken by the strike in Wales. Obviously, until those strikes are put an end to, it cannot be either fair or reasonable that that part of the bargain that the profits of the coal owners should be limited should be enforced, when the quid pro quo by which it was obtained has not been fulfilled, or when the whole arrangement has been broken by the other parties to the bargain. I am bound to say that I think we are entitled at least to ask this: That so long as strikes continue this condition ought not to be enforced upon the coal owners either now, or whenever strikes occur. Those who are interested in this question, and who speak on behalf of the coal owners—which I do not myself pretend to do, not being in any way connected with the industry, and never having been in my life—I think in common fairness that this arrangement ought to stand as I have suggested.
  I would like to ask one question. It deals with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Is this Bill really going to be effective or not? I must confess that I had some doubts upon the question; or rather doubts were excited in my mind by a telegram which I received on this subject only this morning after I returned to London. This telegram was

  1229
  from a well-known coal agent, who is agent for one of the great collieries in the north of England. I am going to take the liberty of reading it to the House, because it so entirely accords with the statement that was made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The sender of the telegram says:—
  "Effect of the Act is to penalise the producer without helping consumer. It is a fallacy that the bulk of coal purchased direct by the consumer. Much coal purchased by merchants who are not restricted. No reason for singling out coal owners and not restricting merchants or freights. Bill indefensible on that ground: probably useless to consumer whom Government risk benefiting …"
  It is quite true, and I heard it with great satisfaction from the President of the Board of Trade, that he had come to an understanding with certain merchants— that is to say, the merchants in London, and that they had given him an undertaking upon this subject which, no doubt, will be observed. There remains the fact that the merchants are only a comparatively small part, I imagine, of the merchants throughout the rest of the country. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he had good hopes of bringing about an arrangement with them, but that arrangement is not yet in existence, and I am told that there are very great practical difficulties in giving effect to it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend opposite representing the Board of Trade will be able to throw any further light upon this question, and show that it is a perfectly feasible operation which may be accomplished without great difficulty. Unless we have some further assurance upon this subject, the position is not altogether satisfactory to me individually, so far as I am able to form an opinion. I am sure the whole House will have heard with interest just before he eat down the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—as I understood him—that he was going down into the Welsh district accompanied by another prominent Minister. I am sure all of us hope that they may be successful in their undertaking. I am one of those who think that it is absolutely impossible to over-rate the extreme gravity of the situation that prevails, and which I do not believe will ever be satisfactorily dealt with by only making concession after concession to those who have failed to keep a bargain.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Although I have no actual right to speak on behalf of the mine owners, yet I believe I am speaking the mind of very large numbers of
  1230
  those who are associated together in this country in saying that they do not agree with the action taken by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) in moving the rejection of this Bill. At the same time they desire to make the very strongest protest that their industry should have been selected as the only one in connection with which very drastic legislation of this character should be introduced. They desire to offer that protest in the strongest possible manner. Every speech which has been made this afternoon only confirms the correctness of their protest. They have accepted the principle of this Bill; but they have accepted it on one consideration only, and that is that they, as others in this country, are a loyal body of men who desire not to raise at this moment of extreme crisis any strong objection to the principle of any Bill which the Government of the day, composed as it is of all parties, consider necessary to bring in for the benefit of the nation. That is the reason they accept the principle of this Bill. They, however, reserve the full right to introduce Amendments, and I trust that those who have authority in connection with this matter will consider these Amendments when they are introduced, and whenever the Bill is taken in Committee.
  6.0 P.M.
  I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he could not see his way to give a little more time, after the Second Reading, for the consideration of the Amendments? I understood it was proposed to take the Committee stage tomorrow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in an extremely difficult Bill of this sort it is most desirable that the Amendments should be on the Paper, and it will be almost impossible for that to take place, so that Members may consider them, if the Bill is to be taken in Committee tomorrow. I think we must be grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his very clear statement. Perhaps he himself suffered from the extreme clearness of the expression of his opinions, because all through his subject it was very evident how great were the difficulties in this special action on the part of His Majesty's Government in taking this particular industry and limiting the effects of ordinary competition and trade. We had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) only a few minutes ago, in which he, with his very considerable experience from an

  1231
  entirely different point of view from that of the mine owner, showed how the price at the pit-mouth could not be taken in any way as the concluding basis on which to rely in connection with the price to the consumer, and I think the one thing that must have struck the House in listening to the President of the Board of Trade was that he was fully aware that in this House he was not clearly getting to the actual point —that he had had to abandon the really more necessary action against the middleman on account of inability to find a sufficiently satisfactory solution. Other Members have been exercising their minds on the same subject, and still it has not been found possible to put forward any solution in the matter. Yet is it not evident that this question, if you are going to enter on it at all, cannot be settled unless the question of the charges made subsequent to the pit-mouth are dealt with also by legislation? It is not sufficient merely to bring in a Bill of this sort. You must follow it through, and to follow it through, as everyone knows, means a complication of difficulties and the abandonment of principles in regard to trade. Into difficulties of such a nature even the right hon. Gentleman in this extremely critical moment has been unwilling to enter.
  One thing which undoubtedly the mine owners do feel very strongly is that they should have been picked out as the only persons to whom such drastic legislation should apply, whilst they are firmly convinced that the very high prices to which objection has been raised are due very much more to the action of others than of themselves. Up to a very recent period certain contracts were being entered into at lower prices than was the fact before the War, and, therefore, the high prices were not due to the action of the mine owner in very many cases Of course a certain number of cases no doubt come before the public arising out of the small margin which exists after the larger margin is made, but that is a small percentage of the output of the collieries. The larger part is covered by the contracts which, in most cases, are the effect of bargaining between two parties perfectly able to take care of themselves, and these exaggerated prices are seldom applied to larger contracts. Therefore, the mine owners generally have felt very keenly this picking out of their industry and themselves as the one subject for penal
  1232
  legislation, and they wish to raise their voice against that in the very strongest way. But so far as they do admit the principle of the Bill, they desire to return their thanks to the President of the Board of Trade for his efforts to consult all parties, and to endeavour to obtain knowledge from all in the trade generally in connection with this matter. They are grateful for his statement to-day so far as contracts are concerned. I quite conceive there will be very great difficulties as regards contracts, and that the reversal of contracts would indeed lead to very much greater difficulties than the attitude taken up by the Government at the present time, because if contracts for higher prices have to be dissolved, contracts for lower prices would also have to be dissolved, involving great distress of business in the land. At all events, now the right hon. Gentleman has given a very strong opinion in connection with contracts, and I hope we may consider that matter is fairly settled.
  The right hon. Gentleman went into a considerable amount of detail as to the advance of cost. It is undoubtedly true that there may be collieries where the cost in wages has not been so much as is often said, but in the thinner seams, in the older pits, in consequence of advances of wages arising out of the establishment of the Minimium Wage Act and War bonus there have been increases, of course, very much larger than were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In the matter of stores, the mine owners will be left in an extremely difficult position by this maximum price in the Bill. Timber has been mentioned, and everyone knows timber has been fluctuating to an enormous extent. We know also that our maritime warfare is by no means settled at the present time, and it may be a much more difficult thing to get timber in the near future than it has been even in the past few months. There are other subjects now which also are of extreme importance to colliery owners as pits get more elaborate and come under coal-mining Act after coal-mining Act. There are all sorts of new inventions instituted in pits, especially in connection with electrical work, the prices of everything to do with which have increased enormously, and will increase enormously, in my opinion, and will materially affect the course of price in connection with our collieries. All these things—the requirements of collieries, the possible increase of wages, and the further

  1233
  dangers alluded to by the right lion Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin)—are still in the future, and yet the margin allowed by the Bill is already in a certain number of collieries entirely used up. It may cau6e a contrary effect to that which the Government desire. It may cause a curtailment of the production of coal. It may be almost impossible for certain collieries to carry on if the prices change in the manner I have indicated.
  Although I am glad to see the Board of Trade has reserved the power to increase prices in certain instances, yet I think that is a power probably reserved for extreme cases, and is not likely to be exercised in the case of individual collieries. Therefore it can hardly be relied on to meet the cases I have desired to put forward. So far as the price to the consumer is concerned, there is nothing in the Bill which in any way ensures that the benefit which is given by the Bill does inure to those whom it most concerns. The manufacturing consumer who buys coal may get the benefit of the Bill, but there is no proposal on the part of the Government to ensure that the manufacturer, whatever his trade may be, does reap the benefit of any help he may give. You may, therefore, only be enlarging the profits in certain munition trades, while at the same time you are taking away certain natural profits from an industry. On such grounds as these, I think, it is regrettable that the Government have entered on the extremely difficult task which they were reluctant to enter upon last year, and which they gave very good reasons for not entering upon, but which they have now begun, and I do not think they will be able to stop in the position in which they are placed. You are entering on a new line entirely in connection with industry. It may be necessary. We bow to your decision, because at this time we are bound to accept that which is the considered opinion of the Government at the moment. But I do ask the Government to consider very carefully whether they have in this Bill actually obtained a satisfactory solution in a matter which is full of bristling difficulties, and which will land them, in my opinion, in still greater difficulties. So far as the mine owners are concerned, they have tried loyally to meet the Government in this matter. They hope the Government is right in forcing this upon them, but they do ask the Government that they will con-
  1234
  sider carefully, favourably and considerately any Amendment which may be put forward by this great industry.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I rise to support the principle of this Bill, and to say on behalf of the merchants trading in London and the South of England that, at this time of national emergency and danger, we place ourselves and our services in the hands of the Board of Trade, and the course of our business will follow any lines which the right hon. Gentleman thinks best in the interests of the country. We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech on the Second Reading, which, I agree with other speakers, was a clear and useful speech. We are indebted to him for what he said with regard to the London coal merchant. We have heard a great deal of loose talk about exploiting the public. We heard it here this afternoon, at a time when the Government of the day, having examined the books of the London coal merchants, having examined the whole case of the trade in coal in London, are satisfied the London coal merchants are trading in a proper and a legitimate manner. When this question became acute, as it did become acute in the spring, the London coal merchants voluntarily went to the President of the Board of Trade and offered to place before the right hon. Gentleman and the officials of the Board of Trade the books at least of the leading coal merchants of London over a series of years, to prove to the Board of Trade, as they did prove to the Department, that if there is a business in this country or a business in London which is of a most competitive nature it is the London coal trade. If there are any people who have traded for the small interest on their property certainly they are the London coal merchants. When there is a Debate in this House with regard to colliery prices and the prices of coal in London and in the South of England you always hear, when hon. Members like the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) are speaking of prices at the pit, they always talk about the "average pit price." They say the average price at the pit is so much, and then they take the price at which coal is sold in London in a particular week, at a particular time, and at a particular sale; they generally take the highest price they can discover, and use that as a comparison with the average price at the pit.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the hon. Member say where I said that?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I said the hon. Baronet has referred to average pit prices, and if you take the average price at one end you must also take the average price at the other end. I wish here to state that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government can rely upon the coal merchants of London and the South of England acting loyally by any arrangement that may be come to in order to limit the profits, and to carry out in the spirit as well as in the letter any policy which will satisfy the Government and the public that there is no exploitation of the people with regard to the supplies of coal. I have been connected with the coal trade from my youth upwards, and it is no satisfaction to me to hear hon. Members say that I am engaged in a business which is exploiting the public. I am sure if anyone would come and see my books and see how my business is carried on he would go away convinced that their statements are perfectly unfounded. If any arrangement can be come to with the Government to satisfy the country that these statements are unfounded, no one would be better pleased than those who are carrying on the coal business in London and in the South of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) said he questioned the wisdom of the Government in picking out this particular industry for legislation, and he said that it was not fair that the collieries should be picked out and not the merchants. If the right hon. Gentleman had told the House all the facts it would have been clear that it is entirely the fault of the colliery owners that there is any legislation at all, because the President of the Board of Trade has been negotiating with the colliery owners for months to try and get them to come to a voluntary arrangement which would regulate and modify the pit prices. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been carrying on these negotiations all these months legislation in his direction could have been brought forward sooner, and therefore the colliery owners are entirely to blame for this legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) who is now representing the Board of Trade will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that the President of the Board of Trade has been negotiating for months with the coal owners in the hope of coming to a voluntary agreement to avoid
  1236
  legislation. That he does not dispute, and therefore for any colliery owners to complain of this legislation is quite unjustifiable. It was part of the case of the right hon. Gentleman that when he met the colliery owners they said, "If we reduce our prices we have no guarantee that the merchants will reduce theirs." We immediately went to the right hon. Gentleman and assured him that we were ready to give that guarantee, and therefore I say again that it is entirely the fault of the coal owners that this legislation is necessary. May I remind hon. Members when they talk about the prices of coal in London and the so-called middlemen they can always buy coal in London from the Army and Navy Stores, the Civil Service Stores, Harrod's, or Whiteley's, because all these firms engage in the coal trade, and I would ask are they exploiters of the public or have they entered into a "ring"? You have only got to look a little more closely into the actual circumstances and get away from these rather reckless and careless statements in order to see that the London market for coal, as it is for everything else, is subject to the keenest competition that can possibly be. There is always this difficulty that in regard to any article consumed in a large centre, competition reduces the price to a very low level at one moment, but the price at that particular moment may not always be a fair average basis. You must not take the price at which an article is being sold at one particular time, but you must take an average price covering, the year.
  Having said so much about the London position, I want to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to some views upon the Bill itself. I heartily support the principle of the Bill because without legislation or voluntary agreement I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the outlook next winter in London will be most serious, and if you get a Bill of this kind or a voluntary arrangement it must steady prices. You want some measure of this kind to steady prices next winter, and the question is not so much what the price of coal is now, but what it would be next winter if there was not some legislation of this kind or some voluntary arrangement. We hear a good deal about the present price of coal. The President of the Board of Trade was perfectly right when he said that but for some step of this kind no one knows what the price of coal will be if we

  1237
  have a cold winter. I am sure everyone inside and outside this House will appreciate very much what this Bill will do by steadying the price of coal at a time like next winter when there will probably be a scarcity. With regard to the machinery of the Bill I think it is extremely difficult, and many difficult points arise. It is quite clear that if we had not had all these negotiations this Bill could have been brought in three months ago. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree to that proposition. The reason it was not brought in before is that the President of the Board of Trade hoped to come to a voluntary arrangement with the coal owners. If the Bill had been passed three months ago we, should have avoided the contracts which have been made at very high prices, because this Bill will not apply to contracts.
  I notice that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the coal owners said he was very glad that it did not apply to contracts. In my opinion this Bill ought to apply to contracts, but it ought not to be retrospective from the point of view of any coal delivered, but it ought to apply to contracts from the date of the passing of the Act, otherwise you come up against very great difficulties. Take the case of the manufacturers of coal. Many merchants throughout the country have made contracts for manufacturing coal from 7s. to 8s. of an advance over last year. Some of that is sold, and some of it is unsold. The consumer who has bought is naturally up in arms, and will not buy because here is a Bill which limits the price to 4s. on last year. That which is unsold cannot be sold at the advanced price of 7s. or 8s. which the merchants have to pay. There is another case which has been brought to my notice only to-day. It was mentioned to me last Friday, but the particulars only came to me to-day. It is a ease where a coal merchant had a contract running which ends on the 3lst October, and the colliery company came to him and said, "If you want this coal next year from the 1st of November, you will have to buy it now." The coal merchant said, "I do not want to buy it now, because I cannot deliver it to my customers now." The colliery company replied, "If you do not buy it now, we cannot guarantee that you will have the coal on the 1st of November." Consequently this coal merchant, on the 8th of this month—I am speaking of a large firm not only in London, but throughout the country—was practically compelled
  1238
  by the colliery company to enter into a contract of an 8s. increase over the price of last year, which governed the corresponding period referred to in this Bill. This firm signed the contract on the 8th of this month to have the deliveries from the collieries on the 1st of November next, although they will not be able to sell it to their customers. If this merchant had refused to buy the coal at that time he might have found himself without that business at the end of the autumn.
  From an ordinary business point of view hon. Members might say that this merchant ought not to have bought the coal. I will give another case, that of Messrs. Cory, who are large coal dealers in London. A Northumberland colliery came to them and wanted 17s. 6d. a ton for the coal at the pit, which is 1s. 6d. more than the Bill would allow. This firm said to the colliery, "No, we shall wait until we see what legislation is carried through by the Government." They did not order the coal, and subsequently they had a letter from the colliery saying that they had sold half of that coal for export purposes, and the firm I am alluding to can only have half the quantity they could have had a week ago. I know of another case where a firm refused to buy the coal because they were waiting for this Bill, and they have lost half the coal, and will probably lose the other half of their contract. In the light of these facts how can the Government fairly say that this Bill shall not apply to contracts? I say that the Bill ought to apply to all contracts from the passing of the Act, even if the Government made the figure 4s. or 5s., or a figure which would be acceptable to the collieries. It is no use having an arrangement or a low figure in the Bill if that low figure prevents you getting the coal. It is poor consolation to London, and the districts around London and other parts of the country, for us to pass a Bill which, and although it is all right from the point of view of argument and discussion here, in practice it would mean that you do not get coal for your customers in order to enable you to carry on your business. In my opinion it is of the utmost importance that the Bill should apply to contracts, and it would be better to make some other modification to fit in with a fair and equitable arrangement with the collieries than to allow the contracts to run over next year.
  You must bear in mind that 80 per cent, of the coal produced in the country has

  1239
  already been sold under contract, and if this measure does not apply to contracts then you are passing a Bill which deals with a very limited supply of coal. It is really doubtful whether London will get any of that supply of coal. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that the words of the first Clause say that it is only to apply to coal of the same description sold in similar quantities and under similar conditions. The House will realise, if it is coal only "of the same description sold under similar conditions," and you have only got a very small quantity of coal left for sale, how easy it will be for the coal owner to say that he has none of that limited supply of coal of the same description which he can sell under similar conditions and in similar quantities. There are no similar conditons. War has altered all conditions, and, if the colliery like, they can withhold from anybody any of this coal which is outside contracts and which this Bill says is to be sold at not more than 4s. over the price of two years ago. Is not that a serious matter? Will not the Board of Trade between now and the Committee stage consider whether they cannot bring in contracts from the passing of this Act, and on terms which will be acceptable to the collieries? Do not let them hold too fast to the 4s. That is not so important, or half so important, as getting the coal; and in my opinion, unless contracts are brought in, this Bill must break down in the working.
  The President of the Board of Trade, with regard to house coal, said that those who had made contracts had not shown so much prudence' as they ought to have shown. Who, trading in coal, could have dared, after the experience of last winter, to keep out of the market three months ago? The whole object of everyone who would want coal during the next twelve months was to secure coal—that was the essential thing—at the lowest price he could. We went to the Board of Trade and agreed upon four things. We undertook not only to limit our profits but to buy coal. That is why the President of the Board of Trade was able to-day to say that there was more coal in London than in June last year. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) a few days ago, the President of the Board of Trade said that there was more coal in London in May this year than in May last year. Of
  1240
  course, it was part of our arrangement with the Board of Trade that we should buy coal. We kept our high-price coal in May instead of selling it as usual, and we bought high price coal in June. If we had done what the President of the Board of Trade today suggested that we should have done and had waited for this Bill, we could not have carried out our bargain with him, and instead of his being able to say to-day that there was more coal in London than at this time last year there would have been no stock, but actually a shortage. Instead of that, we stocked coal on every inch of ground we had, and we have put down every bit of coal we could at high prices. That was part of our bargain. We have also urged our customers to buy at the present prices. We have told them that they ought to buy. The Government, too, have told all the local authorities in London and in the country that it is their business to get in their coal quickly, and boards of guardians, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, lunatic asylums, and other large institutions carried on by the local authorities of this country have been buying coal. Now the Government come along and say, "We will bring in a Bill, and the pit price shall be from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per ton less than the contracts you have made for the coal you have bought." That is not good business, and it is not the best way to deal with this subject. Speaking for myself, we are not going to-quarrel with the Government during War time even if they pass this Bill just as it is, whatever injustice may arise, because the interests of the country are far in front of any other consideration. But here is the House of Commons dealing with this Bill, and it is not yet too late to make it a better and more workable measure. The object of my remark is to persuade the Government to modify and amend the Bill, so as to make it more workable and more suitable for the conditions to which it pretends to apply.
  There is no guarantee under the Bill that the collieries will supply this small amount of coal which is left outside contracts. Some provision should be put into the Bill making it the duty and the responsibility of the Board of Trade to see that consignments of coal are sent to those parts of the country where there is a particular shortage and where coal is most needed. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade will see that those engaged in the trade are naturally

  1241
  anxious as to how this will work. Whilst in the case of South Wales there may be a very large increase in price and a difficulty to cancel contracts, I believe, with regard to the Midland coal owners, that it would be easy to make an arrangement which would be fair to the colliery owners, to the merchants, and to the public. In spite of what the President of the Board of Trade said, I believe that the bulk of the coal business is done between the collieries, the merchants, and the consumers. There are factors who supply a certain part, but they do not deal so extensively as people imagine. The main work is done between the collieries, the merchants, and the consumers, and I believe that it is not too late now, if the President of the Board of Trade would get the coal owners and the merchants round a table with himself, to get out a little more workable scheme than the present Bill which, as it is now drawn, will not work fairly. I hope that the principle of the Bill will be accepted, and that hon. Gentlemen will help us in Committee to get it amended.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to say a word or two with regard to the collieries in Ireland. Probably it will come as a surprise to many persons in this House to learn that there is a colliery in Ireland. Yet there are a few collieries there, and I wish to impress upon the promoters of the Bill that those collieries are entitled to separate treatment. The collieries in Ireland carry on their business under very different conditions from the conditions under which the collieries in this country are conducted. The House should regard the few collieries in Ireland as infant industries and therefore entitled to the different treatment I claim for them. What are the conditions under which the colliery business is conducted in this country? They have all the railway facilities and dock facilities for the purpose of carrying on to the best advantage the business in which they are engaged. These conditions do not exist in Ireland. The collieries in Ireland are remote from railway heads, remote from docks, and in many cases they are only resuscitated old workings. To apply this Bill to collieries which carry on business under these conditions would mean their absolute and complete ruin. When I speak of these small collieries without these railway facilities, it also follows that all the requirements for the collieries have to be carried there at great expense. There-
  1242
  fore, to impose the restrictions contained in this Bill upon these small infant industries would mean their complete ruin. I am not asking an unreasonable thing in asking the Board of Trade to exempt Ireland from the operations of this Bill. No doubt it will be present to the minds of hon. Members that in any other measures that have been applied to conditions within the limits of the three kingdoms Ireland has been of late separately and differently treated. What is the motive of that treatment? It is because this House in all its parts has been convinced that the conditions of Irish trades and manufactures in the past have been so detrimental to the prosperity of the country that in order to assist them Ireland has been on a few occasions separately and differently treated. There is no industry in Ireland which requires this separate treatment more than the infant colliery industries that are now being resuscitated in a few parts of the country. It is not too much to say that they are infant industries. Some of these workings were carried out in the past and had to be given up. Now some men of enterprise and with some little capital have devoted themselves to reorganising these old and almost played out workings, and if you impose upon these men engaged in this patriotic effort additional restrictions, the only thing that must naturally follow will be the arrest of their attempts to resuscitate these once flourishing industries.
  No evil can follow from exempting Ireland from the operations of this Bill. It would not be possible for the owners of these small collieries to put any additional price of an extravagant character upon their output, because the restrictions that you place upon the trade here will indirectly influence them in their prices. Let it be known to Members of the House, who no doubt consider this matter from a business as well as from a patriotic point of view, that most of the coal that is raised in Ireland is bought at the pit-head by persons who themselves consume it. They carry it themselves in a great many cases along the roads in their own carts. There can be no jealousy between coal owners on this side of the Channel and the smaller coal owners on that side in regard to this matter. The restrictions which will be placed on the trade here will indirectly affect us. I ask the Board of Trade to consider this point, and I hope the promoters of the Bill will, on the Committee

  1243
  stage, accept some Amendment which will carry out what I believe to be necessary in regard to Irish collieries, and will remove Ireland from the operation of the Bill.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am unable to speak on this question, as an expert, a colliery owner, or a coal merchant, but I can speak as the representative of a constituency in London in which there are a very large number of poor people who suffered enormously under the conditions of coal supply which obtained last winter. I hope therefore the House will allow me to address to it a few observations on this question from the London point of view. After all it was the condition in London last year that mainly gave rise to the inquiry by the Committee, and I venture to submit to the House that the condition of the vast masses of the poor in London during the present War is a matter of the greatest concern. The dissatisfaction aroused in London last winter was so enormous that if, next winter, we have a repetition of the same thing, I fear trouble may arise such as we can hardly anticipate at the present moment. This is a question which affects the London poor more than any other class. Let me give some figures as showing this. The poor of London are served chiefly by a system of hawking coal from door to door in trolleys. If you take the rise in prices last winter between the months of November and February you will find that whereas the price of the best coal at the pit mouth rose in that period by 3s. 5d., and the cost of the coal delivered to the ordinary consumer in customary quantities rose by 7s., the cost of delivery to the very poorest in London rose by no less than 11s. 8d.—from 26s. 8d. per ton in November to 38s. 4d. per ton in February. London, therefore, deserves very special consideration. The President of the Board of Trade himself has recognised the necessity of making special arrangements for the supply of coal next winter, while the Committee which investigated this matter included amongst its five recommendations one to this effect:—
  "That steps shall at once be taken to consider, in consultation with the public bodies concerned, the question of the accumulation by such bodies of reserves of coal in or near London for the use of small consumers during next winter."
  So far as I know, nothing has yet been done in that respect. The London County Council have considered the matter, but has come to the conclusion that nothing
  1244
  can be done. The prospect is one not pleasing to look upon. One of the witnesses who perhaps knows more about the trolley trade in London than anyone else said he anticipated that the price of coal sold to the poor of London would probably reach no less than 50s. per ton. What does this Bill do to prevent such a thing occurring? I am very much afraid it may fail to carry out its purpose. It limits the price of coal at the pit mouth by adding 4s. to the price which that coal fetched in 1913—two years ago. The President of the Board of Trade goes further than that in respect of London, because he says he has made arrangements with leading London merchants by which they agree to limit the addition to their prices by some figure not yet announced. I doubt very much whether this agreement is at all universally accepted by the coal merchants in London. I have been told by one who carries on a very considerable trade in this particular branch that he knows nothing of the agreement. But even if the agreement of a number of merchants in London should have the effect which the President of the Board of Trade thinks it will have, are they so powerful in their influence upon other merchants that the latter will follow in their wake?
  Still that does not meet the question of the sale of coal by trolley, and I cannot see how anything is going to limit the condition under which these sales are carried on by fixing the prices at which the coal is to be sold. A great deal of the increase in price is due to the increase in commission which the trolley man himself receives. But it is due also to other causes, and I am told that one of the reasons why trolley coal is so expensive is that the merchant has to deal with a large number of bad debts and has to put up the price in order to cover them. The trolley system is expensive alike to the merchant and to the consumer, and I believe that the bigger merchants in London would be very glad if they could get rid of this system of trolley sales, and start some other system of supplying the poor. It seems to me that there are two methods that might be adopted.
  The first is to definitely fix the maximum for London. I quite appreciate the difficulty of fixing a maximum all over the country, but that does not apply to anything like the same extent in London. If the arrangements which are foreshadowed by the President of the Board of Trade with a view to securing a supply of coal

  1245
  for London should be carried out, and if that coal is to be sold to persons in the ordinary way and to be delivered at a fixed maximum price, I do not see any difficulty in fixing the pries in London. But it appears from the evidence given before the Committee, which went very carefully into the question, and took a good deal of testimony of a very interesting nature on; this point, as far as I can see it was perfectly possible, taking coal at 11s. at the pit mouth, which was the price in 1913, to fix the freight rate at 8s. 11d. per ton, and the cost of distribution between the depot and the consumer at 7s. 6d., and that would bring the price out of the coal purchased by the ordinary consumer at 31B. 5d., providing the price at the pit mouth is 15s., this including the ordinary charge of 10d. paid to the man who brings the coal to the door and delivers it, instead of the very large commission which the trolley man earns at the present moment. This might knock out the trolley man altogether. Perhaps that is a disadvantage, because it might injuriously affect poor people who buy their coal m that way, and it is conceivable it might make it more difficult for the people to get coal than at present.
  I therefore suggest that if that method cannot be adopted of actually fixing the price at which the coal is to be sold to anybody in London, there might be a better method of distribution, and I believe that might be provided for in this way. It is quite possible to supply the small consumer cheaply. It is done by a number of agencies in various places. For instance, the directors of one of Guinness's buildings said, last February, that they had a system of supplying coal to their tenants at 25s. per ton, whereas in the very same street trolley sold coal was being supplied at 38s. 4d., so that the tenants of Guinness's buildings got their coal at 13s. 4d. per ton less than the tenants of the neighbouring houses got theirs from the trolley man. The same thing is done by other agencies, by, for instance, the London Philanthropic Agency, and through coal firms. I suggest that it should be made universal, at any rate during the War, and that we should have a system whereby it will be possible in practice to deliver coal at any poor person's door in London at the present prices. I suggest to my right hon. Friend—I do not know whether there is time between now and the Committee stage of this Bill for an Amendment to be made—that he gives due consideration to it and that the Metro-
  1246
  politan borough councils and the councils in the surrounding suburbs of London may be made use of for this purpose, by giving them power to issue coal tickets at a definite price, so that every poor person who wants coal in small quantities can go to the town hall, or some other office established for the purpose, and buy a ticket which will enable him to go to the coal merchant and get what he wants.
  I believe most of the coal merchants would be willing to fall in with such a plan. These tickets could be presented in the way which is done by philanthropic associations and the coal delivered by the merchant to the purchaser's house, as is done at the present moment under the system to which I have alluded. Some merchants themselves do it at present. Some do a very large trade through the London Philanthropic Society and similar institutions. I believe if this system were made universal the borough councils would be able to carry out the work perfectly satisfactorily, and we should be sure that no poor person in London next winter would be unable to get coal at the maximum monthly price. If there are people who prefer to live on credit, or who have no cash with which to pay for the ticket, very well, let the trolley system go on, but I believe the great mass of the people will soon learn that they can get cheap coal in the same quantities as is their custom, and they will make use of the new method. Thus we shall get over the difficulty. I only hope something of the kind can be done and a wide publicity will be given to the scheme, so that everybody may understand the advantages to be derived from it.
  7.0 P.M.
  I want to say a word or two for London with regard to contracts. I cannot help thinking that the insertion of the Clause in this Bill that it is not to affect any contracts, will rob it of nine-tenths of its value. I am told by a coal merchant in London that at least 70 per cent, of the coal required for London has already been bought. An hon. Friend near me—who knows a great deal about the subject— says 80 per cent, has already been bought, but, at any rate, I gather that already contracts have been entered into to the extent of 70 per cent, of the supply for next winter. I quite understand one cannot alter the arrangements that have been made for coal which has been actually sold. I do not even go back on contracts of very long standing, but it was given in evidence

  1247
  that contracts are usually made for London in April, May, or June; indeed, the greater number of London contracts are made in June, and the Report of the Committee on this question was issued on the 24th March last. I see no injustice in the present circumstances of saying, in regard to any contract entered into since the date of that Committee, when there was clearly some notice that there would be a change of some kind or other, that the contractors should not be held absolutely to the figure mentioned in the contract. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might include in this Bill some provision that contracts made between the 24th March and the date of the passing of the Bill should be subject to revision—a revision strictly on the one point of so adjusting the price that it should be brought into an equality with the price that would have been the price of the contract had the contract been made under the conditions of this Bill. If any dispute arises it could easily be settled by the County Court, because in the great majority of cases the question would be one merely of arithmetic and everybody would be able to get a revision. There is no reason why anybody who has bought coal for 32s. or 35s., and who finds that the price at the pit's mouth has been cut down by 4s., should not claim to have his contract brought back to that price also, so that be should be put on an equality with the other people who have not made their contracts but have waited to see what would happen. That would do justice all round and to the consumers, particularly in London, who have suffered by the delay of the Government—it is due to the delay of the Government that we have not had the Bill sooner—and it would do justice, not only to owners of coal mines but also to coal merchants, for each of them would be dealt with in the same way by a fair revision of the contract. I hope there will be some opportunity given for the discussion of Amendments on this Bill. I was glad an hon. Member opposite asked that the Committee stage should be postponed at any rate over to-morrow, and I trust we shall have some little time to consider the actual wording of the Amendments, otherwise the discussion will not be half so valuable as it would be if we had two or three days or even only a couple of days to consider what Amendments should be put down.
  Mr. PARKES: Allusion has been made to the question of contracts. There is one point in favour of interfering with them at the present time—although we know that in England contracts have always been regarded as inviolable, and we hope that that will remain so—that is, that the coal owners themselves in the Midlands, where coal has gone up so much, were compelled to ask the buyer to pay so much extra upon the contract price. That is a new departure in this country, and the only reason I can see for traversing these contracts from March up to the present time. As a rule the contractors will not suffer very much on account of the contracts made during the last few months. This Bill is a, departure, and a very important departure, in the trade of this country. It is rather a hazardous departure, and one which is likely to extend, because people will say, "Why cannot we have our industry regulated by the Government?" and it may grow into a great abuse. I am sure, however, that it is a courageous attempt on the part of the Government to settle a question which has been before the public for some time, and if it can settle it satisfactorily it would be a very good thing.
  I am afraid there will be a great deal of complication and confusion about the matter. Everybody who knows anything about collieries knows that the conditions in one colliery are almost universally different from those in the next one. You cannot fix a price which applies to all. You cannot fix a sum which would be suitable to the increased cost of all coal mines at the present time. Four shillings for this short time may be a very insufficient sum to allocate for the difference between last year and this year. Individually coal owners would be thrown into confusion as to how they are to keep their coal at one price. I can understand the taxation of surplus or high profits, but the fixing of certain prices for special articles or commodities is a very different thing. What will be the increase on 4s. per ton by the time the small consumer gets his coal? It has to go, as we have heard this afternoon, very often through five or six hands, and there is the variation in the cost of carriage and a multitude of other things which go to make up the price. With a manufacturer and a large consumer like a gas works the conditions are, of course, somewhat different, because it is almost universally the case that the coal goes

  1249
  direct from the pit's mouth to the manufactory or the large consumer of coal, and there are no middlemen between one and the other. It is possible for the large consumer of coal to look after himself a great deal better than for the small consumer.
  I was very much struck with the speech made by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh), and one or two other speeches made since. To my idea the most important part of the scheme is the reduction of the cost of coal to the poor people of this country. If we can accomplish that as a result of this Bill it will be a great thing, and the people will be grateful for it. A great deal has been said about London having organisations which supply coal at reduced prices to the householders. Why cannot that system be established throughout the length and breadth of this country? I have had some experience with regard to the working man, and I know how, in a hard winter, the price of coal presses upon him. I have had a man come to me and say, "My coal has gone up." These people very often buy by the hundredweight, and sometimes by the pennyworth. Suppose a man consumes 3 cwts. per week. If the price goes up 6d. or 1s. per cwt., as it often has done, that man has to pay from 1s. 3d. to 3s. extra for his coal per week. In many cases that is a great hardship on a man receiving, perhaps, 24s. or 25s. a week, and to put an extra tax upon his coal of 2s. or 3s. per week is a very hard thing to do. From my own experience during the last year or two, I know that the question is more important to the smaller man than to the large consumer, although we know that coal is an important question for the manufacturers of this country, and that prohibitive prices interfere with the possibility of doing trade. At the same time, our efforts should be concentrated on the lines set out by the last speaker, namely, that throughout the country committees should be formed, if necessary, in municipalities to take up the matter and to see to what extent we can get reduced prices of coal for the poor people of this country. It is a very great departure and a big thing to undertake. If what I have sketched out is done, I think the scheme might be approved.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: This Bill is the result of a proposal that I made to the "Government last January. I saw the Prime Minister and the President of the
  1250
  Board of Trade and urged them to adopt the principle which has now at this late hour at last been embodied in the Bill. But the Bill as now presented to the House is absolutely worthless so far as the general consumer in the country is concerned. It fails in two important points, which renders it, in my opinion, of no value whatever to the general consumers who buy coal in small quantities. I do not think it is possible to fix a maximum price for coal in any district, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has suggested. May I point out to him that the differences in railway rates alone for bringing coal from Yorkshire and Warwickshire to London represents some 3s. a ton. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to fix any rate which should apply all through the country. The Government set up their Committee. It was a Committee which did not include one man who had any knowledge of the coal trade. Naturally it was the ordinary procedure of the Government to appoint a Committee of those who knew nothing about the subject, and the result was that when they produced proposals to the President of the Board of Trade he had to reject them. We had, therefore, to get back to the basis of taking the prices obtained by each colliery for a certain class of coal at a certain period before the War. I represent in this House not colliery owners, but collieries.
  I am not going to follow the dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) and the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall), who appeared to be squirting ink at each other, one saying that the merchant had had the profit, and the other that the coal owner had had the profit. Let me put this to the House: The merchants say that to-day they have purchased 80 per cent, of their coal. Let us say that at this time last year they had purchased only 70 per cent. The coal owner says that he has not had all the profit, and the coal merchant says he has not had all the profit. Who has had it? It is quite clear that somebody has had their finger in the pie, and that the coal owner and the merchant together have had this big price which the public have had to pay. If coal merchants were buying coal this time last year at a lower price and subsequently sold it at 11s. above that at which they purchased, somebody, whether the merchant or the owner, has had the difference. The hon. Member for Barnsley says that you are going to penalise the

  1251
  coal trade, and he asked why should the coal trade be specially selected for legislation at the hands of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laurence Hardy) took the same view, that it was unfair to single out one particular trade, while leaving other trades alone. If the Government had, in the first place, made a definite pronouncement that all surplus profits over and above the average of the preceding two or three years before the War would be taken by the State, you would have had no strike to-day in South Wales, and the position has been aggravated all through by the Government delaying till the last moment to take any step to let people, and more particularly the miners, know where they stand. I have lived all my life among miners and know something about this class of men, and when they see coal being sold at 30s. a ton they say, "If the colliery owner is to have his share of the plunder, so are we," and if the Government had said that all surplus profits were to go to the State and that no one is entitled out of the necessities of the nation to make money during the War, the whole position in the coalfields would have been entirely different from what it is to-day. Robert Smillie, the President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, definitely stated only recently that if the Government had introduced a Rill limiting the price of coal, adding to that a declaration that all surplus profits would be taken, the miners would not have asked any increase of wages whatever. I am not in any way justifying what I think is the horrible position which has arisen in South Wales, but let the House not forget that the Government have failed to take any steps whatever to let the people who are making these profits know that they ought not to make them, and that if they make them they are going to take them.
  My hon. Friend, who wavered a great deal about this Bill said that the State had guaranteed higher dividends for railway shareholders and therefore colliery owners ought to be placed in the same favourable position. I think when the balance comes to be struck of colliery profits he and those who are associated with the trade will have no cause for regret, because we have heard to-day a chorus of approval from all colliery people that the President of the Board of Trade has treated them very well. The President of the Board of Trade has given the House certain figures of the in-
  1252
  creased cost of production, and he has also satisfied himself that the profits of the retail man have not been unreasonable. If his examination of the books of the retail trader are no more accurate than the figures he has given of the coal trade, his figures are of no value whatever. It is perfect nonsense to say that the price of coal has risen by anything like 3s. a ton on the average of the collieries of this country. If you split the amount in two you are getting nearer the truth. But under this Bill you are going to tell colliery owners that they are entitled to take an increased price of 4s. per ton, and you are going to invite them to do it. If the Bill is passed in its present form, I shall take the 4s. because if I let everyone have coal at a lower price than that it does not go to the benefit of the consumer, but goes straight into the pockets of the middleman.
  I have found it extremely difficult to draw a Clause to rope in the middleman. The Attorney-General is a very astute1 lawyer and I will not believe it passes the wit of a man of his ability to draw us a watertight compartment Clause of this character. The President of the Board of Trade told me he would welcome a Clause but he cannot draw it. The difficulty is, of course, in dealing with the intermediate profits made by factors and coal merchants. Let me put this case: Assume that the coal merchant or factor buys coal at 15s. a ton; he sells it to a merchant, and if there is a hard winter there is nothing to prevent the factor or coal merchant selling the coal at 30s. or 40s. If there is a shortage of coal and people want it, they must pay the price for it. If the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government could draw a Clause providing that the-coal factor or merchant should make no greater profit per ton than he made in the twelve months preceding the War, that would place him in exactly the same position as you are going to place the coal owner under this Bill. The cost of delivering coal has very largely increased. I believe something like 1s. 6d. or 2s. a ton in London is the increased cost. Surely the ingenuity of man is able to overcome this drafting difficulty—once the main principle is agreed that the coal merchant is to charge no higher price than before the War. I do not know whether the Government will be able to deal with this question. We may have to look to another place to insert a provision of this kind to protect the consumer. Without that

  1253
  provision the Bill is worthless, because it will enable coal merchants, if the times are bad, to squeeze the poor, as was done last winter.
  With regard to contracts, I cannot for the life of me see how any man has the impudence to say that merchants who have refrained from buying are shrewd men when that statement comes out of the mouth of a Member of the Government. For months and months they have delayed dealing with this question. It was essential that coal merchants should buy their coal, and owing to the neglect of the Government to deal with this question colliery owners have entered into contracts for the next twelve months, in many cases at prices 6s. to 8s. more than last year. Therefore what is the good, a fortnight after the contract season has been concluded, of the Government asking the House of Commons to pass a measure to limit the price of coal? Could anything be more ludicrous or foolish than for the President of the Board of Trade to say to these coal merchants, "You have not been shrewd, therefore you must stand the racket, and the public must pay the increased price." What is all this nonsense about the sacredness of contracts? We are living in times of great national danger, when no set of men can have the right to exploit the community at large, and these being the conditions under which we arc living, surely for the Government to say that these people who have bought their coal three or four weeks ago are to have immunity and are to be allowed to take their profits is to my mind a perfect scandal. But, worse still, the Government say to the coal owners, "We want to help the rate of exchange: charge our Allies what you like. We are not going to allow the provisions of this Bill to apply to Italy; we are not going to allow them to apply even to France, where nearly all the coal mines are in the hands of the enemy." The Government say, "Here we are in a great struggle, proud to be associated with the French, who have fought so extraordinarily gallantly and made such great sacrifices during the War. Their mines are in the hands of the enemy and they have to come to this country. Charge them what you like—rob her, provided you are able to raise the rate of exchange, and get all you can, even if it is £2 a ton," which was the price being charged in Cardiff a few weeks ago. For the Government to make a proposal of that kind is, to my mind, an outrage. If it is right that
  1254
  we should help ourselves, if this House of Commons is going to help the people of this country to have coal at a reasonable price, the obligation is put on us to see that our Allies are treated in the same way as we treat ourselves. In this matter we all ought to stand together, and it is absolutely wrong that there should be any differentiation whatever in favour of the people in this country as against our brave Allies the French, or the Italians, or even the Russians. This tax on profits is a matter which the Government really must deal with. If they will deal with it they will settle half the troubles arising out of this. Bill.
  I wish to examine one or two of the Clauses of the Bill. This first Clause is not what I proposed to the Government. I should not have proposed taking similar quantities and similar conditions as last year as a basis for the new contracts of this year. The Bill provides that no coal shall be sold at a price exceeding by more than the standard amount per ton the price of the coal of the same description sold in similar quantities and under similar conditions at the pit mouth of the same coal mine. How are you going to say what is sold in similar quantities and under similar conditions means? You may have sold on the same day at the same colliery 1,000 tons of coal or 10,000 tons of coal, and the price varies in each case by sometimes a shilling a ton for the same quantity of coal. How are you going to take notice of the circumstances? How are you going to arrive at the similar circumstances under which in many cases a man buys coal at a favourable price? How will the colliery owner evade that? He will simply withhold selling that particular coal on a particular day and thereby defeat the object of the Government. In order to make the Clause water-tight the Government ought to entirely give up this question of taking coal of the same description and take the average price. I suggest that they should take these words: "No coal shall be sold or offered by the owner or on his behalf at a price exceeding the average prices realised by rail, inland water, or land sale, respectively, for coal of the same description at the pit mouth at the same coal mine in the twelve months preceding the War." If the Government take the average price of the coal realised then everyone in the trade will know at once where he stands. Take the average price of each quality of coal sold in the preceding year. You ought to

  1255
  have that disclosed so that every buyer knows at once what is the price at which he will be able to buy the coal, and the consumer likewise knows what the prices are.
  I am going to move in Committee that the collieries shall send to the Board of Trade the average prices they have received for the different classes of coal in the twelve months preceding the War, and to those prices I presume the 4s. will be added. Then everyone in the trade will know exactly where he stands. But under the Bill as it is drawn no one will know what is the price from day to day, because the conditions are different; and how the conditions to-day can under any possible circumstances be similar to the conditions before the War I am utterly at a loss to understand or appreciate. I do hope the Government will see their way to accept that suggestion. I intend to move in Committee that all contracts entered into for deliveries from and after the passing of this Act shall be set aside. I do not want to repeat what I have said on the question of contracts further than saying that it seems to me that though the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) may come down and talk to us about the sacredness of contracts, such a strong case has been made out that if the Government really desire to give to the poorer sections of the people of this country the benefit of this Bill they must in Committee meet us on these points. There are a great many of my Friends who have agreed to vote with me, because I shall carry this to a Division on the Committee stage if the Government does not meet us. If the Government say that they are not going to deal with these contracts as I suggest, then we must divide the House. If we are beaten by this Coalition Government, it will be only another of the foolish actions they have taken—perhaps I ought not to say this Coalition Government, but the Government that has been in power for the last twelve months—during the War.
  I want to refer to the prices paid by the London County Council. I think the facts will astonish the House. The London County Council buy large quantities of coal under contract. Seeing what they have paid this year—of course, the prices include delivery and there has been an increase of probably 1s. 6d. for extra cartage to meet it—there has been an increase in Wales of 15s. 9d. per ton, in Warwickshire 8s. 3d., in Leicestershire 10s.
  1256
  —I sold thousands of tons of Leicestershire coal this year at 7s.—Durham 7s. 7d., Nottinghamshire 7s. 9d., Yorkshire and Derbyshire 13s. 9d. Are the Government going to allow these local bodies to pay these exhorbitant rates? They are forced to buy. The President of the Board of Trade says, "If they had been shrewd men they would not have bought." But there is only a limited quantity of coal, and they have to buy. The Government have been adopting the policy of wait and see, leaving everything until the last moment, during the War. These local authorities cannot wait and see. They were bound to get their coal when their contracts fell out, otherwise they might lose their coal supplies altogether. Is the Government going to say in Committee that we are going to allow these large prices to be charged by collieries who have made these contracts? Is the Government going to take up the attitude that those coal owners, who have made these contracts, are entitled to make all the money they can, and that the consumer is not to be considered? If they are going to take up that attitude well and good, but at any rate let us have that definition made clear. Are they going to say that the people who have entered into these contracts are entitled to have the benefit of them? These contracts were only made three weeks ago by reason of the fact that the Government last January hesitated and hesitated and hesitated, always frightened of moving, thinking that something would turn up to meet the difficulty, and when they find they are forced by public opinion to move, they come to the House two or three weeks after the contracts have been made and say, "You are not shrewd men if you bought, and therefore the consumer must pay." That is not business.
  I am not blaming the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who has to reply for the Government. It is not his Bill; it is the result of an undertaking given some weeks ago that it would be introduced. The Board of Trade have lamentably failed in this matter, having lamentably failed to act when coal was selling at common prices. Though this Bill is necessary, I maintain that unless the material alterations I have suggested are made in the Bill the country need be under no delusion. Next winter they will still be fleeced and robbed at every turn by the middlemen, who are perhaps as big thieves as anyone else, as the coal owners—
  An Hon. MEMBER: As the shipowners.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Or as the shipowners. They all want to get their fingers in the pudding and they have done it very successfully. It is the duty of the Government in these times to prevent that being done. I should like my hon. Friend on the Committee stage to really help us in regard to these difficulties. I understand the President of the Board of Trade will not be here to-morrow.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): Perhaps I may say that the Committee stage of this Bill is postponed beyond to-morrow. This may shorten the Debate a little now.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: After that statement I need not trouble the House any further.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I have listened attentively to the hon. Baronet opposite. While he is a colliery owner, I am bound to say that he does not represent anyone in the coal-owning industry except himself. I am quite prepared to agree with him on his proposals in regard to the middleman, but I think it is most important to repudiate his views about contracts as soon as possible. I would like to ask him whether he intends to break contracts which are at a loss as well as contracts which are at a profit, because in the coal trade there are two classes of contracts. There is a class of contract which has been recently made at present prices. In addition there is an enormous number of contracts which were made prior to the War in 1914, and some of them even prior to that date. Are those contracts to be broken? In my collieries we have got 300,000 tons of coal still to deliver on contracts made at that time at a very different price compared with the present price. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that the bad contracts for collieries shall be broken as well as the good contracts, or is his proposal to be limited only to those contracts made within the last month or two? If he proposes that we should start breaking contracts, and contracts which are of a cheap rate to the consumer, I do not know what the railway companies would say. The railway companies make these large contracts in advance, and this proposal would mean that the railway companies will have to pay 6s. or 7s. a ton more for their coal
  1258
  than under these contracts. Those who made contracts in 1914, and at the end of 1914 have got their coal at very cheap rates indeed, not only the railway companies, but the chemical companies, and every industry in the Kingdom Were able in contracts made from June to December, 1914, to get their coal at very cheap rates. These contracts are still running, and I understand that the hon. Baronet intends that these contracts shall be broken as well as those profitable contracts of which he has been making such a parade during the last few weeks. I hardly think that he can mean that all contracts are to be broken. I should like to have an answer from him. Does he mean all contracts are to be broken?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member asks me a question: I would answer him in this way: The price of coal to the railway companies in Wales has been nearly doubled. This House and the country have got to pay that. I say that those contracts should be cancelled, and every other contract made in excess of the provisions provided for under this Bill.
  Sir d. HARMOOD-BANNER: Then I understand that the contracts made by the London and North-Western Railway Company, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and other contracts made in Lancashire at cheap rates, are not to be broken, but only the South Wales contracts. Well, then, we understand what the hon. Baronet's proposal is. It is an extraordinary proposal that you should take contracts and tear them up when they are against you, but that you should adopt them when they are in your favour. He is a very excellent business man, but I do not think he would like his own contracts for coal, or his own proposals in regard to purchasing timber or anything else, about which he is so clever, to be torn up when they are against his principles.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I tell the hon. Member that so far as the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Great Central, and the Midland Railway Companies are concerned, the collieries with which I am associated booked very large orders for them last December when prices were very low, and we are quite prepared to carry those contracts out. We are not losing money on them, but we are making very substantial profits, even on the prices of last year.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The hon. Baronet is extremely generous in giving away his property, but I hardly think that he can suggest that other people should follow him. I am thoroughly in agreement with him as regards the middlemen. There is no doubt whatever that this Bill is most invidious in placing upon the colliery owners a limitation of prices. It is most invidious and injurious in this way, that it places no limitation upon the price at which the middleman is able to sell. Some hon. Member suggested that the middlemen do not do a very large business, but those who know the facts will hardly accept that. There is an enormous amount of coal for bunkering purposes and shipment purposes and every sort of purpose sold through agents in this country. That coal undoubtedly in many cases, particularly when it comes to the poor, has a very onerous price placed upon it. I am a member of the Federated Body of Coal Owners. The hon. Baronet is not, because he never takes part with any of his fellows in the consideration of any question. He always acts on entirely independent lines. I am a member of the Federated Body of Coal Owners, and whilst I cannot say that they welcome this Bill, they arc quite prepared to fall in with it and to do their best to carry it out.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not represent the coal owners. I represent the miners.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I did not say you represented anyone except yourself. I think the House will agree with me in that. The Federated Coal Owners are quite willing to accept the Bill and to do their very best to carry it out and to make it work, but they do point out that the Bill is hardly fair to them where it treats them in a different way from the merchants who sell the coal. The merchant and the coal owner ought to be exactly on the same lines, and particularly for this reason, that a great many collieries have depots of their own and they carry on a trade in the big towns, at any rate up North. They fear that the result of this Bill will be that in those particular towns the merchants will be able to ask what price he likes, and the coal owner in his depot will not even be able to sell, so as to keep up the profit which pays his depreciation and rent and interest on capital, as he now carries on his business. Under this Bill he is limited to 4s. at the pit mouth, and then further when it goes through its various agencies he will make
  1260
  a loss on his business. Therefore the position as regards merchants and coal owners is most unfair, and I hope that when the Bill comes up for discussion the right hon. Gentleman in charge will consider the position in order that both merchants and coal owners shall be dealt with on similar lines.
  All coal owners of whom I know cannot understand why drink and coal have been placed on a level. They are about the only two things which the Government can see their way to handle in order to dealt with these new and injurious principles of economics. Drink has been dealt with by the imposition of an extra tax, and now they say "we shall deal with coal." I cannot see why other trades cannot be dealt with, and why it should be limited to coal. A very distinguished shipowner in Liverpool, quite early in the War, said to me, "I do not understand what the Government is doing. I feel ashamed of the profits which I am making. If they would pay me 8 per cent, for my money and pay me depreciation in order that I might have my ships back in my possession at the end of the War in as good condition as they are in now, I should be only too glad that they would get them." Why do they not touch the shipowners? Drink and coal are the only two things which they have touched. I do not know why they have selected these trades. If they have taken up this principle I trust that this House will not limit it to these trades but will say that this is only an instalment, and that every trade must be treated alike. In reference to this Bill I would like to consider Clause 1 for a moment. The consumer is to pay 4s. a ton more than he is now paying, but if you look into the Clause you will find that it does not carry that out. It is quite possible under that Clause to give one part of the Kingdom a difference of Is. in the price which it will get as compared with another part of the Kingdom. The Bill wants readjustment in order that all parts should be treated alike. There are other important points which require elucidation and putting in proper form.
  The coal owners cannot welcome this Bill because they consider it a hardship that they should be treated separately from other trades in the Kingdom, but they are quite willing to be as patriotic as the miners themselves who have done so much for their country during the War, and they are quite willing that coal should not go beyond a proper price.

  1261
  But they do say that there is an enormous amount of nonsense talked about the profit of coal owners. I know that in many cases up to the 31st December last collieries did not produce any profit at all in very large districts of the country. I have seen my own accounts, and the accounts of many other collieries for that period. I have also seen accounts to the 30th of June this year, and in the case of one colliery in which I am interested, the price at which nearly 800,000 tons of coal was sold at the pit mouth was 9s. 11d. That is not such an extraordinary price. The net profit on the whole year—for the loss up to December has been made up— is a difference of 8d. per ton. Eightpence per ton represents what has to be provided for depreciation and interest on capital. A question which this House ought to consider is that of mining royalties. Whether we take the coal out of the land or not we have got to pay our royalty. With the men going away our output is considerably less. It is 80,000 tons less than it was last year, and we have still to pay out landlords their minimum royalty, even if we do not get the coal. The royalty very often amounts to £8,000 or £10,000 a year, which they have to take out of profits. I think that the figures show that it is not altogether the coal proprietor who has been making the profit. He has been getting a little bit of his own for the last twelve months, but the House would find, if it could get an opportunity of investigating the matter, that the extra profits have been going almost exclusively to the middleman. This Bill requires a great deal of amendment, and I trust that it will receive it in order that it may be made as perfect a measure as possible.
  Sir J. WALTON: May I be allowed to say that if the President of the Board of Trade had made his speech before I spoke it certainly would have modified my attitude on this Bill. I still think that, in the form in which it is before the House, it will be ineffective for its purpose, but in the hope that it may be amended in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment with the consent of my seconder.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope that the House will allow us to get the Second Heading now, and defer further debate on the points which have been raised until
  1262
  we come to the Committee stage, which we do not propose to take to-morrow. It will be taken as soon as possible. I cannot say exactly when, but it will not be to-morrow. There should be some time for consideration of Amendments after they are put on the Paper, and I hope time will be given to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to get back and be present when the Committee stage is taken. The Debate has been very interesting. Every hon. Member who has spoken has a more actual knowledge of the conditions of the coal trade than I have myself. I must, therefore, ask for the indulgence of those hon. Gentlemen for the remarks which I propose to make, but I feel that there is some compensation in the fact that this Bill is not a Bill for the coal trade alone. It is not brought forward on the ground that the coal trade is a trade which requires interference with under ordinary conditions. This Bill is brought forward on purely national grounds, and I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Ash-ford Division (Mr. Laurence Hardy) should have used the expression "penal legislation." There is under this Bill no penal legislation whatever, and there is no accusation made against the coal owners that they are different from people producing other commodities. I hope that my hon. Friend who has just spoken will thoroughly understand that.
  The only reason why this Bill deals with the coal trade, and with the coal trade only, is that the conditions in that trade are different from those in any other trade. It is not that there is any difference in the character of those who carry it on, or in the moral nature of the trade. It is not that the trade is a trade which is bad for the community. On the contrary, I suppose that if you were to pick out a trade which is vital to the community and which confers benefit on the community, you would pick out the coal trade. Therefore it would be ludicrous for the Government to pick out the coal trade for penal legislation or to say that the coal trade is carried on to the injury of the community. But there is this difference in the case of the coal trade. The whole of the coal trade is produced in this country. It is a vital necessity to every industry in this country, and as well as to every private individual, that they should be able to get a sufficient supply of coal at reasonable prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Everton suggested that this, measure should be applied to shipowners,

  1263
  that shipowners had made large profits. That would have been an admirable criticism if we had been discussing here and now the question of taxation of all profits, which possibly we shall be discussing at some future time. Then I think it would be unanswerable to say. "Why should you tax the coal owners' profits, and not tax the shipowners' profits?" But this Bill is not brought forward to tax the coal owner. It is a trade measure. It is not a finance measure. It is simply brought forward with the object of getting a basis of price, so that the price to the consumer, whether he be a manufacturer or private consumer, is not raised to breaking point.
  Mr. NEVILLEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of freights is a totally different point. There is no reason for treating freights like coal in this particular. You have got to look at all the surrounding conditions. Coal you can deal with as it is dealt with under this Bill. Take this comparison which is raised here and now, from the national point of view, between coal and freights. If you were to proceed to treat freights as you are now treating coal, the consequence would be that you would deprive this country of its greatest asset in regard to financial exchange. The greatest asset which we have is that the British shipping trade is getting its freights, and that those freights are a set off against the enormous excess of our imports over our exports, and if you were to proceed to legislate for freights only—home freights for the coastwise trade—you would drive the shipping out of the coastwise trade altogether. I think that I have said enough to show that this is a very difficult question, and that there would be the probability of doing more harm than good by adopting the suggestion made. The war profits of shipowners or of anybody else can be dealt with by taxation in regard to the merely financial point, but this is not a question of finance. This is merely a question of trying to regulate the price to the consumer in this country.
  8.0 P.M.
  I quite admit that in dealing with this matter we are entering upon most difficult ground, and to my mind the only justification for entering upon this ground at all is that we are at war. There is no other justification for it. When we are at war
  1264
  the conditions are so entirely different from peace conditions that we have to perform a very difficult mental operation, and that, so far as legislation during war is concerned, we have very often to reverse principles applicable in peace time. Many of the criticisms which have been directed against this Bill would be unanswerable if it were a peace measure, and if it were a precedent which would lead us in this or that direction. Nothing done in war is a precedent for what would be done in peace, and we are not now setting any precedent for what might be done in peace. The only justification which can be urged for this Bill is that it is an emergency measure. It is a war measure. Nobody will suggest for an instant that it is perfect in the sense of its going to carry out the object of ensuring to the consumer in war conditions coal at no higher price than he would get it in peace time. You cannot do that. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, this Bill is really intended more as an insurance against panic prices in future than anything else, and I think it must be judged by that factor. It is not such an ambitious Bill as the hon. Member for Mansfield suggests as covering the whole ground. I think that the difficulties that would then be created would be far greater than any good result that could be obtained. The criticisms of the Bill have concentrated themselves quite naturally, and I think the Board of Trade understood that would be the case, upon two points. The first point is that it does not go far enough and that it will not ensure any reasonable price to the consumer because it does not deal with the distributing trade as well as the producing trade. The second point is that it only deals with prices and not in any way with contracts. These are the two main points. As regards the first point, I believe that a very great advantage will be obtained in dealing, by any means whatever, with the distributor if you have got a basis price. This Bill deals with the question of a reasonably fair basis price at the pit at which coal can be obtained, either direct by the consumer or by the coal merchant who is going to distribute to the consumers throughout the country. I beg the House to judge the Bill by that standard, and not by the artificial standard that this is to be a millennium in coal prices which they would like to see brought about.

  1265
  I think almost every Member who has spoken has done so with particular knowledge of the coal trade in a particular district. The hon. Member for Mansfield spoke with very great knowledge of one particular coal trade. I have not got that knowledge of any coal trade, but I do know enough to say without fear of contradiction that it is known to every business man in the country that the particular coal-field of which the hon. Baronet has knowledge is a new coal-field, which has seams in favourable situations, with all the modern equipments which science has devised, and which gives it the greater advantage in competing with coal districts under conditions of older date and less favourable to the producer. The Board of Trade has to look at this question from the point of view of the whole industry from one end of the country to the other, and, therefore, although the hon. Member for Mansfield has a very much greater knowledge of the coal conditions than I have, I suggest to him that the Board of Trade's most careful examination and calculation of the figures of production and the prices from one end of the country to the other is really more valuable than is the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge, which is rather more local in character. If the House judges the Bill by that standard, namely, that it is only intended to provide a basis price of coal at the pit mouth, and does not profess to go further than that, then I think the Bill may be considered worthy of acceptance, and perhaps the House will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  But I think, also, that the House would make a mistake if they attempt in Committee to carry the Bill too far. It must be remembered that we are embarking on very troubled and difficult waters, upon which we should not embark at all in peace time. The question is, How far are you justified in war time in departing from principles which govern legislation in peace time in order to obtain a national object? I suggest that if you can succeed by this Bill in establishing a basis price at the pit mouth, you are going to have the minimum of disturbance of industry, and the minimum of difficulty in discussing and considering in this House all the innumerable local conditions which govern the distributing of coal from one end of the country to the other; you are confining the area of this Bill, and I believe that if you carry the area of legislation proposed in this Bill beyond the pit mouth and take it into the trade as a whole, you will really
  1266
  do more injuryto—because of the complications and the difficulties that will be set up—than you will advantage the consumer. What my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade suggested was this, namely, that arrangements have already been made with the London coal merchants, whereby their prices are limited to a figure directly dependent on the price at the pit-head and the cost of railway carriage; so that local authorities may make similar arrangements from one end of the country to the other with coal merchants. I believe it will make an enormous difference, both from the moral and financial point of view, and the fact that any local authority or any private committee may set itself to make such an arrangement as that with the coal merchants of any district, cannot be met with the reply that we have not the information as to what extent the prices are going to be raised against us. When such a local authority or committee can say to the coal merchant, "You have got the basis price fixed by the Bill; we all know the carriage from the colliery district to this locality where we are living, and therefore we have very good knowledge of what is being paid for the production and the distribution of the coal," in that way each locality will be able to do for itself what the President of the Board of Trade has been able to do in London, and I believe it can be done in that way, and it would be a mistake for the State to step in.
  With regard to the question of contracts, the President of the Board of Trade strongly impressed on the House that to go back upon them would create many cases of inequality and hardship in the distributing trade. If we were to take the other course, the delivery basis instead of the contract basis, and were to say that all coal from a stated date after the passing of the Bill shall be sold at certain prices, I think it would be found in that case that even greater hardships and difficulties would be caused than any which could arise from this proposal. Whatever course is adopted, it is bound to create some difficulties and hardships. Of course, when you legislate in war time you have got to legislate in the national interest with the minimum hardship to the individual. This has been most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend. He is perfectly aware of the hardships which are created by allowing existing contracts to stand, but he has come to the conclusion that even greater hardships and difficulties would be created by breaking the

  1267
  contracts which now exist. Therefore his judgment, on the whole, is that it is better to leave the Bill as it stands. That is a matter, of course, which can be debated in Committee. Amendments no doubt will be submitted, and doubtless my right hon. Friend will be here to listen to them. I know that he will welcome debate on this subject, and will be perfectly prepared to give every weight and consideration to what has been said here to-day, and to what may be said when we arrive at the Committee stage.
  The point which I am trying to impress upon the House on the Second Reading is, that it is impossible to make a measure of this kind such as will meet with universal approval because it will do nothing but good, and will completely carry out what every Member of the House desires to see effected. I do not think that either of those things is possible. The Bill is not as ambitious as that. But I do hope that the House will look at it as an honest attempt to deal with this question. The criticism has been made, that if we cannot deal with existing contracts it is the duty of the Government to prevent any rise in prices at all. I do not think it is possible, nor is it the duty of any Government to prevent the rise of prices; I do not think it would be effective; I think that the remedy would be far worse than the disease. What the duty of the Government is is to take steps in time to prevent panic prices, which would be a disaster to the community. Here we have a Bill brought forward in the month of July, and although it may not do all we want or would like to see done to cover the period past and present, it will and must prevent panic prices, and measured by that standard, I think it will be found to be well worthy the consideration of the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will it be left to the sense of the House whether existing contracts should be included?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly not. I do not think it is the duty of the Government to leave a question of that kind to the House. It is the duty of the Government to look most carefully into all the facts and figures, to see what course will be productive of the least injury, and they would seek the advice of the House in that sense. The House will have to come to a decision, and it is entitled to have the advice of the Board of Trade and of the Government on such an important point, which should not
  1268
  be left to the unguided judgment of Members. The hon. Member for Kildare asked that Ireland should be exempt. I will convey that to my right hon. Friend for his consideration before the Committee stage. I do not know whether all hon. Members who represent Ireland hold that point of view, or the Irish coal consumer as well as the Irish coal producer, but I suppose, at any rate, that we shall have some information upon that when we arrive at the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Mansfield suggested some alteration in the form of Clause 1. His suggestion will have very careful consideration, but it is obviously a point for Committee, and not for Second Reading. I think I have answered generally the points that have been raised in the Debate, and I hope we may now be allowed to get the Second Reading of this Bill—as there are several other Bills to come on—and we will be able to discuss the further points when we arrive at the Committee stage.
  Sir A. MOND: I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman on the very important question of the Government's intention of dealing or not dealing with contracts already existing. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider one point that has already been referred to. Although this Bill limits the price of coal, there is nothing in the Bill which compels anybody either to raise any coal or to sell any coal. That may seem an academic point, but it is realy important from a practical point of view. There are plenty of manufacturers in the last six months who have had contracts with colliery proprietors for the sale of coal at certain prices, and who, on many occasions, have not been able to get the contract delivered because the coal has been diverted to other customers who have been willing to pay higher prices. I regret to say that in the Midlands, as one hon. Member has already pointed out, that has been a very common practice. The manufacturer may be told that he has his legal remedy, but it is no use to a manufacturer who has to keep his works going to bring a law suit while in the meantime his coal supply is stopped. As the Bill stands now, you have also a large number of contracts running at better prices than you are going to allow in the future. The result of that will be a tendency, and this matter has been expressed to me by several large colliery proprietors,

  1269
  to take care that the coal goes to the people who are not paying the minimum prices but the higher prices they have already contracted for. The result is that you will do a great deal more harm by your Bill to people who have not contracted than you will do good to anybody. The people who have not contracted will be put in the position of not having to pay more than a minimum amount, while the people who have contracted at higher prices will get the full coal supply while the other people will experience difficulty, and yet this Bill is supposed to be a great protection to the consumer.
  One of the dangers I notice in these discussions is that the Government seem to be obsessed with the question of London households and. the London coal margin. That is a very small part of the problem of coal in this country. The important question is the millions of tons of slack and industrial coal which we want to keep the factories running in order to supply the Government with the articles they require. It is not a question of whether the London coal merchants or the colliery proprietors get a shilling more or less. Then I do not think there is sufficient recognition of another very important question, to which my notice has been directed in South Wales, and that is as to not limiting the export price of coal. What would be the result of that? The man who is exporting coal from South Wales or any other part will be in this position. He will be able to get very big prices from the export market and very small prices as far as the Home trade is concerned. The result will be that he will have a natural tendency to ship coal abroad and keep the consumer at his door short.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman was here when reference was made to the Licensing Committee which governs that matter. Their particular function is not to allow any coal to be exported unless there is sufficient coal in the country.
  Sir A. MOND: Indirectly perhaps.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Directly.
  Sir A. MOND: The theory may be to do so directly, but in practice it is very difficult. The Licensing Committee can make up its mind, say, how much coal is required in Swansea—
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to inform him that since the Licensing Committee was set up
  1270
  the price of coal for railway companies, for the London and North Western Railway Company, has just doubled from what it was this time last year.
  Sir A. MOND: Why could not something be introduced into the Bill to make this point more obvious to people who are dealing with coal. I know that no coal is supposed to go abroad without the consent of the Licensing Committee, and that the Committee is to see that we are not short and that industry does not stop. But there is a great difference between having no coal and being inconvenienced.
  Sir C. CORY: The Licensing Committee consider every cargo for every market. They have refused licences for numbers of cargoes in South Wales and other parts of the country, and the consequence is that prices are forced down many shillings per ton, and some of the collieries have been stopped because they could not get wagons and could not get rid of the coal.
  Sir A. MOND: The Parliamentary Secretary assures me that if we leave matters to the Licensing Committee we shall have plenty of coal, and an hon. Baronet tells me that the Licensing Committee seem to be diminishing the supply of coal. I shall leave the two hon. Gentlemen to reconcile those views. The point which I have mentioned has been brought to my notice, and I am not quite convinced that this is the best method of dealing with the matter; perhaps it had better be dealt with in Committee. I do hope we shall not have an absolute non possumus on some of these important points, such, for instance, as the question of contract. Take the position on that matter between different consumers. Somebody, say, has quite legitimately made a contract, a pretty high contract, six weeks ago, not knowing that this Bill would be introduced. Ho is to be held to that contract, while somebody who has let things slip and has not thought about the matter is to have the great advantage of cheaper coal, which may enable him to undercut the other man in some respects. That seems to me to be a very unfair proposition. It is not a question of shrewdness. It was quite impossible for the shrewdest man to guess when the Government would introduce this Bill. Shrewd people would have imagined that this Bill would have been introduced many months ago, and that therefore it is not fair to come down and say, "You should have guessed that this Bill was going to be introduced now." I cannot see why it would be unfair to cancel contracts made,

  1271
  say, within the last three months. After all it is an accidental circumstance, probably due to the enormous work of the Government, that this Bill was not passed several months ago. It is more or less a question of accident. Why should you only limit it to a given date and not go back, I will not say for years, but for a reasonable number of months, so as to put people on a more equitable footing? I am certain that that will have to be done, and that that will lead to less difficulty and unfairness than to leave the Bill in the condition in which it is now.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill was for the purpose of preventing panic prices in the future. If that is so, there is no object in the limitation or abrogation of contracts. It is not what people are looking for. They are looking for some measure which will relieve them of present high prices. I know as far as the district I have the honour to represent (Hanley) is concerned that they have been looking for many months for a reduction of the high and extortionate prices that were going to be demanded of them when new contracts had to be made. Those contracts have been made in the past three weeks, and a very increased price, amounting to as much as 6s. per ton, has been demanded. As the hon. Baronet who has just spoken pointed out, this is much more than a question of London households; is is a matter of manufacturers' supplies. In the pottery trade, for instance, the cost of coal enters largely into the cost of production. That particular trade has had great difficulty in carrying on since the War, but by working three days per week they have managed to keep men and women in employment. This rise in the price of coal has been disastrous. I have had from the municipality protest after protest against the suggestion that these contracts should not be broken. I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey to the President of the Board of Trade the very strong opinion which I am sure exists, not only among some Members of this House but throughout the country, that these contracts should not be respected. There will be considerable bitterness of feeling, because in some cases coal sellers have refused to allow men who have been in the habit of getting contracts from them to wait for a few weeks until they saw what this Bill would do. I have had a letter to-day from a man in the home
  1272
  counties who has been accustomed to get 200,000 tons a year. He states that he has been to the dealers from whom he has bought before, and stated that he wished to wait awhile, but they said, "Now is the time; you must make your contracts." This man, therefore, writes asking that Parliament should enable such contracts to be broken. It is not merely a question of the price paid by London householders; it is a question in many districts, in my own in particular, of saving the manufacturing interest at a time of great distress and hardship.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

  EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the hon. Member in charge of the Bill propose to give any explanation of it on Second Reading? It is not entirely a Consolidation Bill. If there are changes in the law, there ought to be some explanation.
  Sir J. D. REES: I congratulate the Government on having introduced this Bill. It is a measure that is very much wanted. Nobody can better appreciate its desirability than those who, like myself, have been accustomed to perform secretarial functions in India and have lost time, trouble and temper, in hunting over some fifty Statutes which are here consolidated and made available for those who have to endeavour to carry them out. There are, however certain points in the Bill to which I should like to refer. As an amending Bill is to be introduced, and as the Government—properly, I think—will not accept any Amendments, there is less reason for taking up questions which undoubtedly arise on the Bill. It is almost entirely a

  1273
  consolidating Bill, the Amendments being merely explanatory in character. On Clause 3 reference was made in another place to the prerogative of the Secretary of State in regard to the appointment of members, the point being the length of time necessary for such members of the Council to serve in India. I do not think "the prerogative of the Secretary of State" is the proper expression to use. The Secretary of State has no prerogative in this matter; he has merely the right of selection. I think the word was an unfortunate one to use.
  On Clause 4, I believe it is understood that the Government are to take into account whether a peer can be appointed on the Council of India. That such an appointment should be possible is, I think, extremely desirable. It is not really clear at present that a peer is disqualified. I believe the reason why no provision was made in 1858 to enable a peer to sit on the Council of India is that at that time it was never supposed that a peer would care to sit on the Council. The same explanation obtains with regard to the fact that a peer of Scotland is ineligible to be a Member of this House. At the time of the Union of Scotland and England it was never supposed that a Scottish peer would want to be a Member of this House. At a later period, when Ireland was included, provision was made for Irish peers to become Members of the House of Commons. I believe that that is the historical explanation why no provision was made enabling Scotch peers to sit in this House. With regard to bringing the accounts before Parliament, do I understand that everything relating to that question and the discussion of the East India Revenue Accounts is incorporated in the Bill? There is no provision for discussing the East India Revenue Accounts, but there is a provision for their being laid before Parliament. If that exhausts the whole obligation, I am satisfied. There is no doubt a very widespread belief that Parliament is bound to provide at least one day for the discussion of those accounts in this House. This year they will not obtain even that one day. I am extremely glad that they will not. I welcome the decision of the Government. But I should like to know quite clearly whether there is any provision in any Statute of an earlier date requiring that those accounts shall be discussed in Parliament.
  On Clause 35 I have always been under the impression, as one who was for some
  1274
  years an additional member of the Governor-General's Council, that there was only one Council, and that the additional members were additional members of the one Council. In this Consolidation Bill the Council is described as the Executive Council, and when the additional members are sitting, as the Legislative Council. That is obviously a convenient practice. Nevertheless, when I was a member a strong point was always made of the fact that there was only one Council of the Governor-General. I will not say more on that point, because it is obviously a useful discrimination, and I have no objection to raise. In Clause 36, under the heading of the Governor-General of India in Council, where it provides that the Executive Council shall be appointed, it goes on to say that the number of the members of the Council shall be five. Surely it should be "Executive Council" again. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will look into that. An objection was raised in another place to Clause 39, Sub-section (2), which states that:—
  "At any meeting of the Council the Governor-General or other person presiding and one ordinary member of the Council may exercise all the functions of the Governor-General in Council."
  If that is a reproduction, as it seems to be, of the Statute of 1833, I do not see that any advantage can result from taking exception to it. As to the phraseology itself, I rather adhere to what was said by one distinguished Indian Civil servant, and by other distinguished authorities upon this point, and I should like to know from the Under-Secretary, when he speaks, as to how this would be affected by the Amendment proposed by Lord Macdonnell.
  Mr. BOOTH: I have been following the hon. Member very closely, and I notice he refers to some Under-Secretary. I do not know any Under-Secretary. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill is the Comptroller of the Household.
  Sir J. D. REES: I know that the Under-Secretary for India is in another place, and I apologise to my hon. Friend on the opposite Front Bench (Mr. C. Roberts). Nobody is better qualified to deal with this matter than he is. He has been Under-Secretary, and he has been consequently entrusted with this Bill. I am very glad that he is here to answer the remarks that I am making. On Clause 52 I understand—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I think I ought to remind the hon. Member that the Second Reading of a Bill is not for the purpose of going through the Bill Clause by Clause. We have another stage to deal with that. I am a little alarmed at the prospect of the hon. Member going Clause by Clause through the Bill.
  Sir J. D. REES: I do not wish to make any lengthy remarks if you tell me that there shall be another stage. But I really understood that the Government were going to try to get the Bill now through all its stages. I did not intend to trespass at any length upon the time of the House. I mentioned the Clause for the purpose of introducing the subject. I have no intention of dwelling upon it, but the matter refers to a point raised in another place. One of the chief points in this Clause is as regards the provision of an Executive Council for the United Provinces. I understood the suggestion to be, that, though, under the existing law, an Executive Council might be provided for that province, a Legislative Council could not be provided. I think that that is the case. If I am right in that respect then in the amending Bill care must be taken to see that due provision is made on this count. I think I must be in order in referring to this matter because it was the chief point of discussion in another place. I understood that in Clause 52 of this Consolidating Bill legislation would be required to provide a Legislative Council, although an Executive Council might be provided in the same way in which it was provided for the Province of Bengal. I will just take my subjects as they come in the Bill of over a hundred Clauses.
  In Clause 96 a description is given of the natives of India. Exception was taken in another place to the phrase "no native of British India." Personally, I think that no other phrase can be so clear, so unambiguous, or so suitable for the occasion. If anything derogatory to the natives of India is supposed to be assumed from the use of the expression "native of India," I would suggest that European and British subjects should be described as "natives of Europe" In each case it is perfectly obvious that no invidious distinction is intended. The suggestion that the inhabitants of India are disparaged leads at once to difficulty and doubt. As, for instance, in the case of the Eurasians, who are now described as Anglo-Indians, which is exactly what nobody else calls them. What provision is made
  1276
  here as to the subjects of native States? What about the subject of a native State? He owes allegiance to his own particular Maharajah, who no doubt is a tributory of the King-Emperor, and in another sense he owes allegiance to the latter. Does "native of British India" cover the case, because the subjects of native States can hold office under the Crown in India, and as a matter of fact, are frequently appointed thereto. Towards the end of the Bill, in Clause 127, Sub-section (2), it is provided that
  "Every British subject shall be amenable to all Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom, of competent jurisdiction, to try offences committed in India, for every offence committed within India, and outside British India, as if the offence had been committed within British India."
  Does that mean competent jurisdiction to try offences committed in India synonymous with or identical in substance to similar offences in England? The phraseology seems to me to be exceedingly doubtful. My hon. and learned Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Rawlinson) is going to speak, and I shall be glad if my remarks have led him to look at this matter, and if he thinks the matter at all doubtful to make an appropriate suggestion to the Front Bench. Coming to the end of the Bill I note the Fifth Schedule. I do not propose to make any reference to this. I shall follow the example of the Noble Lord in another place; but I would like to ask the Secretary as to certain Clauses—
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to ask if the hon. Member is justified in quoting remarks made in another place in reference to this matter?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not quite follow what the hon. Baronet was saying, but what the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) says, is correct. We have a rule which precludes us from debating here the speeches made in the other House.
  Sir J. D. REES: I have not quoted the speech; I was not even about to quote it. I had merely referred to the speech; but, perhaps, my hon. Friend wishes to come on, and is anxious that my remarks should be brought to a close. As a matter of fact they are brought to a close. I thought it was desirable to make a few remarks in regard to points, some of which have

  1277
  not been dealt with in another place. This Consolidating Bill covers the whole of the legislation connected with the constitutional Government of India up to the present day. It has advanced the subject comprehensively to an extent that does not apply to any other Bill which has probably come before the House since I have been a Member. I hope I have not taken an unduly long time this evening. I am the only Member of this House who has been an additional Member of the Governor-General's Council, and I am equally surprsied and equally sorry, therefore, if it should be thought that I have detained the House at too great length.
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to assure the hon. Member that, at any rate, I paid him the compliment of hearing his speech, and came in to hear it. That is not what I objected to. The hon. Member was doing that to which he has before taken objection—that is, quoting arguments made in another place for the purpose of answering them. He must not say he has a right to quote when it is a matter of interest to him and not allow my hon. Friends on other occasions to do so.
  Sir J. D. REES: I have not quoted.
  Mr. BOOTH: I merely interfered in the interest of law and order, which I understood was dear to the heart of the hon. Member. I want to know what connection this Bill has with the vigorous prosecution of the War. I do not know whether any Member of the Government can justify its introduction. I understood we were to have no emergency legislation unless connected with the vigorous prosecution of the War or the arrangements consequent upon that. Therefore, I put a plain question which I shall repeat upon some subsequent occasion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite has asked rather an awkward question of the Government, because, as I understand this Bill, it is the efforts of forty years. I think I am not wrong in saying that for forty years the various Governments which have sat on the bench opposite have endeavoured to bring in a Bill of this description, and, as the hon. Member opposite says, it seems rather curious that they should have chosen this particular year to consummate their efforts. However, I am always most anxious to give every facility to the Government, and I have no reason to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. But I
  1278
  have taken some little trouble to acquaint myself with its provisions. It is a very long Bill, but I believe it is to a certain extent a Consolidation Bill. I fancy there w as a Committee, and that the Committee who sat upon this Consolidation Bill did make certain representations which they did not wish to put into the Bill, because it was a Consolidation Bill. It is curious, and I presume it is owing to the Coalition Government, that so much advantage is taken of the other place, because in the old days any of the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the bench opposite would never have taken advantage of another place; but apparently they have taken that advantage to put in certain alterations which, although I am informed they are not vital and do not make any great change in the laws relating to India, certainly are not alterations which should be put into a Consolidation Bill. I know the Comptroller of the Household, who seems to have taken Mr. Masterman's place as maid-of-all-work in the Government—the other day he was answering for insurance and he is now answering for the India Office—will say my statements are not correct, but I think on reflection he will admit that they are. I only rise to say I do not object to the Second Reading, but we ought to have time to consider the Committee stage, and I think that will be accepted by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I want to say, in the first place, that I am only taking charge of this Bill at the request of the Secretary of State for India. As a matter of fact, when I was at the India Office I took a close interest in this Bill during the whole of last year, and indeed the Bill was in the making in the year before I was at the India Office. It takes, naturally, a very long time to examine a Bill of this kind, which must be considered, not merely by the various Departments of the India Office, but by the Government of India in India itself, and, under the circumstances, a very careful examination was made. I think there are really two things which the House will want to be assured about; in the first place, that it is a Bill which it is proper at the present time to bring forward. I agree that it was stated that nothing should be brought forward in this House except that which was purely non-contentious, unless it had something to do with the prosecution of the War. I trust this Bill may be regarded as a non-contentious Bill, and in that connection

  1279
  I would remind the House of Commons that they did hand this Bill over to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and earlier in the Session they agreed that the Joint Committee should investigate the Bill. Consequently, when the House of Commons has given the Joint Committee the trouble, which they were glad to undertake, of going through the Bill, I hope the House of Commons will not at the present time turn round and say it is not a proper Bill to introduce at this time. That depends on this point, on which I must satisfy the House that it is an honest Consolidation Bill. I think hon. Members want to be assured that, under cover of a Consolidation Bill, we are not smuggling in Amendments which are not proper to insert in a Consolidation Bill. That is the real point, and I think it arises on almost all the points of detail which were put to me by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). The point which underlay the whole was whether, in dealing with these various Clauses to which he directed attention, we were really embodying the law or whether we were introducing Amendments under cover of this proposal.
  I can only say that this Bill has been very carefully gone through and examined by all the Departments of the India Office. It was examined by a very strong advisory committee consisting of the experts of the India Office and their legal advisers, and I think in this connection the House will not mind my saying it has received the close attention of a trusted adviser of this House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, whose Digest of the Law of the Government of India is a recognised authority on the point. It went then before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That Committee, as the House knows, is presided over by Lord Loreburn, who takes on that Committee the strictest view of its functions. He induces the Committee to rule out practically all Amendments in pure Consolidation Bills except such as are really almost indispensable to introduce in the process of consolidation. In this particular case great care was insisted upon by him on the ground that in a large Bill like this it was quite impossible for the House of Commons to satisfy itself that all care had been taken to reproduce existing law. If the House or any Member of the House cares to refer to the Report of that Joint Committee, they will find the Amendments set out which were in fact introduced in
  1280
  the House of Lords. They were on very minor points. The House of Lords accepted no Amendments, and I cannot accept to-night, or at any later stage, any Amendments except those which the Joint Committee recommended Parliament to insert in the Bill. In one instance the House of Lords did not accept one minor matter which the Joint Committee thought might have been appropriate to introduce. It was a small point. But there has been no Amendment introduced into this measure except those Amendments which Lord Loreburn and the Committee on Consolidation thought were appropriate. I know the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London realises, and has frequently recognised, the care with which that Committee deals with these Bills, and if he has the guarantee of that Committee I trust that he will be satisfied that this measure is a very honest Consolidation Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What do the Amendments refer to?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think I may group the Amendments under the four heads. In the first place in one or two Clauses the word "British" was left out of the expression "British India." May I give the hon. and learned Member an instance. The Council of India had in the unamended Bill, control of all the correspondence going out to "British India." That is the law as it stood before the Amendment was introduced. But the Amendment made the law say that in future the Council of India had control of all the correspondence dealing with "India." This came about owing to a particular definition in the Act of 1858, which limited the expression "India" to "British India." The practice has always been as the Bill stands at the present time, but in this case there was a divergence between the law and the practice, and we thought it was legitimate in such cases to put into this Bill the law as understood and construed by constitutional practice. Another point is that there is power to declare the extent of the authority of a Lieutenant-Governor, and that was to be exercised in three different ways. There were small differences of detail in procedure, and by the Amendment inserted in the Lords the procedure was rendered uniform. It is a very minor point, so small that I do not think I need explain it any further. Another small point was that the Crown has power to

  1281
  disallow an Act passed by the Indian Legislature. That disallowance under the existing law might date from one of two dates. That was thought to be administratively inconvenient, and the Joint Committee thought it might be legitimate to make it date from one date instead of from one of two alternative dates.
  9.0 P.M.
  There is one other matter of rather more importance. There were various provisions in the old Acts dealing with prohibitions as to trading and receiving of presents. Those who came to look at the old provisions of the Acts of 1793 and 1772 found them to be very capricious, limited in territorial extent, and applying to certain officials and not to others, and it was almost impossible to reproduce them with absolute accuracy. An Amendment was carried to provide a uniform provision to cover all the cases. I think that deals with all the Amendments which the House of Lords has made, and the hon. and learned Member will see there was nothing there which was not of a character which really you cannot avoid when you come to deal with consolidation. I do not mean to imply that the Bill now before the House does not contain points which are open to criticism, and which upon grounds of administrative convenience might be altered; but you are dealing with Acts dating back to 1770, some forty in number, and it is inevitable that if you begin to propose Amendments great opportunities would be given for criticism. If you once begin that task it would be impossible to consolidate, and therefore the line has been rigidly drawn in favour of reproducing the law as it stands. If you did begin to allow such Amendments, then the process of consolidation would be simply impossible. As to the points of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) I ought to say, without going through the whole of them, that it was announced in another place that an amending Bill would be introduced and was in fact being drafted, and this might deal with points like the right of a peer to sit on the Council of India. That point might be considered in reference to that Bill, but it would be entirely improper to consider that change in connection with a Consolidation Bill.
  With regard to what the hon. Member said in reference to Budget statements, Clause 26 actually reproduces the law. There is no absolute statutory provision that there should be a Budget discussion
  1282
  every year, but the documents have to be laid before Parliament, and on that point I am certain the Bill is correct. Upon the question of the Executive Council of India, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member, it is mainly a question of wording and drafting. The Council which sits for executive purposes is technically the same as the legislative Council, but it is practically a different body from the Council of sixty-nine which acts for legislative purposes. There is some statutory authority for the drafting of the Bill. It is only a question of drafting, and it does not alter the powers and provisions of the Council, although there may be some slight difference of nomenclature. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with any other points except to say that in regard to each point raised the Bill correctly reproduces existing law. In reference to the phrase, "natives of British India," I should have been glad if it could have been left out, and I may point out that it has been omitted in all cases except two places. It is not an expression which is intended to be discourteous or to which any discourtesy need attach, but I know it is disliked in India, and if we could have removed it entirely from the Statute Book it would have been done. The phraseology of Clause 96 is very famous, and we could not find any words which would have expressed exactly the same meaning without deviating too far from that phraseology. Under the circumstances, I think that we had to reproduce that language, though, of course, it can be considered in an amending Bill. Those are all the points which have been raised. I am quite ready, after the opinion that has been expressed, to recognise that we should not take more than the Second Reading to-night, but I hope that when we get to the Committee stage the House will allow the Bill to pass.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [15 th July], "That the Bill be now read the second time."
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am aware that this Bill is a hardy annual, and I do not propose to take any exception to it, but is there anyone on the Government Bench who has the least idea what is the relationship between England and the Isle of Man? I have asked that question year after year, and I have not yet found anyone who has even attempted to reply. I do not propose to press the point now, because the learned Attorney-General, with whom I have had an interview, assures me that he understands the relationship, and he has been kind enough to tell me that he will inform me what it is as well as he can. I wish to express my thanks that in the change of Government there has been someone admitted who has the patience as well as the knowledge to acquaint me on this question. If he does not satisfy me in the next twelve months, I shall reappear next year with my annual conundrum.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).

  GROUSE (CLOSE TIME—SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): This Bill, which I ask the House to be good enough to read a second time, is for the purpose of enabling grouse to be shot in Scotland as from the 5th August this year instead of from the 12th August.
  Mr. BOOTH: We want to shoot Germans.
  Mr. MUNRO: I should emphasise at once that the Bill is not designed to extend the shooting period. In all probability there will be very little sport in Scotland this year. The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of those who indulge in the pastime under normal conditions are at the present time serving their country in one capacity or another, and the probability therefore is that sport will be abridged to a very large extent and will be limited to keepers and elderly men. This Bill has a certain bearing upon the question of the food supply of the country. I am told that in an average year some-
  1284
  thing like two million grouse are shot, and under the abnormal conditions of this year, the moors being very plentifully supplied, I am told the probability is that there will be something like three million grouse shot. It should be remembered in this connection that last year while the price of meat rose, as we all know, in an extraordinary way, the price of grouse fell, and, according to my information, grouse was sold last season at a price which was less than the price of first-class beef today. Unless the question is taken in hand at an early date, and unless shooting commences at an earlier date than is usual, two results, it would seem, may follow. The first would be that in the absence of many guns from the moors this year there would be a diminished supply of grouse, which, as I have endeavoured to set before the House, is a cheap commodity under existing conditions and a useful one; and in the second place, almost certainly, in the opinion of those who are capable of expressing an opinion upon the subject, there would be a diseased supply of grouse next season. I think the House will agree that these are two contingencies equally undesirable. This Bill endeavours to prevent these results. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Bill is a purely permissive measure, and, having regard to the considerations to which I have ventured to advert, I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I heartily approve of the Bill as far as I understood what the hon. Gentleman has said, but why does it not apply to England as well as to Scotland? Why should Scotland have a market a week ahead of England? It will be very profitable to Scotland. I am very glad that the shooting should be ante-dated by a week and that we should have an extra supply of grouse, but at the same time I should like to know the reason why the Bill does not apply to England.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was really going to raise the same point. This is a Bill which is going to apply to Scotland. We have English grouse as well as Scotch grouse.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Better.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Apart from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I only see two Scottish Members present who are asking for this Bill. There cannot be a demand on the part of the Scottish Members—a third has just come in—and it seems to me that it is an attempt

  1285
  really to induce men who take a pleasure in shooting this class of bird to rush to Scotland and to deprive England of the same facility. Scotland, I believe, is advertising very extensively this year for people to go there and spend their holidays, and I should like to know whether this is part of that scheme to deprive our English moors of their presence. If it is an advantage to Scotland, certainly it would be an advantage to England, and we ought to know why it is that the Scottish Office is taking this advantage over the English grouse shooters and why, as the hon. Member opposite said, the English market is to be flooded with Scotch grouse before our friends in England can come into the market. We ought to have an explanation on this subject before we pass the Bill. I do not know whether the Chief Whip, who is a Scottish Member, is part and parcel of this plot; very likely he is, hoping to get the Scotish Members away before the 5th of August so that the House may rise a little earlier. I am glad to see the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) here. I am quite certain that he is an authority upon this subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to speak again I think he ought to explain to us why they are going to have the advantage of shooting grouse in Scotland on the 5th August while we, who represent English constituencies, are deprived of that opportunity. They are stealing an advantage.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Stealing!
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes, because the Act does not apply to England and Wales. We ought to have some explanation why it does not.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member who has just sat down has displayed an amazing ignorance of this Bill and its purpose. There is certainly no plot to deprive the Yorkshireman of the market for his grouse by trying to forestall him. This is a necessary measure in the interests of the future of the moors of Scotland, and in the interests of those who possess them and who have probably to depend entirely upon their rents for paying their rates, which are very heavy in some parts of Scotland. It is essential to pass this Bill if we are not going to have the whole of the country overrun with disease next year or this year. The truth is that in Scotland it is not possible to shoot grouse on many moors exactly in the same way as they do in England. In Yorkshire they
  1286
  entirely kill their grouse by driving. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows what driving grouse really means.
  Mr. BOOTH: They do not all drive in Yorkshire.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They may not all do so, but most of them do. In Scotland, of course, on many moors it is quite impossible to drive the grouse. You cannot get beaters—the moors are not suitably laid out for that purpose; and, in the last place, it is difficult to get guns in these almost inaccessible districts. The shooting usually begins on the 12th August. We have the Lammas fetes a few days after, and then it will be perfectly impossible to get the birds otherwise than by driving, because they will be so wild; therefore, as we have the promise of a very large stock of grouse on the moors this year, unless we can get at the birds very early, say a week before the usual time, we shall next year have the whole of the moors more or less decimated by disease. We may lose a good many of our usual visitors next year and the year after, if, as I hope it may be, the War is at an end. No doubt Yorkshire will hope to get them, and I honestly say I wish to prevent that. This is not a measure which has for its object the sending of the grouse to market. In many cases the birds will have to be shot very young, and will consequently not be saleable. But the change of date is essential in the interests of the soundness and quality of the birds in future seasons.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading said the reason for making the alteration was that it would supply the market with the birds; but, if they are to be unsaleable, surely that is a reason why the Bill should not pass.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I said that on some moors the grouse would have to be shot before they were quite matured, and therefore they would not be sold. But that does not affect the general argument in favour of the Bill. The great bulk of the birds will go to market, and will, no doubt, be much appreciated by those who buy them. It is said that this measure is designed not in the interests of real sport, but of the owners of the moors. But the public authorities in Scotland depend for rates and taxes to a very large extent on shooting rentals, and this year it is going to be a very serious matter, because the moors are not going to be let. People are not

  1287
  able to take them. They want to save the money and put it in the War Loan I suppose. But it is going to be a very difficult thing for people to find the money to pay the rates. It is a serious economic question which we have to face now, and it will be far more serious next year. It is, therefore, desirable to take steps to see that the birds are kept in a healthy condition.
  Mr. BOOTH: At last we understand the real meaning of this Bill. It is a relief Bill for the landlords, to enable them to get a week's more rent for their grouse moors.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They are getting no rent for them.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to protest against a Bill like this being starred by the Government, or even brought before the House during the War. In case any of our newspapers get to the front, and are seen by the men in the trenches, I hope that not a single line of the present Debate will be published, for there could be nothing more calculated to dishearten the men in the trenches than to read that the House of Commons is discussing a Bill of this nature. Further than that, it is a breach of the understanding between the Government and this House. I do not say it is a technical breach. It is a breach in the spirit, although not in the letter. Private Members of this House are prevented bringing in Bills in which they are interested. The Government have taken the whole of the time of the House—they have taken Fridays and private Members' evenings, so that we may not bring in Bills like this, or even more important measures. But in another place they allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which is of interest to those who are more concerned in grouse shooting and drawing the rents for grouse moors than in beating the Germans, and this Bill is adopted by the Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it in order to state that Members in the other House are more interested in grouse shooting than in beating the Germans?
  Mr. BOOTH: I did not apply that to all of them. But how can a man with his mind on the War conceive a Bill like this, and how can the House, with its mind on the War, discuss and pass a Bill like this? I do press on the Government to deal with Bills more important than this. It is monstrous for the Government to invite
  1288
  the attention of the House to a Bill like this during the War. We come here under a very great strain; we are all concerned about the national position; we are concerned for this House to do its duty. Conversation in the Lobby and in the Smoke Room shows that nearly every Member who comes here realises the very serious position in which the country is, and yet we are asked to deal with a Bill like this, a Bill which has been starred by a Government which has prevented private Members from bringing in measures which they believe to be far more important. To adopt this Bill introduced by a private Member in another place in this way, is to belittle the House of Commons, and to break the spirit, although not the letter, of their bargain.
  I do beseech them to show some consideration to the House on this matter. I do so not merely in connection with this Grouse Bill. The same argument applies to many other Bills which are being pressed forward. The House of Commons is entitled to protest, and I certainly do protest against this Bill being proceeded with. I care nothing for any particular Scottish landowner or for a few Scottish Members and the view they may take. They are trying to get a week's start of England in regard to the matter of rent. The hon. Baronet opposite is perfectly entitled to look after the interests of Scotland when they come into competition with Yorkshire, but I do not want to hear anything here about rival appeals on behalf of grouse moors in Scotland and in Yorkshire. I shall be prepared to meet the hon. Baronet on that point at another time, and I hope I shall be able to do a little bit for my own country. But this is not a time when we ought to have our attention diverted to these things. I do not know what the Government intend to do with regard to this Bill, but if I can get anybody to support me, I will go into the Lobby as a protest against its being taken in a crisis like this in the nation's history.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I, too, want to urge the Government not to press a measure of this kind on the House. What will be the effect on the working people if they do? They have been asked to make very big sacrifices, and they have been making them. At the present time they are being asked by this House to give up, in the interests of the country at this crisis, their trade union regulations and restrictions and to put everything aside in the interests of the nation. If workmen are willing to

  1289
  do that, surely it is not asking too much of the landowners of Scotland that they shall not demand at a time like this that they shall be allowed to have seven days added to the period of grouse shooting obviously in the interests of grouse rents in that country.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon Member, but I want to point out that these moors are not let at all, and are not going to be let.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Then I do not understand the argument advanced by the hon. Member. But surely rent does enter into the question as a factor?
  Sir G. YOUNGETR: In the future.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I cannot accept the hon. Baronet's explanation, and if it is not the case I can only say it makes the Bill less understandable, because it either means that or nothing at all. I do hope that the Government will not proceed with this measure, but will withdraw it in response to the protest that must be made by Members in all parts of the House.
  Mr. KING: I have listened to this Debate and I intend to vote for this Bill. I fear that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is carried away by his prejudice against all legislation. Here we have private Member's legislation, emanating certainly in another place, but to my mind quite sensible. In the first place, it is emergency legislation and it is legislation that is going to increase the food supply of this country. I have not in previous years been able to afford the luxury of grouse, but I look forward to that pleasure both this year and probably next year also. If I, a poor man, can look forward to that prospect in these hard times, I am sure I can appeal for sympathy to an ordinary modest member of the community like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and ask him to change his mind. I am sorry that one point has not been elucidated in the course of this Debate, namely, why this Bill does not apply to England, and whether the conditions of English moors do not partake of the same nature as those of the Scottish moors. That question, which was first propounded on this side and afterwards by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel), has not received a reply from the Treasury Bench. If we find that the same conditions apply to English moors as to Scottish moors—I include also, of course,
  1290
  Welsh moors in the same category — we ought to have another emergency Bill antedating the time for grouse shooting on those moors. I suppose the position is that the early Scotsman is going to set the first grouse. That is quite right, but now that England has woke up to the position we ought to have another Bill extending the privilege to England also.
  Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps the House will permit me to say a few words in reply to the observations which have fallen from hon. Members in all quarters. First of all, a single word as regards the origin of this Bill. It was suggested that it was a Scottish Office Bill, which was supposed to be part of a plot to which my hon. Friend the Chief Whip was a party and which was so brought to the House of Commons. That is not so. The Bill was introduced in another place. It was not the project of the Scottish Office at all. It has come down from another place and is so submitted to the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who introduced it?"]. Lord Lovat, With regard to the point as to why the Bill does not apply to England, I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I am told that the conditions of the sport in England are entirely different from those in Scotland in this connection. For instance, I am informed that the English moors are much smaller than those in Scotland, and the organisation for driving is very much better. Moreover the English moors are more getatable—one can speak of that from personal knowledge and experience—than the inaccessible moors with which one has to deal in Scotland. There is no resemblance between the two cases, and no desire to give a benefit to Scotland which is being denied to England. Hon. Members will at once see when they reflect that although grouse may be shot in Scotland on the 5th it cannot be sold in England before the 12th.
  Recalling the difference of conditions between the two countries and the absence of any hardship there is apparently very little good ground for objecting to the Bill. It has been more than suggested that this Bill is a breach of the understanding whereby controversial measures are not to be taken at this time. If I thought that, I should certainly not be standing at this Box defending the Bill. I think the Bill can be well defended upon the ground of its bearing upon the food supply of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

  1291
  If hon. Members had done me the honour of listening to what I said in regard to the price of grouse last year in Scotland and the probable price this year, they would have seen that although it may be a small contribution, nevertheless it is a substantial contribution to the food supply of the country. For that reason, if for no other, the Bill can be justified as a War Bill, and it is only from that point of view, speaking on behalf of the Government, that I seek to justify it. There is no intention whatever, as I said when moving the Second Beading of the Bill, that it should be treated as an extension of sporting rights. Looking to the circumstances which prevail in Scotland at the present time—the absence of sportsmen, the abnormal supply of birds, and the open market—I do not think it can be suggested that this is a sinister design for the benefit and profit of lessees of sporting rights; but, on the other hand, it is a Bill which can be justified on the particular ground I have ventured to urge upon the House. If this Bill were to be regarded as a controversial measure, of course, under present conditions, it could not go through, but I venture to appeal to the House again, in the most earnest fashion possible, to be good enough to accept the view put forward in all humility by myself, and supported in various quarters of the House, and if they do so I would ask the House to read the Bill a second time.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am sure the House will sympathise with the Lord Advocate in the very difficult task which, through no fault of his own, has fallen upon him to-night. He was careful to explain that he has no personal responsibility for the Bill. I am not surprised at that, because I really think that at a time like this it is trying the patience of the House too much, when days are refused by the Government for matters of vital importance, that they should come down and occupy the time of the House in discussing a Bill which means that there shall be six or seven days more for the shooting of grouse in this country than has hitherto been the case. It is not the proposal to which my hon. Friends object so much as the fact that the Bill is being brought forward at present. It is an almost indecent proposal to bring before the House at the present time, when the people of this country are thinking of matters of a much more grave character.
  1292
  The Lord Advocate justified the Bill, because he says there is the consideration of the food supply of this country. I suppose what he means is that we should eat less meat and more grouse. That is practically the position, because the Members of the Government have been spending public money in advertising the fact that the people of this country have got to eat less meat. I wonder how many of the great working-class population of this country ever taste grouse at all. I hope that the Lord Advocate is not going to pretend that grouse is consumed by the great working population of this country. It is nothing of the kind. To a person who can afford to pay 5s. or 7s. 6d. for grouse a consideration of that kind never appeals at all.
  The point made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) with regard to the history of this Bill is an important one. No private Member of this House can bring forward a Motion or a Bill during this Session. The Government say, "So grave are the issues of the War that we demand the whole time of this House. You may think that men have blundered and cost thousands of lives; you may think anything you like, but we have no time to allow that to be discussed; but we have time to consider sportsmen, forsooth, and whether in the interests of sport we ought to have these six days more for the shooting of grouse in the Highlands." I confess that I cannot reconcile the two positions at all. Again, as regards to the question of the history of the Bill, this is not a Government Bill. It was brought forward by a private Member of the House of Lords. No private Member of the House of Commons has the privilege of bringing forward anything at all, but because a private Member of the House of Lords brings forward a measure of this kind the Coalition Government welcome it—it is almost their first offspring—and they say we must find time for it, not only in the House of Lords, but in the House of Commons. In my opinion, the Government are getting out of touch with the opinion of this House and the country. They ought not to occupy the time of the House of Commons at a serious time like this when we cannot get time to bring forward matters of urgent importance with a measure of this kind, and I hope the Government will consider the protest which has been made, and will consent to an adjournment of the Debate. They ought not to use the fact of the Coalition

  1293
  to press a matter of this kind, which is opposed by even an insignificant section of the House. We have claims outside that the House must adjourn, that Parliament must be shut up, that time is being wasted, and suggestions of that sort. I wonder what these critics will say about the time of Parliament being occupied by a measure of this kind. I suppose this will be a grand legislative achievement. The Lord Advocate will have shown his strength; he will show that he is master of the House in bringing forward this measure. I hope the Government will consent to an adjournment, and not press a measure which is opposed to the loyalty of their supporters.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am sorry in one sense that this Bill has been brought forward, and has occupied time in the House of Commons, but I really believe it is in the interest of the country—a very small interest possibly—that it should pass through all its stages and pass without very much discussion. The reason for its occupying the time of the House this evening is that two or three hon. Members below the Gangway have thought it necessary to raise their protest against a private Member's Bill being taken up by the Government. It was regarded in the other place as absolutely non-controversial, and many of us hoped it might be so regarded here. The simple facts in connection with grouse are these. In Scotland, if there are no shooting parties, it is absolutely impossible to kill the necessary number of birds to avoid disease. In 1873 disease killed nearly every bird in Scotland. In the previous year there was an enormous number of grouse and they were not adequately killed. This is the nearest year which has occurred since 1872 in regard to the number of grouse in Scotland, and it is well known that many of the moors in Scotland are not let, and there is not the slightest prospect of their being let, and the only question is whether the birds are to be killed or to be spared. If they are to be spared, in all probability disease will extend throughout the whole of Scotland, and next year there will be practically no grouse left. On the other hand, these birds will not come into competition this side of the Border in the London market with birds killed in England, but they will be sold or dispersed in Scotland. Many hon. Members and two or three large landowners have already told me that they have given directions that these birds, if they are killed early in August by their men, will be at once dispatched to the
  1294
  hospitals for the wounded. They have no desire to make money out of the proposal of the Bill. The object is merely to prevent the birds dying from disease when they might be utilised for the purpose of human food.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There will, I think, be general agreement in every quarter of the House with one item in the criticism of my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). It is surely a very anomalous thing that while this House, in the interests of the Government and in the interests of carrying on the War, has consented to deprive itself of the right of introducing any private Member's Bill, it should still be possible to introduce private Member's Bills in the House of Lords, and by conniving at that discrimination, by introducing here a private Member's Bill, which we ourselves are prohibited from introducing here, but which has been introduced in another place, the Government are guilty of provocation; they invite disagreement; they are not treating this House in a respectful manner. But that is general criticism of the Government. It is not criticism of the Bill on its merits. When we come to the merits of the Bill, I think there is a good case to be made out for it; indeed, I think the case has already been made out. I do not understand the attitude, of my two hon. Friends in the manner in which they have declaimed against wasting the time of the House in discussing such a measure when there is a great War going on. Why did not my hon. Friend get up earlier in the evening and protest against discussing the Coal Bill when a great War is going on? Why did he not protest against the Bill to get cheap coal to keep yourself warm when people are fighting in the trenches? He would have made as good a point as he is making here. Why did he not protest against the Registration Bill? Why should we spend the time of the House in passing a Bill for the mere purpose of counting the people of the country when fighting is going on at the front?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It was a war measure.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There are degrees in war measures, and this Bill is a war measure, not in so great a degree, but it is a war measure in the way that other Bills which have been introduced in this House with the full assent and agreement of my hon. Friends are war Bills.

  1295
  It is a Bill to relieve a large part of Scotland for the great loss which is being inflicted upon it directly through the War, a loss which can be easily remedied without doing injustice to any person in the country. The grouse moors of Scotland constitute a great interest in the country, not only to the landlords and the people who are employed on them, but to the local authorities who derive a considerable portion of their revenue from the rates on these moors and to the other ratepayers in the county, who are relieved of their rates correspondingly. That is surely a matter which is deserving of serious consideration. I will not deny that I and others in this House have held and do hold that many of these moors could better be used for other purposes. The hon. Baronet will agree that some of these moors could be better used for other purposes.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Very few!
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I am not so sure that there would be very few of them. My own belief is that a very large proportion could better be used, say, for the purpose of afforestation. But we are not proposing that these moors should be used for a better purpose. It is impracticable to change their purpose at the present time, and so long as the purpose for which they are devoted is the purpose of rearing grouse it is contrary to the interests of the country that merely for the sake of a phrase, merely for the sake of scoring a point, we should consent to allow the opportunity to pass when we could save the country, and many of the interests in the country, from a very great financial loss. I think I can understand the motive of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). Since the War started Othello's occupation is gone. There are no private Bills to oppose. The hon. Member has lost his occupation. Now, here is a little Bill which he can hit. I think it is not quite worthy of the hon. Member. If he wishes further practice in the arts of which he is a past master, surely he can exercise them upon some of the greater Bills which are before the House! There was a Bill not very long ago which had considerable discussion in a Committee of the Whole House, and the Minister in charge of the Bill—the Minister of the Local Government Board—made very handsome acknowledgment that during its passage through this House that Bill had been considerably improved by discussion. Why is not the hon. Member working for his country by help-
  1296
  ing to improve the Bills passed through the House? Why did not he exercise those arts which he has exercised in former years with such skill, such force, and such vigour, in improving some of the important measures which have passed through the House during this Session, and which I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge could be improved? I submit that my right hon. Friend in charge of this Bill has made a good case for it on the merits of the Bill, and therefore, however much we may think the Government is to blame for some indiscretion which is quite outside the merits of the Bill, I hope the measure will receive the unanimous support of the House.
  Mr. R. LAMBERT: I confess that I have had some doubt as to what attitude I ought to adopt in regard to this Bill. I think I have begun to understand what the Bill is intended to do. It appears that there is considerable danger that the disease will bring havoc upon the birds. Therefore we are asked to pass this Bill and to spend considerable time in this House in order that we may save the lives of these birds by killing them. Secondly, I understand that this Bill is intended to supplement the food supply of the country and to provide the working classes with additional food. I can only express the hope that plentiful supplies of grouse will find their way to my Constituency to gladden the tables and the hearts of some of my working men Constituents. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I regard it as somewhat of a disadvantage and somewhat unfortunate that this Bill. a private Member's Bill from another place, should have been taken up by the Government, and should be passed into law, or be attempted to be passed into law, when in the House of Commons itself, we the Members of the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, are forbidden and prevented from bringing in any private legislation at all. We cannot even bring forward a Motion in this House, and we cannot get a Bill printed. I do think that, under these circumstances, the Government would be well advised if they would withdraw this Bill and not press it to a Division.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Hon. Members on this side of the House are always regarded by hon. Members opposite as a kind of Piccadilly Highlanders who know nothing about sport, and therefore are unable to express any opinion on the merits of the question. As I spent several years of my

  1297
  life big game shooting in different parts of the world I know a little about sport, having in my younger days devoted most of my life to it. On the merits of the Bill I have not much criticism to pass except this, that I think the period of seven days is not really going to change the question one way or the other. If the moors were shot regularly through August and September the birds would in the main be kept down. That is not the point I raise objection to. My point is this, that we are refused by the Government any time whatever to discuss questions affecting the War. We are told that it is not in the public interest, and that Parliament has not time to discuss questions affecting what some of us consider matters of the utmost necessity in regard to the carrying on of the War. We have time to deal with a Bill which originates in another place, while we in this House have no power whatever of either introducing legislation or of bringing proposals before the House. A servile Press and a servile House of Commons give the Government all the power they require, and yet we are asked now to give time for dealing with a Bill affecting the grouse moors of Scotland. We have been told by the Lord Advocate that this measure will help the food supply. That rather reminds one of what Marie Antoinette said during the time of the French Revolution. People were crying out for food. "What are the people crying for?" she asked. They replied, "Bread." "Why don't they eat cake?" she asked. I suppose the cake that the people of this country are going to eat in place of other food is grouse. That is perfect nonsense. So far as the working classes are concerned, and so far as the community at large are concerned, "whether this Bill is passed or not it will not make the smallest difference to the food supply. Holding the view that this Government has no right to take up the time of the House with measures of this kind, while denying to private Members all time to discuss the conduct of the War, I can only say that I shall not support this Bill; and I should like to say as to what my hon. Friend behind me said in his complaint about time being given to this Bill, when he falls foul of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract because he discusses the questions of coal and other necesaries of life, that there is a wide difference between the cases. What analogy can there be between saying that the House of Commons discusses the question of munitions, the Registration Bill,
  1298
  and the Coal Bill, which are necessary in connection with the successful prosecution of this War, and this Bill? This Bill is one which, in my opinion, should not be brought before the House, and I beg leave to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Sir W. BYLES: I beg to second that Motion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to support the Motion for the Adjournment, and I do so with all the more confidence as I find that on this occasion I am on the same side with three such stalwart supporters of the Coalition Government as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), so that my action can be open to no suspicion of pro-Germanism. In regard to this Bill, I confess that, although I knew nothing of the reasons for introducing it, and I knew little about the subject, I was prejudiced against it in its origin. I recalled the circumstance which has been mentioned on several occasions this evening, that there has been a complete embargo placed by the Government upon all private Members' legislation in this House; and, when I found that a Bill emanating from a private Member of another place had received the blessing of the Government, I naturally inferred that some very important public object was going to be served by this unusual procedure. However, I do not take quite the same line as my hon. Friend in regard to this proceeding. I am hopeful now that the Government, having made an exception in favour of a private Member's Bill in the House of Lords, will see a reason that that should be their policy in regard to this House, and that when the new Session of Parliament opens once more there will be freedom for Members of this House to have at least the Bills which they regard as necessary for the public interest printed and open for discussion in this House. But, setting aside this prejudice on account of its origin, I listened with interest to the speech of the Lord Advocate and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. Pease), as well as to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) as to the objects which this Bill serves, and I have great difficulty in reconciling the statements of these various speakers. The Lord Advocate has put it on the ground of food supply, but the hon. Baronet opposite has told us that

  1299
  the grouse will be so immature when shot that they will be of no use for food. Consequently, I cannot find that there is any consistency between the statements of these supporters of the Bill. I can understand that it may be useful to have the birds shot in a larger measure this year than last year in order to prevent disease. That, of course, is an object which may be served by extending the time for shooting by seven days.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Extending the beginning.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, you are starting to shoot seven days earlier and consequently you would be shooting the birds in a more immature condition, and therefore in a condition less useful for food. If, indeed, it was desired to have food for the people, why not continue the 12th of August and give some of the soldiers on leave permission to go to the moors and shoot the birds in a mature condition? Then you would have food for the people and at the same time prevent disease, and also you would have a consistent policy and would be giving a little sport to the men on leave from the trenches, which would be a kindly act. I am sure that such an announcement would be received with great joy in Flanders. Consequently the object of preventing disease can be secured in a much better way, and in a way consistent with increasing the food supply of the country, in the manner which I have suggested.
  Mr. PEASE: You cannot hit a grouse with a rifle bullet.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I did not suggest that you would shoot it with a rifle bullet. [An Hon. MEMBER: "A machine gun?"] None of these things were in my mind. I confessed in my opening remarks that I was very ignorant on this subject, but my right hon. Friend must not suppose that my ignorance in this respect extended to the belief that you would shoot grouse with rifle bullets. I have never shot grouse, though I have been out with shooting parties, and I know the kind of ammunition used for the purpose, and that kind of ammunition could be made available for the men on leave as well as for the superannuated gamekeepers who at present are the only people available for the purpose of shooting. Another ground put forward by the hon. Baronet
  1300
  opposite was the preservation of these grouse moors as letable subjects. I am not in sympathy with that object. I have never looked with pleasure upon a largo part of Scotland being made a mere sporting ground. I do not think that it is a good thing for Scotland that this has been so. I believe that, while Scotland may have gained a little revenue in that respect, yet it has not been in the best interests of the country, and I am not in favour of passing a Bill which will maintain the reservation of these areas for sporting purposes. The hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. McCallum Scott), with whom I seldom disagree, seems to have taken a rather inconsistent line this evening. I know, for example, and I believe that the House remembers, that on many occasions he has advocated the afforestation of Scotland, and he has put forward and supported schemes whereby a large part of Scotland which is used for sporting purposes might be put under forest. Yet here he is to-night supporting a Bill which is keeping up the value of the land for sporting purposes, and so making it more difficult for the Government in future to acquire that land for the purpose of afforestation. That is not the way to go about having the land in Scotland diverted from sport in order to put it to a really economic use. We are told that if this Bill passes and this disease is prevented, these moors will be preserved for grouse shooting in future. But if this War is to go on there will not be many people left in the country who will be able to hire these moors for sporting purposes. The people will be so poor that they will not be able to indulge in the luxury of grouse shooting. Those who will take the moors will be Americans who have made fortunes out of the War and out of the misfortunes of Europe, and instead of Scotland being, as it has been in the past, overrun by sportsmen from this House, they will be overrun by sportsmen from the other side of the Atlantic. I am not at all anxious to see that brought about. In all the circumstances, and as no real case has been made out for this Bill, I think the Government should reconsider the matter.
  Mr. MUNRO: I have followed the course of the Debate very carefully and attentively, and, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, I have come to the conclusion that it will be in accordance with my duty to accede to the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to opposition of hon. Members below the Gangway, which was about the most uninformed opposition that I have ever listened to in this House. It proceeded upon petty distinction about the position of these gentlemen concerned in the Bill, and upon what is really gross ignorance of the true situation. It proceeded, so far as I could see in the case of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, from personal annoyance that he himself, with others, had raised questions in this House which the Prime Minister thought to be inexpedient, and therefore he showed his indignation or ill-humour for a very modest measure intended, not in the interests so much of sport, as of this valuable property in Scotland, which in many districts pays the whole of the rates and carries on the whole of the local government in regard to land which cannot be put to any other purpose, and which in many cases is far too high to bear the trees which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire thinks will grow anywhere. If the Lord Advocate takes the course of accepting the adjournment of the Debate on this useful measure, I will raise no objection, but I do not think the opposition is worth very much in point of value or a well-informed opposition, though, apparently, it is going to be persisted in. I do not, myself, propose to offer any objection, though I am ready to go into the Lobby, if anybody will join me, against the adjournment. Very few reasons have been given for this opposition, and I regret that a really most useful and very necessary measure is to be stopped in the way it has been.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am very sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs should have made those suggestions about the opposition to the Bill, and it is hardly fair to suggest that it arises from ulterior motives.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I took the right hon. Gentleman's own words.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: If the hon. Member always does that he will always be correct. My own words were, and I repeat them, that when the Government refuse to all private Members of this House the opportunity to have their Bills printed they ought not to offer facilities to a private Member of the House of Lords to force legislation upon us. If this is a measure which in the opinion of the Coalition Government is a war measure, and which has been advocated by the hon. Member for
  1302
  Bridgeton, in an excess of loyalty, let them say so, and let them take the responsibility of it. With regard to the merits of the Bill, in my opinion it is absurd to say that the shooting of grouse in Scotland is going to settle great social and national problems. No case has been made out in any form as to the necessity of the Bill. It does not raise the question of the food supply, and, above all, the question of disease is not going to be cured by five days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Still, if that is the view of the Government, and if the Coalition Government say that it is a strongly urgent matter and that the five days is going to deal with the whole question of the disease, let them take the responsibility of it, and do not let them leave it to private Members. The opposition to the Bill is not really on its merits; I frankly admit that it is not on the merits of the measure. I do not think anyone thinks so, and so far as I am concerned I object to going into the merits. What docs it matter to us whether it is five days later or earlier! The question is whether the time of the House is to be occupied by discussing a question of this kind. A case has not been made out to-night. What we object to is this, that if any Member of this House dares to ask a vital question affecting the security of the nation and the equipment of our soldiers, you cannot find time at all for a discussion as to that, but you can as to grouse. I say it is a monstrous proposal to occupy the time of this House with such a measure when we are prohibited or denied the discussion of questions vital to the soldiers and vital to the nation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that the only question now before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate. The hon. Member, I presume, is supporting the Motion.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I do. I was carried away by the remarks of the hon. Baronet, who gave a bad lead and I followed it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I can quite understand the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway, and their reasons against the Government, which I do not wish to go into for one moment, but I trust that they will allow this measure to proceed, as it has the approval of the vast majority of Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing the merits of the Bill. Hon. Members must confine themselves to the merits of the Adjournment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I would urge hon. Members to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment, in order that this Bill, which is a valuable one, may proceed.
  Mr. BOOTH: I acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's appeal, but he does not understand the intensity of our feelings. I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill, but if it is to be pressed I shall oppose it at every stage and by every means in my power. The hon. Gentleman must not think that this has been planned or plotted. What has taken place is perfectly spontaneous. I never spoke to a single Member about it, and I candidly stated my own views, and other Members have done the same. The Government are right in accepting the Adjournment, otherwise there cannot be any procedure with regard to these minor Bills. The Government are understood to take up a very definite position. If a Bill is non-contentious they will take it though it is not a war measure. If it is a war measure, they will take it whether it is contentious or not, but they distinctly stated on an earlier Bill that they could not proceed with any Bill not affecting the War if it was contended against. This Bill does arouse the severest opposition which will be shown on every stage, and therefore I think the Government is right to accept the Motion to Adjourn.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I am surprised at the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate in saying that he is willing to withdraw this Bill. I thought from what he had already said that this is a Bill which was introduced to save a very large part of the area of Scotland—
  Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend has just referred to my withdrawing the Bill. I have done nothing of the sort. I merely accede to the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think it is obvious what the acceptance of Adjournment on an occasion like this means. I would like to have some statement as to the right hon. Gentleman's future intentions with regard to the Bill. He told us that it was a Bill to save Scotland from great financial loss directly due to the War, and that it was in fact a war Bill. If the Government does not know its own mind about a Bill relating to such a small matter as grouse it is not conducive to confidence in it in regard to much more important measures which it submits to
  1304
  the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy made a very fair offer to the Government, and so did the hon. Member for Pontefact. They both said that if they are assured that this is a war Bill, they will withdraw their opposition, and my right hon. Friend said that if he were assured by the Coalition Government that.this was a Bill designed to prevent disease in the Scottish moors he would withdraw his opposition, and the Member for Pontefract said if he were assured it was a war Bill he would withdraw his opposition.
  Mr. BOOTH: No, I did not.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Member for Kirkcaldy also assured the Government that the opposition was not upon the merits of the Bill. I think it is regrettable that the Government should assent to the Adjournment and not go forward with the Bill.
  Question, "That the Debate be now-adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  PUBLIC WOBKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans.—[Mr. Montagu.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir W. BYLES: I hope that a Member of the Government will give some explanation of this Bill. I do not know whether there are any new Acts included in the expiring laws.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member. I have been through the Bill with the old one, and it is exactly the same.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  VOTE OF CREDIT.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, to get printed the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill? There were many important Amendments made on the Report stage, and the Bill, as amended, is not in the Vote Office. I understand, if there is to be any Notice of Motion, that such notice to be in order should be printed. I have just asked the Chief Whip whether he could do anything in the matter. It is very essential that we should see the Bill now as amended, and before the Third Reading.
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I had no idea that the Bill was not printed. I thought it was. But if the hon. Member says it is not, naturally I take his word for it. It is quite open to have the Bill reprinted if it is specially called for, and I think I can assure the hon. Member—if I am wrong I can be corrected—that this will be done, and that the Bill will be circulated in the morning.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the Patronage Secretary whether he can give us any idea of the amount of the Vote of Credit to be asked for to-morrow? We will come here to-morrow to discuss a Vote of Credit which we have not seen. Is the Vote to be for £50,000,000, £100,000,000, or £250,000,000? We do not know the items the Vote will cover. We shall see it for the first time in the morning. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would only be dealing with the House in a fair manner if we had the information I ask for, and some time before we have to discuss it.
  Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry I do not know the details of the Vote. I think the hon. Member may take it that it is pretty much the same as the previous Vote.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Have you the figure—is it £100,000,000 or £200,000,000?
  Mr. GULLAND: I think the hon. Member may be content to know that ho will see it in the morning. That has always been the case.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it understood that the Bill I referred to is to be reprinted? I have not had it definitely stated.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Ten o'clock

WAR.
  WAR LOAN.
    MEMBERS OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE AS AGENTS.
    MEMBERS OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE AS AGENTS.
  GERMAN SUBMARINE ATTACKS (LIVES LOST).
  GERMAN SUBMARINE ATTACKS (LIVES LOST).
  INVALIDED FROM ROYAL NAVY (SURGEON D. VICKERY).
  INVALIDED FROM ROYAL NAVY (SURGEON D. VICKERY).
  BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE (CANTEEN PRICES).
  BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE (CANTEEN PRICES).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  PRISONS STAFF (WAR BONUS).
  PRISONS STAFF (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  North Sea Fisheries.
  North Sea Fisheries.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Parliamentary Register (Lodger Voters).
  Parliamentary Register (Lodger Voters).
  Postponed Elections.
  Postponed Elections.
  National Register Forms.
  National Register Forms.
  Meat Prices (Newly-born Calves).
  Meat Prices (Newly-born Calves).