Sitting of 22 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 20th July, and agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That the have agreed to,—
Trading with the Enemy Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Lincoln Corporation Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (now London County Council (Parks, etc.) Bill), with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Plymouth Corporation Bill [Lords].
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Indictments in criminal cases, and matters incidental or similar thereto." [Indictments Bill [Lords].
Trading with the Enemy Bill,
Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Indictments Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

PRISONERS OF WAR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 15, 1915).
Copy presented of further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in Germany [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Exeter;
County of Brecon (urban district of Brynmawr);
County borough of Bolton (two);
Urban district of Hebburn
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 849 (Bahamas, Report for 1914–15) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH PIG-BREEDING INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on the Irish Pig-Breeding Industry, with Appendices and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROAD BOARD.
Copy presented of Fifth Annual Report of Proceedings of the Road Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of Receipts into and Payments out of the Road Improvement Fund for the period from 1st April, 1914, to 31st March, 1915, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
Copy presented of the Unemployment Insurance (Calculation of Interest) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on 14th July, 1915, in pursuance of Section 91 of The National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Copy presented of Rule made by the Board of Trade, on 7th July, 1915, relating to Deposits by Assurance Companies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH EMPIRE COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report of the Military Court of Inquiry into matters connected therewith [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Copy ordered, "of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure, with Balance Sheet for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1915."— [Mr. Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      EXPULSIONS, IRELAND.
      Mr. GINNELLasked (1) the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has learned through the police, or any other channel, that any change has been
      1630
      made in the purpose of the Irish Volunteers to maintain and defend the rights and liberties of all the people of Ireland without distinction; whether any representative body in Ireland has objected to that purpose; and, that purpose not being illegal, at what date the Irish Government decided to crush it by transferring its advocates from the civil to the military authorities to be deported without trial or reason stated; (2) whether the police employed during the last six months watching and reporting the words, acts, and movements of Irish Volunteer officers have failed to detect any illegality for which any of those officers could be cited before any Court; whether they administered a covenant to violate any law; and if he can state any purpose, other than provocation, to be served by directing the military authorities to deport them for their political opinions without accusation or trial, while encouraging the Ulster Volunteers to organise, drill, and obtain arms and ammunition for their covenanted purpose of resisting by force the Government of Ireland Act, 1914; and (3) the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government, after having encouraged the Ulster Volunteers to organise, drill, and obtain arms and ammunition for the express purpose of resisting by force the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, have considered the natural consequences of now suppressing by military force the expression of political opinions not contrary to any existing Jaw by arresting and deporting the speakers as criminals; whether this policy is considered to be in the public interest; and, since Parliament did not intend the Defence of the Realm Act to be so used, and it is being so used nowhere but in Ireland, will he say how the Government intend to deal with resistance to that use of it in Ireland?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War made it clear that the action initiated by the competent military authority in Ireland against certain members of the Irish Volunteers was dictated by military considerations connected with the public safety and the defence of the realm. The hon. Member's questions, which are based on the unfounded assumption that this action has been urged by the civil authorities on political grounds, accordingly do not arise.
      Mr. GINNELL: If these proceedings are not on political grounds, how is it that the persons concerned in them are warned not to take any part in public meetings?
      Mr. BIRRELL: If they are acting in a manner dangerous to the safety of the realm they are accordingly warned off from taking part in public action.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is not the expression of political opinion a political ground?
      Mr. BIRRELL: No; I do not care two straws for the political opinions of any one of these parties.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether Mr. Denis MacCullagh, a Belfast business man whose business depends upon his personal supervision, has been, under the Defence of the Realm Act, banished from Ireland and ordered not to return; of so, will he say for what illegality; why the order, which expressly allowed him seven days to make his arrangements, was withheld until four of those days had elapsed, leaving him only three; why the military authorities, the competent authorities under the Act, knew nothing of the order until it was brought to them for signature; whether the police, closely watching Mr. MacCullagh during the last six months, have detected anything in his conduct for which to cite him before any Court; whether he can state any ground for the banishment of Mr. MacCullagh other than his political opinions, or any purpose other than to create a pretext for executing the pogrom planned in 1914; and under what law he justifies this punishment for political opinions without accusation or trial, while according the privileges of organising, drilling, and obtaining arms and ammunition to the Ulster Volunteers, organised and pledged expressly to resist by force the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and declared by the Lord Chancellor of England to be distinctly illegal?
      Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the similar question put by him yesterday.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this gentleman's time before expulsion from Ireland has been extended, and, if so, under what conditions?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry I cannot say.

      PROSECUTIONS AT BOURNEMOUTH.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in reference to prosecutions for having lighted windows at night at Bournemouth, which were heard last week under the Defence of the Realm Act, he is aware that a naval officer in mufti called at a house and refused to produce any authority; and whether naval officers, not in uniform, are being instructed to act as this officer did on Monday, the 12th July?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My attention had not been called to the incident. If my hon. Friend wishes, I will make inquiry. No instructions of the nature indicated in the latter part of the question have been issued, but presumably the gentleman in question simply acted as any citizen anxious for the safety of the realm would do.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to look at the newspaper report which I will send him, which shows that this officer behaved in a rather peculiar manner to a major who was in uniform, while he himself was not in uniform?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I will read anything the hon. Member sends to me.

      DUBLIN MONUMENT (INSCRIPTION).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the military reasons for prohibiting, under the Defence of the Realm Act, the erection of a monument in the city of Dublin to the memory of the innocent civilians slain by British soldiers in July last; and whether he will give the House the text of the inscription?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The General Officer Commanding the troops in Ireland considered that the words proposed to be inscribed on the memorial, referred to in the question, were likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty the King and to prejudice the recruiting of His Majesty's Forces, and accordingly prohibited its erection.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the words are true or not?
      Mr. TENNANT: I shall have to consider that question. I do not know.

      ARMY CONTRACTORS AND IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Defence of the Realm Act is administered in Ireland by the military authorities; whether it was with the consent of those authorities that the police at Blarney told Messrs. Mahony, of that place, that no Army contract would be given to them unless they broke up the Irish Volunteers of that place by requiring their employés to withdraw from that organisation under pain of dismissal; and, if this is an unusual form of interference with the placing of Army contracts, what action is to be taken with reference to if?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that no instructions of the nature mentioned were given by the Irish Government to any police officer or other person. As I informed the hon. Member on the 13th instant, no firm has been required, as a condition of obtaining Army contracts, to secure the withdrawal of its employés from the Irish Volunteers.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCES (POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Postmaster-General if the Post Office staff, engaged in sorting and dealing with letters for the Expeditionary Forces, are paid their usual wages by the Post Office Department or are paid more than their usual wages by the Department; and if they are allowed to receive in addition military pay and emoluments?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Post Office servants in the Postal Section of the Royal Engineers receive their civil pay, but no allowances for overtime, Sunday duty, or subsistence. They also receive military pay and allowances.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the Post Office staff engaged in sorting and dealing with letters for the Expeditionary Forces received military pay and emoluments; and, if so, at what rate; and if they are allowed to receive in addition their usual Post Office wages?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
    1634
    The rate of pay, etc., is that laid down for the Royal Engineers. The third part of the question is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, but I understand the answer to be generally in the affirmative.

    MUNITIONS.

      AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MANUFACTURERS.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Minister of Munitions if his Department has yet formed regulations to give information to guide makers of ploughs and other agricultural implements as to the proportion in which they are to satisfy the demand for ploughs and plough wearing parts for preparing the land for the next seeding in comparison with their engagements for the supply of munitions; and what steps each manufacturer so engaged should take to enable him to arrange his output accordingly? Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I congratulate him upon his safe return from a perilous journey.
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): No detailed regulation such as that suggested seems either necessary or practicable. If a maker of agricultural implements has undertaken a munitions contract he must, of course, execute it in preference to other work, but I fully realise the importance of any work which tends to maintain or increase the food supplies of the country, and I shall continue to bear this in mind in placing contracts.

      GIRL LABOUR (TRANSFER).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a number of girls employed at the Kellner Partington Pulp Company, Barrow-in-Furness, gave notice to leave that firm in order to apply for work on munitions in Messrs. Vickers; whether he is aware that, in consequence of some arrangement between employers in Barrow, these girls were informed that, although they were in every way suitable for employment in Messrs. Vickers, they could not be taken on without a clearance card from their previous employers; and whether, in view of the fact that the Kellner Partington Pulp Company have refused to give the girls such clearance cards, although they are no longer in their employ, he will have some inquiries made into the matter?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am making inquiries in the matter, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result in due course.

      MUNITION VOLUNTEERS (NUMBER ENROLLED).
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions (1) the number of munition volunteers who have enrolled themselves under his recent scheme and the number of vacancies which he has succeeded in filling therefrom; (2) whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning, the issue of badges to men engaged on munitions work; and (3) whether he can state the number of skilled workmen who have been released from the Army to return to their civil employment as makers of war munitions since the date of his appointment; and whether he is experiencing any delay or difficulty with the War Office?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to all the questions on the Paper by the hon. Member addressed to me, I propose making a statement on these matters before the Adjournment.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. RAFFANasked what action is proposed to be taken by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and in what areas; and whether it is in contemplation to establish restaurants or canteens in shipyards and munition factories?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) has now issued an Order dealing with the New-haven area, and I have asked them to send the hon. Member a copy. The principal provisions of the Order are those forbidding treating and credit in licensed houses, dealing with the dilution of spirits within certain limits, and restricting hours for the sale of alcohol, while permitting licensed houses to remain open for the sale of food and non-alcoholic refreshment for much longer hours. It is anticipated that Orders dealing with some of the other areas already scheduled will be issued shortly. These Orders will follow generally the Newhaven Order, with variations suggested or necessitated by local conditions. Action is being taken by the Board not only towards improving the supply of food and non-alcoholic refreshment in licensed houses, but also towards establishing or increasing canteen accommodation for the workers in munition and
      1636
      transport areas. The Board are convinced that the provision of these facilities is one of the factors in dealing with the drink problem, and they count upon the cordial co-operation of firms engaged in munition work to assist in order to place these arrangements on a satisfactory footing.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say if the Board of Control are going to erect any counter-attractive agencies in the Newhaven district?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.
      Mr. PRATT: May I ask if the areas in Scotland are yet scheduled?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think a decision has been come to with regard to Scotland, but the Order has not yet come before me. I hope to get it in a day or two.

    ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, KEYHAM.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the civilian staff employed at the Royal Naval College, Keyham, have not yet received the 1s. increase granted to the dockyards and naval establishments by Admiralty Order of 1st October, 1914; and will he explain the delay and say when payment will be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the increase in the wages of labourers and skilled labourers. The question of extending this increase where applicable to civilian employés at the Royal Naval College, Keyham, is under consideration, and I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

    LOWER DECK (LEAVE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to give as much leave as possible to the lower deck before the winter months come on?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a question— and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise the fact—which must depend upon, the exigencies of the Service.

    COOPER'S CREW (PAY).
    Mr. HOHLERasked whether the appeal to the carpenter's crew to offer themselves as candidates for cooper's crew resulted in the Admiralty obtaining the requisite number; how much their training in the victualling yards has cost; and will he increase the pay of the cooper's crew and improve their conditions of service and thereby attract to the Service an adequate supply of trained coopers from the trade?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The response to the appeal in question has been very small, but it has not been found necessary to press the matter owing to the satisfactory state of the ordinary recruiting of coopers. The amount of money spent has been quite small. I cannot give any undertaking as regards the last part of the question.

    HIS MAJESTY'S DOCKYARDS (TIMEKEEPERS' PAY).
    Mr. HOHLERasked why the timekeepers in His Majesty's dockyards were excluded from all increase of pay which was granted to the other dockyard employés; will he grant them some increase of pay, seeing they have had none since the year 1901; and will he also reopen the establishment for this branch of employés?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The emoluments at present authorised for timekeepers are considered to be sufficient remuneration for the work on which these men are employed, and I regret that I cannot see my way to recommend the grant of an increase of pay at the present time or to offer established posts to this branch of the Service. I may add that the question of granting timekeepers a war bonus is now under consideration.

    WESTPHALIAN COAL SYNDICATE.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Herr Hugo Stinnes, the representative of the German coal monopoly known as the Westphalian Coal Syndicate, has within the last few years conducted large operations for purchase of Welsh coal in Cardiff and Swansea; and whether he has purchased, or has acquired interests in, any coal mines in Wales or other parts of the country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Large purchases of coal were made in Cardiff and Swansea during the last few years by Hugo Stinnes, Limited, a company in which all the shares were held by Mr. Hugo Stinnes. On the application of the Board of Trade the Court appointed a controller of the company in December last, and the company's operations have recently been limited to realising certain of its assets and discharging the debts owing by the company in this country. I have no information that interests in coal mines in Wales have been acquired by Mr. Stinnes, but 48½ per cent, of the issued capital of the Northern Union Mining Company, Limited, is registered in the names of Mr. Stinnes and Hugo Stinnes, Limited, a further 48½ per cent, of the issued capital being held by a German company. The Northern Union Mining Company, Limited, has acquired extensive coal mining leases in Yorkshire and Nottnghamshire, and I appointed a supervisor of the business last December.

    GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF INSURANCE.

      BOMBARDMENT AND AIRCRAFT RISKS.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government scheme of insurance against bombardment and aircraft risks includes policies covering risks of personal injuries by members of voluntary local fire brigades, who are at present insured by the local authorities of their districts in policies which do not cover the above risks; and, if not, whether arrangements can be made to extend the Government scheme so as to include such personal injuries?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The scheme for insurance against aircraft and bombardment risks does not cover risk of personal injury, and it is not proposed to extend the scheme to cover this risk.

    HERNE BAY FIRE BRIGADE.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether he received a letter from the Herne Bay Uurban District Council, dated the 24th of June, requesting information with regard to Government compensation in cases of personal injury to members of voluntary local fire brigades; whether he received a further

    1639
    letter from the same correspondent, dated the 8th of July, stating that no acknowledgment of the former letter had yet been received and requesting, as the matter was one of urgency, a reply by telegram, for which a stamped form was enclosed; if he will say why no acknowledgment of either of these communications has been sent to the Herne Bay Urban District Council; and whether he will have a reply sent to the letter of the 24th of June?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I have made inquiry, and find that there is no trace of either of the letters referred to having been received in the Home Office. If the urban district council will send me a copy of their letter I will of course reply to it.

    HOME OFFICE (MR. MARKBREITER).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary if a person of the name of Markbreiter is, or has recently been, employed at the Home Office; is he of German descent; has he been engaged in that work of the Department dealing with aliens; and, if so, what was the position he held? May I say that since I put this question down I have ascertained that the gentleman referred to is not of German descent, and I regret the suggestion that his employment was in any way objectionable.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am very much obliged to the hon. Baronet. Mr. Markbreiter is acting as a senior clerk in the Home Office, which he entered by open competition in 1908. He is a natural-born British subject. I understand that his father, who is now dead, was of Austrian origin, but became a naturalised British subject more than twenty years ago. Mr. Markbreiter is not in the Department dealing with aliens, but in the Department concerned with trading with the enemy. He has been engaged in this work since the beginning of the War, and has rendered most useful service. I can assure the House that the loss of so experienced and devoted a public servant would weaken the Department, and would thus be of material assistance to the enemy.

    RECRUITING.
    Captain Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can give any approximate esti-
    1640
    mate of the number of men of military age who are still employed by local authorities as tramway conductors, as collectors of tickets for park seats, as clerks, and in other ways where female labour could be substituted; and if, as a deterrent and a warning, he will cause to be made known and published the names of all those local authorities who have failed to make efforts to replace men of military age by women, or who have refused permission to their employés to enlist?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am afraid I can give no such estimate. As regards the second part of the question, I have not at my disposal the information necessary to enable such action to be taken. So far as I know, local authorities have responded loyally to the invitation to release men of military age.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been drawn to a large poster close to the War Office headed "Kitchener's Army: Join at Once"; and whether he will have this poster removed.
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention had not been drawn to this poster. If I have rightly identified the poster to which my hon. Friend alludes, it was printed and put up without reference to the War Office or to the London Recruiting Staff. My Noble Friend regrets that the poster was worded in the way it was, and will take steps to have it withdrawn. He would further desire that it should be known that the phrase in question is incorrect, and should not be used. This is, I think, generally appreciated, but it is desirable that there should be no deviation from correct practice in this matter.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there anybody at the head of the Department whose duty it is to supervise all these posters and statements about recruiting?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; they are supervised when they are brought to the War Office, but this was not brought there and it was put up without authority.
    Mr. THORNE: Was the man responsible for it punished?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry I am not able to answer that question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How long was it before the War Office noticed it on the walls' of the War Office?

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board how many school teachers, and how many local officials, have pressed their gratuitous services on the Government for the distribution and collection of forms to be issued during the compiling of the National Register?
    Mr. LONG: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 19th instant. As regards school teachers, I may say that I have received a very generous offer of assistance from the London Teachers' Association, which represents, I understand, some 20,000 teachers.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state to whom all requests for supplementary pensions, grants, and allowances and also all requests for separation allowances, other than those payable from public funds, and applications from disabled soldiers and sailors for training, employment, etc., should now be sent; and whether, in view of the urgency of many eases, he will make a temporary arrangement at his own Department until such time as the new machinery is available?
    Mr. LONG: I do not think it is desirable to adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question. Applications for supplementary pensions, grants, and allowances must for the present continue to be dealt with by the organisations which have hitherto dealt with such cases, and I may remind the hon. Member that the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill provides that, pending the appointment of local committees and sub-committees, the statutory Committee may make arrangements with existing organisations for carrying on their work.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that does not apply to superannuation allowances which are not payable out of public funds?
    Mr. LONG: Allowances not payable out of public funds are payable through the same organisation. The funds come from another source, but the same system prevails.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has considered the case of the late Private William Gordon, Sutherland, of the Lovat Scouts; whether he is aware that this man was a native of Brora; that he was passed on enlistment as medically fit; that he has since died arid left a wife and six young children; and that the War Office refuse any pension to his widow although his death was due to illness contracted while with the Colours; whether the War Office mean what they say when they announce in Army Orders that pensions will be payable to dependants of soldiers who die of wounds or disease contracted while with the Colours at home and abroad; and, if so, what is the reason why the pension is being withheld from Mrs. Gordon?
    Mr. TENNANT: This man arrived at his training station with chronic disease of the heart. His disability was not due to military service or climate, but was permanent. He was given light duty and had much leave and was constantly in hospital. As the medical authorities do not consider that Private Sutherland's illness was contracted in the Service, no pension is, therefore, due.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was he submitted to medical examination before he enlisted?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; he must have been subjected to an examination.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was he certified to be suffering from heart disease, because I understand that heart, disease prevents a man from being accepted?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think he was certified as free from heart disease. He was certified as being fit for the Army.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this man was enlisted he was one of a group of men from Brora, that four of them were rejected, and that this man was accepted as medically fit; and do the War Office intend to stand by their promise that if a man contracts disease after having joined the Army, whether with the Colours or at home, his dependants are entitled to a pension?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course we intend to stand by our promise- The fact is that this man ought never to have been enlisted. He had chronic disease of the

    1643
    heart. He did not contract his disease in the service of the country, therefore no pension can be paid.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the seriousness of this question; is he aware that a doctor acting for the Army passed this man as medically fit and that the disease was contracted since he was passed as medically fit; and, in view of these circumstances, will the War Office act up to their promise?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course I recognise the seriousness of this. It is a very serious matter that the man should have heart disease and die, but I must point out again that he did not contract this disease in the service of the country, and that he was passed as fit, probably by a mistake?—probably, but not necessarily. It is not always possible, I understand, in a single examination to find everything about a man's heart. That being the case, I really do not see that I can pursue the matter further.
    Mr. CAVE: As I know of other such cases, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this man's death was accelerated by his service in the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: My information is that the man was treated with very great leniency. He was constantly in hospital, he was given leave on several occasions, he was put upon light diet and never utilised as a soldier but in the kitchen; therefore his heart would not be affected by that. Every consideration was shown to him. Therefore I think I can answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in the negative.
    Mr. SUTTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that the man was constantly ill with his heart previously to his enlistment?
    Mr. COWAN: Why was not this man discharged from the Army when found to be suffering from heart disease?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to that is, that he was discharged as soon as possible, but he died afterwards. With regard to the man's previous history, I cannot say anything about that.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES (NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT).
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he can state the grounds on which claims are made under the National Insurance Act for contributions in respect of health insurance from Belgian refugees temporarily engaged as agricultural labourers and from their employers, seeing that they are not permanently domiciled in this country, that no provision exists for free medical attendance on them in case of illness or accident, and that on return to their own country all possible benefit of such contributions will be lost to them?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): May I refer the hon. Member to a statement made on this subject in the course of my speech on the 12th July. The persons referred to are required to be insured in accordance with the terms of the Statute, which I have no power to vary. Attention has been drawn to the fact that they can in many cases obtain a certificate of exemption, and if they do so they are not themselves liable to pay any contributions, though their employers' contributions remain payable. Whether exempt or not, they are entitled to medical and sanatorium benefit under the appropriate conditions. If they are deposit contributors, four-sevenths of the amount standing to their credit may be returned when they permanently cease to reside in the United Kingdom.
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Am I to understand the Memorandum has been issued because and in consequence of the obligation upon the employers being a statutory one?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is a statutory obligation upon the employers.

    AFFORESTATION IN SCOTLAND (EMPLOYMENT OF OLD SOLDIERS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution from the Royal Scottish Aboriculture Society urging the expedition of schemes of afforestation in Scotland preparatory to the declaration of peace, so that work should be available for men

    1645
    returning to civil life from the Army; and whether he proposes to take steps to meet this need?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received the resolution, but have not yet had time to give it full consideration.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the question of appointing a Committee similar to that appointed by the Board of Agriculture in England regarding employment on the land after the War?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As at present advised, I do not see the necessity of setting up any other body than the Advisory Committee.

    WORKHOUSES AND ASYLUMS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Scotland contractors of provisions to workhouses and asylums are being held to their con tracts to supply goods at pre-war prices; whether he is aware that in many cases, such as perishable goods, this is causing loss to contractors; and whether, in view of this, he will consider the advisability of issuing some communication to local authorities dealing with the point?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I understand that some cases of the sort described by my hon. Friend have come under the notice of the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Board of Control for Scotland, and that local authorities Have been advised to exercise a reasonable discretion.

    POTATOES (SUPPLY).
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the farmers in South and West Lancashire are suffering from a glut of potatoes; whether merchants at the Ormskirk market reported recently that the potato trade was at a standstill owing to the over supply; whether hundreds of acres of potatoes are in consequence wasting; and whether, in view of the possible shortage of food, the Government will consider the purchase of the over supply of potatoes and their storage till required?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Owing to the fact that there were ample supplies of potatoes last year, there appears to be a surplus from the old crop, but the Board are not aware that any large part of this surplus is in farmers' hands. If dealers have, as there is some reason to suppose, held back part of the old crop until it was too late to sell it at the prices they had hoped for, this is not a matter which the Government could remedy by the steps which the hon. Member suggests—for no shortage of potatoes is anticipated—and the remainder of last year's crop could not now be stored without very rapid deterioration.

    RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be competent for Civil servants to give evidence before the Economy Committee; and whether assurance will be given that their action in giving evidence will not prejudice their future careers?
    Mr. McKENNA: It will be for the Committee to determine who shall appeal-before them as witnesses. If the Committee decide to call Civil servants, the position of those so summoned will, of course, be in no way prejudiced by the nature of the evidence which they give.

    LOCAL ELECTIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister when the Bill to deal with the election of members of local authorities will be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Bill will be introduced to-day.

    WAR COMMITTEES (COORDINATION).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he wil cause, for the information of the general public, an official list to be published of the different Committees which have been appointed for regulating and controlling the trade of the country and for dealing with the situation created by the War, and a statement of the different Royal Proclamations and

    1647
    Regulations under which such Committees have been respectively constituted and act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the co-ordination of the various Committees is under review. When a decision is reached the hon. Member's suggestion will receive consideration.

    WELSH CHURCH (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.
    Mr. CAVEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the course which the Government will take with reference to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill; and whether it may be assumed that, unless that Bill becomes law before this part of the Session terminates, an Order in Council will be made postponing the date of Disestablishment from the 18th September to the end of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A statement on this subject will be made on Monday.

    ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS (TUN-BRIDGE WELLS INQUIRY).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the result of the promised investigation in connection with the selling of Army meat to butchers at Tunbridge Wells?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certain exchanges of meat were permitted by the commanding officer of one of the units quartered at Tunbridge Wells. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division in his question on the 30th June are not correct. Steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence in the future of such irregularities by the issue of a War Office circular memorandum to all general officers commanding - in - chief of the various commands for circulation to all units.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the officer in question is going to be punished in any way?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a question of discipline which I shall have to consider in conjunction with the military authorities. I think he may be suitably dealt with.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of this officer's action many soldiers went short of food?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I ask whether the butcher who took a hand in this business was punished?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. THORNE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the butchers was fined £150?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of it.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (LONDON) CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether it is in tended that in the event of the Anti-Air craft (London) Corps passing from the control of the Admiralty to that of the War Office the corps will come under the pro visions of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915?
    Mr. TENNANT: As the question of this transfer is still under consideration, my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical, and I cannot at present give him any answer.

    WOMEN NURSES (CLEARING HOSPITALS, FRANCE).
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked how many nurses are now employed in clearing hospitals in France?
    Mr. TENNANT: Seven in each clearing station.

    BLERIOT MONOPLANES (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the UnderSecretary for War whether the aviator who was killed in an accident at Shoreham on the 22nd June was flying a Bleriot monoplane; whether any other fatal accidents have occurred in England to mono planes in the last six months; whether the Order issued in 1912 forbidding Army pilots to fly Bleriot monoplanes on account of the proved danger of that type of machine has been cancelled; and why, in view of the fact that Bleriot monoplanes are not fighting machines and are regarded by experts as the most dangerous type of

    1649
    aeroplane, they are now being used for the purposes of instruction in preference to the later types of biplane?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part that there has been one other accident to a monoplane in the period mentioned. Neither of these accidents were due to the machines. The Order issued in 1912 forbade pilots to fly any type of monoplane. On the advice of the Committee on Monoplane Accidents, which considered the whole question of safety, the Bleriot monoplane was again taken into use, being the only one at the time which complied with the conditions laid down by the Committee. The Bleriot monoplane has been largely used during the War both by French and British. It is one of the safest machines ever designed, and is an excellent training machine.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (SALES OF COPPER).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked why the War Office are advertising a sale of 6 tons of copper at Woolwich Arsenal on 22nd July in the engineering press of this week; and why Woolwich Arsenal cannot utilise 6 tons of copper instead of selling this to middlemen?
    Mr. FORSTER: It was decided to sell this scrap copper because the Arsenal had sufficient supplies of the material and insufficient accommodation to store further quantities of it. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions with regard to the disposal of such scrap metal as is not required in the Arsenal.
    Sir R. COOPER: May I ask if, in such a case, the material ought not to be offered to other Departments which might want it?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, and that is why I am in communication with my right Hon. Friend.

    MILITARY ALIEN OFFICER.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the, Under-Secretary for War if a Major Blacker is engaged at the War Office; if so, in what position; is he of German descent; and is he aware that he has changed his name
    1650
    from Reichwald to Blacker within the last twelve months, and is closely related to a Reichwald who represents Krupp's in London?
    Mr. TENNANT: The officer referred to is not, and has not been, engaged at the War Office.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that this officer appears in the Army List as a German interpreter under the name of Reichwald, and that in London he appears under another name; and is it not also the fact that his father was Krupp's manager in London, and did not General Joffre request that he should leave the French lines, as he considered it was not desirable that this officer, although perfectly innocent, should in war time have anything to do with the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Two points are raised by the hon. Member; one is whether this officer appears in one place in the Army List under one name and in another place under another name. I am informed that it is so, but I have not verified it. Whether General Joffre made any representations on the subject I am unable to say. This officer is now at home.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that this gentleman, who is so closely related to Krupp's representative in London, is still in the Army in some form or other?
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe that is quite true.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it desirable that officers of German extraction should be serving either in France or in England in any capacity?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, I appreciate it is desirable that persons to whom any suspicion attaches should not be employed in the British Army. I am informed that no suspicion whatever attaches to this, gentleman.

    MERIONETH ARTILLERY CAMP.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked whether the permanent Artillery camp and range at Trawsfynydd, in the county of Merioneth, has not been occupied during the whole year; and whether it is intended to quarter troops there in the near future?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Artillery camp and range at Trawsfynydd have been in use-this year, but I cannot give any indication as to when it is likely to be required again.

    TERRITORIAL FORCES.

      COLONELS COMMANDING.
      Sir G. AGNEWasked whether colonels in command of second-line brigades of the Territorial Force, being graded for purposes of pay as assistant adjutant-generals, and their brigade majors and staff captains, are entitled to Tear staff distinctions?
      Mr. TENNANT: A colonel commanding a brigade is not a staff officer, and is not entitled to wear staff distinctions.
      Sir G. AGNEWasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that commanders of second-line brigades in the Territorial Force, although performing the duties of brigadier-generals, are only granted the rank of colonel and the pay of Assistant adjutant-generals; and whether, in the interests of efficiency, he will consider the advisability of giving them the rank of brigadier-generals?
      Mr. TENNANT: The status of these officers has been fixed after due consideration of the duties which they are called upon to perform, and the Army Council do not consider that there is, for the present, sufficient ground for its alteration.

      REDUCTION OF INFANTRY BATTALION ESTABLISHMENTS.
      Colonel CROFTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the new regulation by which establishments of Territorial Infantry battalions in France has been reduced to 800; whether he is aware that this reduction is resented by the battalions on active service; and whether the matter will be reconsidered in order that the reduction should only take place in such units as have been unable to provide sufficient reserves in Great Britain?
      Mr. TENNANT: I understand that an order in the sense mentioned has been issued in France, but I have not seen a copy of it. The reason for the issue of the order was no doubt the difficulty in keeping up the full establishment. I may state, however, that Territorial Force units going abroad are sent out at the full war establishment and that the provision of reserves at home is calculated on the same basis.
      Colonel CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a very large number of battalions at the present
      1652
      moment in France which have ample reserves at home, and which come under this new regulation, and will he consider whether it is not possible, in the case of these battalions with ample reserves, to see that they are kept filled up in order that the obstacles to giving necessary reliefs may be done away with?
      Mr. TENNANT: That is really a matter for the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and I will take care that the representations of the hon. and gallant Member reach the Field-Marshal.

      PROFICIENCY PAY.
      Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the conditions necessary to qualify a private in the Territorial Force for proficiency pay; what is the rate of such pay; and how should application be made for it?
      Mr. FORSTER: Proficiency pay is given to Cavalry, Royal Artillery, and Infantry soldiers of two years' service. Service in the Territorial Force before mobilisation counts to the extent that each year in which the soldier attended the annual camp for the full period of fifteen days is reckoned as one of the two years required. The rates are 6d. a day Class I. and 3d. a day Class II. In war Class II. is automatic after two years' service; Class I. depends on military qualifications as ascertained by prescribed tests. Applications should be made to the man's company officer.
      Mr. W. THORNE: If another question is put down between now and next Wednesday will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give a definite answer?
      Mr. FORSTER: I believe one of my hon. Friends intends to refer to the question on the Motion for the Adjournment tonight, and if my hon. Friend likes to take part in that Debate, I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say.

    HOLIDAY CAMPS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War what is the objection to holiday camps being allowed to continue for the season in Westmorland and Cumberland; whether he is aware that the prohibitory order is likely to ruin certain owners whose camps are in existence and who have booked up visitors for the season; and whether the Government propose to compensate such owners?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the restrictions against holiday camps in these areas have lately been removed. Applications to hold holiday camps should be forwarded to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Northern Command, at York.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that men who are in these camps shall not be disturbed until their application to be allowed to remain has been considered?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will see if that can be done.

    RIFLES (MANUFACTURE).
    Sir G. AGNEWasked how many rifles were ordered by the War Office between the date of the outbreak of War and the 30th September, 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: Directions were given for all British factories to work up to full capacity night and day. Other orders were given, but it is not desirable to give detailed information either as to the number ordered or the source of supply.

    RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if retired members recalled to work in and for the War Office are continuing to receive their full pensions, and are also receiving pay for the services they perform; and if the rate of pay is fixed at the highest rate such servants were receiving when they retired, irrespective of the value of the services they are rendering now on recall?
    Mr. FORSTER: Any retired Civil servants who are re-employed cease during the period of their re-employment to receive their pensions and are granted such rate of pay, not exceeding their emoluments at the date of retirement, as may be regarded as reasonable for the duties they perform. In most cases these duties Are such that they receive the salary which they were drawing at the date of retirement.

  DENTAL MECHANICS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Director of Contracts at the War Office has received a petition from dental mechanics in the employment of every
  1654
  qualified dentist in the city of Aberdeen asking that their work for the Government should be recognised by a war service badge; whether he is aware that during the past six months the staff of all qualified chemists in Aberdeen have been engaged on Government contract work in the fitting of artificial dentures for recruits who would otherwise have been rejected as medically unfit; and, as this work has involved much extra time and energy, whether he will have it recognised in the manner asked for?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, the petition has been received, but so far the issue of badges has not been extended to this class of employment. The whole question, however, is still under consideration between the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions, and no final decision can yet be given in this case.

  China (British Railway Interests).
  Sir JAMES FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Secretary of State for-Foreign Affairs whether, inside the eighteen provinces of China, British railway development is governed by any special existing international understandings; and, if so, if he will indicate their nature?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The only international understanding with regard to British railway interests in China is the exchange of notes, known as the Scott-Mouravieff Agreement of 28th April, 1899—between Russia and Great Britain—by which Great Britain engages not to seek for' railway concessions north of the great wall of China, or to obstruct applications for similar concessions in that region supported by the Russian Government, while Russia, on her part, engages not to seek any similar concessions in the Yangtze basin, or to obstruct applications in that region supported by the British Government.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have, on the assertion of the pension officer as to means, disallowed the old age pensions granted by the Coole sub-committee to James and Anne Reilly, who reside with and are dependent on their son at Fermore, Streete, Westmeath; having regard

  1655
  to this officer's idea of value and that his business is to prevent pensions without regard to the merits, will he state what means the officer alleges those two persons to possess; and whether the Board will have the assertion tested by some competent person?
  Mr. BIRRELL: These claims have been disallowed by the local Government Board on the ground that the claimants' means exceeded the statutory limit. James Reilly, in March, 1914, assigned to an unmarried son a farm containing more than twenty-two acres of good land, of which there were two acres under potatoes, three acres under oats, and half an acre under root crops. There are three cows and three calves on the farm, and at least five other calves are bought annually to sell when they get older. There are also pigs and fowl and two horses. The assignment appears to have been made with a view to obtaining pensions for Reilly and his wife. The first claim in the case was made by the latter in January, 1914, and was under consideration when the farm was assigned.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated what is asked in the question—the means of these two aged persons?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have stated what their means were. In the opinion of the Board they were sufficient to exclude their claims for pensions.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state their means now?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what their means are now that they have assigned their property.
  Sir C. HENRYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider making regulations, to be in force during the continuance of the War, that old age pensioners who are obtaining work and receiving payment by which the weekly amount they have hitherto received as old age pensioners, on account of their increased earnings, would be reduced may continue to receive the pension to which they were entitled previous to the War?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I fear I can only repeat the reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 18th May last
  1656
  that instructions will be given to pension officers not to raise questions in the case of existing pensioners in respect of any temporary increase of means due to the pensioner's re-employment on account of shortage of labour arising out of and during the War, provided that there is no evidence of a desire to pay, on account of the pension, less than the proper rates of wages.

  H.M. Office of Works (Engineers' Labourers' Wages).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he received an application on 6th April for an advance in wages for the engineers' labourers employed in His Majesty's Office of Works, Storey's Gate, Westminster; whether the men concerned have since been repeatedly informed that the-matter is under consideration; and whether it is now possible to make a more definite announcement on the matter?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. The matter in now before the Treasury.
  Mr. ANDERSON: We may take it, then, there is some chance of this matter being very speedily settled, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that between three and four months is sufficient to give an answer to a matter of this sort?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is not what I think, but a matter for the Treasury.

  Employment of Children.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Education if, having regard to the number of children of school age who have recently been allowed to enter into employment, he will ask Parliament to pass a short Bill to provide that, where children of school age are employed in any capacity, their hours of labour, remuneration, and general conditions of employment must be approved by the Board of Education, whose inspectors shall have power to visit the place of employment and report on the conditions prevailing there?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I recently addressed a circular to all local education authorities pointing out that if they took I the responsibility of excusing boys

  1657
  from school in order to serve the special needs of the country in the present emergency they could not reasonably disclaim responsibility for seeing that fair wages were paid to the boys thus exceptionaly excused. From replies which have reached me, I think that local education authorities generally have a proper sense of their duty in this respect and also as regards general conditions of employment, and I think it best that the Board should see what effect their appeal has had before considering whether further action is necessary.
  Mr. KING: Did the circular definitely state that local authorities have, under the Education Acts, the Employment of Children Act, and the Children Act, the actual powers to impose conditions about wages which are asked for by legislation in this question1? Did the circular state that?
  Mr. LEWIS: I should be glad to let my hon. Friend have a copy of the circular. I do not think it actually included all these specific statements which my right hon. Friend refers to.
  Mr. KING: If it did not, was it not deficient and ineffective?
  Mr. LEWIS: No; on the contrary, the replies received from local education authorities show that it has had a beneficial effect.

  Irish Eggs (Damage in Transit).
  Mr. GINNELLasked why the Board of Trade has not effected any improvement in the handling of Irish eggs in transit to Glasgow and other British centres since the Board's attention was previously called to this matter; whether he is aw are that all Irish eggs are put on rail in Ireland in good condition, fit to bear reasonable handling, but on arrival in Britain are found to be broken and unsaleable, and that the trade has seriously suffered from this cause; and whether he will at once take practical steps to effect an improvement?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that the Board's attention has been specially called to the matter previously, and I cannot find that we have recently received any complaint of the breakage of eggs from Ireland, but I shall be happy to look into any specific case if furnished with particulars.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that, not only is it a question
  1658
  of damage to the eggs, but there is also a delay in transit which causes serious detriment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If any case is brought to my attention I shall be glad to look into it.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why his Department have not been able to call to mind a question put toy me in this House, eighteen months ago, on this subject, and will he say why the answer then given has not been carried out?

  Chinese Crews.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, despite the pledges made and promises given by the shipowners, Messrs. Watts, Watts, and Company, to an official of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, to the effect that they would not discharge further British seamen and employ further Chinese crews, following the example of the steamship "Greenwich," the steamship "Henley" and the steamship "Hampstead" have now been manned by Chinamen to the detriment of our own seafaring workers; whether he is aware that, as a direct consequence of this violation of the terms of the Treasury agreement and a distinct breach of their own pledge by the shipowners in question, there ensued a stoppage in the loading of the steamship "Henley," which is calculated to give rise to far-reaching consequences; and whether he intends to deal with those employers in such a manner as would protect the nation against any serious interference with the transport facilities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the statement made by the firm to the Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department was that the firm had no objection to employ a reliable British crew on the steamship "Henley," if such a crew could be obtained for them. That information was conveyed to the unions, by whom the matter was brought to the notice of the Department, but from a communication which has since been received from the firm I understand that no British crew was tendered to them. I may remark that the master did not apply for assistance at the Hull Mercantile Marine Office to obtain a British or European crew. I am aware that, on account of a stoppage in the loading of the steamship "Henley," the vessel had to sail short of part of her cargo.

  Welsh Church Commission (Chairman's Salary).
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether the salary of the chairman of the Welsh Church Commission is limited in accordance with the purport of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act of 1834, which provides that in the case of a retired Civil servant appointed to a public office no more of his superannuation allowance shall be paid than what, with the salary of his new appointment, shall be equal to that of his former office, or whether the chairman is to draw his whole superannuation allowance of £1,333 in addition to the salary of £1,500; whether this total expenditure of £2,833 is being incurred already before the Act has come into operation; and whether, in view of the special necessity at present of economy of public funds, he will consider the advisability of saving a large part of it in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Act?
  Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on 11th February by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Do I understand that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1834 do not apply to this case, because although the gentleman in question holds a statutory office paid by public money he is not in a public Department?
  Sir J. SIMON: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was given a full explanation in the answer to which I have referred him. One point certainly is that the salary in question is not paid out of public funds.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Could the right hon. Gentleman say out of what funds it is paid?
  Sir J. SIMON: It is not paid out of the public funds within the meaning of the Superannuation Act.
  Sir H. CRAIK: It is paid out of the Welsh Church Fund.

  Local Authorities (Expenditure).
  Captain Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that, despite the recent appeals of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a vast number of local authorities throughout the country have made no effort to cut
  1660
  down their peace time expenditure, and that money is being spent on tar-paving of school playgrounds, a provision of motor cars for surveyors and architects, street improvements, bands, bandstands, and many other objects not essential to sanitation and public health; and whether, in view of the admitted inability of the members of these bodies to realise the need of war economy and the power-lessness of the Legislature to control them effectually, he will introduce legislation to curtail drastically their spending powers during the period of the War?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Before this question is answered, may I ask whether the Noble Lord is in a position to know what local authorities are doing at present in this respect?
  Mr. LONG: I am aware that in some cases expenditure is still being incurred which it not absolutely necessary, but I am doing my best to check it. I do not think it is necessary to introduce legislation for the purpose.

  Income Tax (Workmen's Wages).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain the practice of the Inland Revenue authorities in regard to-workmen earning weekly wages exceeding £160 per annum; whether the practice differs in different parts of the country; and whether all employers are required to make a return of all such workmen, with the amounts of their earnings?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter is governed by Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1907; the obligation to return the names and wages of employés earning more than £160 a year applies to all employers, and I am not aware of any local discrimination.

  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether the Commission recently appointed to inquire into the methods of appointment and promotion in the Civil Service Consular and Legal Departments do not intend to take evidence on the legal departments in Ireland; and whether, having regard to the difference in organisation between these legal departments in England and Ireland, he will consider the desirability of so amending the terms of reference of the Commission as to secure an inquiry into legal appointments in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of the reference to the Royal Commission are such as to cover the Irish legal departments. The Commission decided, however, with my concurrence, that in view of the situation created by the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and the Suspensory Act, 1914, inquiry into the departments could not usefully be made by them at the present time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us what is to be the business for to-morrow and also for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to ask the House to sit to-morrow (Friday), at noon. The first business will be the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, followed by the Second Beading of the Elections and Registration Bill, and further stages of any other Bills on the Paper.
  On Monday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Elections and Registration Bill, the Third Beading of the Appropriation Bill, and any remaining Orders.
  We hope to be able to move the Adjournment Motion on Tuesday.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to insist upon the Grouse Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall rise at five o'clock or eleven o'clock to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope we shall rise before five o'clock.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the quality of the opposition to the Grouse Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I have not. In the circumstances, it is better not to proceed with it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Minister of Munitions will make his statement on his Department before we adjourn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Some time next week.
  Resolved, That this House do sit Tomorrow.—[The Prime Minister.]

  BILL PBESENTED.

    ELECTIONS AND REGISTIUTION BILL.
    "To postpone elections of local authorities and other bodies and the preparation of the Parliamentary and local government registers, and for purposes incidental
    1674
    thereto." Presented by Mr. LONG; supported by Mr. McKinnon Wood, Mr. Birrell, and the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Limitation of Price of Coal at the Pit's Mouth.)
    (1) 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 a price exceeding by more than the standard amount per ton the price of coal of the same description, sold in similar quantities, and under similar conditions, at the pit's mouth at the same coal mine on the corresponding date (or as near thereto as, having regard to the course of business, may be practicable) in the twelve months ended the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and fourteen (in this Act referred to as the corresponding price).
    (2) The standard amount shall be four shillings: provided that the Board of Trade may, by order, if they are satisfied, as respects any class of coal mines specified in the order or the coal mines in any district so specified, that owing to special circumstances affecting those mines the standard amount of four shillings should be increased, substitute for that amount such higher sum as they may think just in the circumstances; and as respects those mines this Act shall have effect as if the higher sum so substituted were the standard amount.
    (3) If any person sells or offers for sale any coal in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding treble the amount by which the sum paid or payable for any coal sold by him in contravention of this Section exceeds the maximum sum which would have been paid or payable for the coal if there had been no contravention of this Section.
    (4) This Section shall apply to a case where the owner of coal at the pit's mouth has sold or offered to sell that coal at a price which includes the cost of railway or other incidental services besides the actual value of the coal at the pit's mouth,

    1675
    as if he had sold or offered to sell it at the pit's mouth at a price reduced by an amount representing the cost of those services.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) [Sub-section (1), after the word "mouth" ("coal at the pit's mouth") to insert the words "whether subject to existing contracts or not."], is in the wrong place. I think the question of contracts is best dealt with at the end of line 22, where there is another Amendment on the Paper in a better form-Sir J. WALTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "mouth" ["coal at the pit's mouth"], to insert the words "for household and domestic consumption, for railways, gas, electric lighting, waterworks, and controlled munition works, where dividends are limited by Act of Parliament, and also for public authorities."
    If this Bill be amended so as to secure that the merchant intervening between the price of the coal at the pit-head and the consumer has his profit reasonably limited, then I have no objection to the Bill if it is made to apply and is limited only to household coal for domestic purposes and the other national and public utility purposes which I have enumerated where dividends are restricted by Act of Parliament. If, however, the Government were to declare now that it is their intention to take the surplus income of every taxpayer over an average of two years preceding the War, with one-fifth allowed to cover the increased cost of living, as a special war tax, then the limitation which I now suggest would in my opinion be no longer necessary, because there is no desire on the part of the coal owner to feather their nests at the expense of the nation owing to the War. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend does not speak with knowledge. Some may have made war profits, but others have not, and further than that, my proposal that the Exchequer should by a special war levy take the whole of the war profits from every taxpayer in the country will, at any rate, allow them no longer to enrich themselves personally out of those profits. I exclude only private undertakings where they are left free to make unlimited profits and where freedom of contract ought to be continued.
    Let me give one or two illustrations. Is it not inconceivable that any Government
    1676
    should come to Parliament and by legislative enactment seek to prevent a coal producer selling at the market price of the day—for instance, to those struggling millers whom we heard of the other day as having amassed £357,000 as war profits? It is too absurd that anyone trading with a firm like that should be asked to accept anything less than the market price for anything that he proposes to sell. It is equally unjustifiable that the ordinary course of trade and free contracting should be interfered with by the State as regards the coal supplies required by our great armament works, shipbuilding yards, steel and engineering works, uncontrolled munition works, works where woollen goods, khaki, leather, boots, and other goods needed for war purposes are made, and that whilst they are to have their coal at lower than market price they should be left by the State free to make unlimited profits on their products. It seems to me that in this Bill we have an alarming exhibition of State intervention run riot. The only sign of commercial sanity, in my judgment, that the Bill contains is the absence of any provision to secure coal for shipowners making colossal profits at present at the expense of the nation at less than market prices. It might be necessary under certain circumstances that the State should commandeer from the coal owners a sufficient quantity of coal to satisfy the requirements not only of the Navy, but also of the public utility works and the other requirements that I have already stated to the House, as a first charge upon the output of the coal of the nation, and that would prevent any difficulty in these works, which are entitled, in my judgment, to have this preference given to them solely because their profits by Parliamentary restriction are limited, but that would prevent them being in danger of not getting their coal because a little higher price was offered by some outside buyers in this country or perhaps a much higher price were offered if the coal were being sold for export.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): If my hon. Friend means by this Amendment to exclude all private manufacturing undertakings from the advantages of the Bill, I would point out to him that he is to that extent limiting the amount by which the income—the war profits, as he chooses to call them—of the coal owners would be affected by the Bill. I have no doubt that that is what he has in his mind. If that is

    1677
    what he has in his mind it is directly contrary to the principle of the Bill, which does provide for a limitation of the price that the coal owner is to have. My hon. Friend has given no indication as to how far he wishes the benefit which the Bill will give to be restricted, but I might point out to him that, as he has drafted the Amendment and explained it to the House, it would mean that the cotton trade, excepting those establishments which were manufacturing for the Army or the Navy, would get no benefit at all from the Bill. It would be open to those who supply the cotton mills of Lancashire to get as much as they could squeeze out of the market, and the limitation of the standing price would not apply to that great industry. My hon. Friend is very anxious that coal used for domestic consumption should be limited in price. Why? For the simple reason that he does not wish the householder to be burdened. But for the cotton spinners of Lancashire it is just as serious a matter to find his concern bled to such an extent, as it would be, as it is for him to have to pay a little extra for the coal that goes into his kitchen fire. That is equally true, not only of cotton, but of the pottery industry and a very largo number of others. I cannot understand the principle on which my hon. Friend wishes to exclude these trades from the benefit of the Bill.
    Sir J. WALTON: It is because you do not limit in any way the price that the products of those concerns shall be sold at, as you limit the price of coal.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is only one way of dealing with that larger subject, and that is the taxation of war profits. I think my hon. Friend is ill advised in wishing to restrict the area of the Bill. If anything, the Bill is narrow and not wide, and the tendency that he suggests to us would certainly be detrimental to the efficiency of the measure. I hope, therefore, he will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "mouth" ["coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold"], to insert the words "of any mine the average output of which exceeds 500 tons a day." The effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the operations of the Bill, as a whole, to mines which have an average output Exceeding 500 tons a day. I ask for the
    1678
    sympathetic attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this Amendment, on the very familiar ground that though it makes an exception to the Bill, it is a very little one. Hon. Members who are familiar with the industry of coal mining may almost smile at the very idea of a mine whose output does not reach 500 tons a day. I have, however, put down this Amendment in the interests of a very small group of mines which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman has never heard of. He may be surprised to hear that there is such a thing as coal mining in the county of Kent. There are coal mines there, but they are in a very youthful condition. There is a minefield in Kent which has been open for some time, but it has not yet reached a stage when it is supplying large quantities of coal. It is not for mo to say when it will reach that stage; at all events, at the present time it has not reached the stage of supplying the country with large quantities of coal.
    It has had to cope with difficulties, both financial and geological, and, at the present time, the very few pits which have been opened are in an experimental stage of development. The pits which are in that stage of development have, during the critical period from the point of view of this Bill, namely, the period of comparison ending in June. 1914, been in this position: during that twelve months these pits, for the purpose of advertisement, instead of spending money in advertising their products, have sold the small quantities of coal which they could produce at prices very much below the ordinary market prices, as a means of pushing the new article. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if they are restricted, as this Bill would restrict them, to a maximum increase of 4s. over the price which they realised during that particular period, they will not be gaining the bonç fide increase which is allowed to coal mines which have been old-established, and they will be subject to a tax, if it comes to that, upon the circumstances under which they laboured during that critical period ending in June, 1914. These few pits have not been able during the last year, so I am informed, even to pay interest on their debentures.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The average number of mines in the United Kingdom having an output of 500 tons a day would make the total output of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend opposite speaks with a knowledge of this question which I do not for a moment claim. I am only directing the attention of the Committee to the particular circumstances of these particular mines with which I am familiar. They have not been in a position even to pay interest on their debentures, and during the last winter, when prices were so high throughout the country—prices which have called for a great deal of hostile comment in many parts of the House—these particular mines never succeeded in selling coal at a higher price than 22s. 6d. per ton. The real point, perhaps more than any other, which I think justifies me in asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment is that the total quantity of the output of these mines is so small that in no case could it affect the market price of coal in the country. If these mines, being in the stage of development which I have described, are not allowed to reap such benefit from their very small output as would enable them to pay interest on their debentures, the only result will be for them that the circumstances of the War will probably close them down altogether. The ultimate effect of that will be, not to produce what we all desire, namely, an increased output of coal combined with a reasonable price to the consumer, but, pro tanto, to diminish the total supply of coal in the country. If these small, struggling, and developing coal-fields were enabled to take advantage of any rise of price which they might be able to get at the present time, it might enable them during the coming year or so to open out their pits, and therefore to make a certain addition—I cannot pretend to say that even within the next few years it will be a large addition—to the supply of coal available for the public. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept my Amendment, unless there are circumstances connected with other mines which would be involved, and with which I am not familiar. I think he might accept this Amendment without in any way making an inroad into the principle of the Bill, with which I am entirely in accord, and without destroying the object which we all have in view, namely, to enable the public, in the circumstances of the War period, to enjoy as large a supply of coal as possible at the smallest possible price.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite understand the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member
    1680
    to limit as far as possible the operation of this Bill in respect of new coal-fields, and I imagine that he has particularly in his mind the developing Kent coalfield, which has been a subject of anxiety and prophecy, and, one might add, of speculation, for many years past. The great hopes which have been centred upon the Kent coal-field have, unfortunately, not amounted to very much up to the present. I need hardly say that everyone who wishes to see industrial development in the South of England earnestly hopes that the Kent companies, and the mining engineers at work on their coal, may be enabled to raise a much larger amount in the future than they have in the past. I am not sure that the hon. and learned Member realises how far we shall be carried by accepting his Amendment. It would affect, not only the Kent coal-field, but mines all over the United Kingdom. At a later stage I believe a proposal will be made to exclude the three coal mines of Ireland. There are only three in Ireland, and each, I understand, produces under this amount. If that proposal is made, we shall not resist the proposal. But I would point out that in South Wales, in the Midlands, in the North Country, and in Scotland there are large numbers of collieries that produce not even such an amount as 500 tons a day. Therefore the hon. Member did not realise how very far-reaching his Amendment would have been. If he had limited it to the small amount of coal which is now produced by the Kent collieries, even then I think the benefit would have been inappreciable. What the Kent collieries require is a much larger output, rather than that they should be allowed to charge higher prices for their coal. The only way in which these pits can get a larger demand for their coal is not by putting up the price, but by undercutting the coal which has to come by rail or by ship—both very expensive and inconvenient methods at the present time. I do not believe that the benefit that the hon. Member thought would be likely to come to Kent through this Amendment would have the effect he desired, and I would, therefore, suggest that, as it would be likely to do considerable harm in leaving the door open for a large increase in the price of coal all over Great Britain, it would be as well for him to withdraw his Amendment, being satisfied with the attention which he has drawn in the House to the special case of this new Kent coalfield.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said in regard to these particular coal mines, but I would like to point out that the mere fact of having drawn attention to the matter in the House of Commons will be of very small benefit to those who are interested in this Kent coal-field. I am informed and I believe it is true that the effect of this Bill on the pits concerned—I think that there are only two of them—is that they will not be able to carry on even to the small extent to which they are carrying on at the present time, and will have to close down. Naturally I am not going to persist in my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman really feels that he cannot accept it. But I would ask him if he would give some assurance that Sub-section (2) of this Clause should be considered applicable to this particular case. T did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to mining in Ireland. I understood him to say that three mines there would come under this requirement, and that if they asked exemption the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to resist it. If he really said that, then I feel very much encouraged to persist in my Amendment, because if exemption is to be given for the three mines in Ireland, I cannot imagine why it should not be given for the two mines in Kent. Kent was, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at one time an independent Kingdom, and I think that it is quite as much entitled to separate treatment as is Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me an assurance that Sub-section (2) would be applied, then I will certainly withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not wish to enter into any comparison between Kent and Ireland. What I had in my mind when the hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the special case of the Kent fields was Sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, under which it is open to the Board of Trade to take into consideration any special class of coal mine, and I had hoped that he would rest satisfied with that, having drawn our attention to it. If the matter is raised, as no doubt it will be raised by the Kent coal owners, we would wish to remember what he had said in applying such powers as we possessed under Sub-clause (2). But I could not give any undertaking, without inquiring into all the circumstances of the case, as to how far the benefit of Sub-clause (2) should
    1682
    be applied. I could not be expected naturally, before the Bill has gone through Committee or been put into operation or any representations have been made, to give any promise of this kind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "coal" ["owner of the coal"], and to insert instead thereof the words "mine from which the coal has been won."
    I suggest later that a further Amendment should be moved which defines "owner" as defined by the Coal Mines Act, 1911. That, as I am informed, would make quite clear the person to whom this Bill will apply with regard to the price of coal at the pit's mouth. We have looked at this Bill very carefully, and are unable to make up our mind as to whether, as drafted by the right hon. Gentleman, it is intended to apply solely to the owner of the mine from which the coal has been won, or whether it is intended to include the factor. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to include the factors in the persons selling the coal at the pit's mouth, then it seems rather unfair to the factor, because the coal factors carry on a rather large business in the country—buying coal from the collieries and selling the coal to merchants trading in different parts of the country; and if they are to be included in the Bill, it seems a little unfair to deprive them of any profit from their business. At the same time, if the Bill as drafted excludes the factors, that seems to be undesirable, because if they are excluded they are put into the position of getting the coal under the Bill at 4s. over the price for the corresponding period. That leaves them free to charge any price they can get, and then there is the very great danger of the coal being sold by the owner of the colliery to the factors and their being able to inflate the price, or to bring about a condition of things which it is the object of the Bill to avoid. In reference to the factor, I have an Amendment later on which proposes to limit his gross profit, not his net profit, to 1s. per ton. Some may say that that is too much, and others may say that that is too little. Coal factors have communicated with me, and have? written, I think, to the President of the Local Government Board, pointing out that 1s. gross profit is too little. But on the subsequent Amendment the House could say what profit, gross or net, the factor should have. At present we are

    1683
    unable to make up our minds whether he is included in the Bill as drafted. Therefore I beg to move words which would make it quite clear that this part of the Bill is confined solely to the owner of the mine from which the coal has been won, leaving the question of the factor to be dealt with later on. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will either make clear what the Bill means, or will be able to accept my Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of my hon. Friend is obviously to free the coal factor from the limitations which this Clause would place upon him. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend thinks that he would be able to get at the price that the coal factor would charge afterwards, and that he may be limited in the profits which he is able to obtain then. But I need hardly tell him that it is very much more difficult to ascertain the profits which a man is making, than to ascertain the price at which he is selling a commodity. That is the main reason why it is much better to deal with the price of coal at the pit's head than it is to deal with the amount of profit which -the merchant or factor or anybody else may show that he is making. I should regard his Amendment, if carried, as limiting the power of the Bill to deal with the limitation of prices. My opinion is that we cannot so easily limit the price by the limitation of profit as we can by the limitation of prices at the pit's head. If it is necessary to limit the price at the pit's head to prevent the coal owner charging an excessive price for his coal during the period when this Bill operates, it must be equally necessary to have a limitation of price when the owner of the coal is not the owner of the mine, but when he is the factor. It matters very little to the consumer? whether he is the owner of the mine or the owner of the coal. Coal is the substance which is of importance to the consumer, and anything which provides for the factor taking too much for his coal is obviously to the detriment of the consumer. It is much better to deal with the price of coal at the pit's mouth from the point of view of accurate business than to deal with it by way of limitation of profits, which can be — I do not say it offensively — juggled. I much prefer the method adopted in the Bill. I should regard my hon. Friend's Amendment as opening the door to releasing one of the controllers of the coal from one of the
    1684
    limitations placed upon him. I therefore hope that he will allow us to adhere to the drafting of this Clause. The owner of the coal may be either the mine owner or the factor. What we should do is, take it for granted that the coal should be borne away from the pit's head not above a standard price—I hope below it—and whether it belongs to the mine owner or to the factor is an immaterial fact from the consumer's point of view.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: The intention of the right hon. Gentleman in drafting this Bill is that the factor should be included, and he is included in this Clause. I am not engaged as a factor of coal, so that I am not speaking for myself, but there is a large number of people outside this House who are engaged in factoring coal, and it is only right that their case should be put before the Committee. They are in a very large way of business. I suppose that in the South of England alone there are many millions of tons of coal sold by factors. I quite appreciate the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I am in sympathy with him with his efforts to obtain the object to which he has referred. I am only raising the point because I am sure that he does not wish, even in attaining a worthy object, to do anyone an injustice, and I do not see myself exactly how the factors are going to get their legitimate profit for what is a legitimate business with the words as they are in the Bill at present. I suppose that the only way in which they could get their profit would be by agreement with the coal owner. They must get it somewhere out of the 4s. Whether it is possible to get the butter out of the dog's mouth I do not know. I should think it very difficult for the factors to put themselves in a proper position. It would servo no useful purpose to divide the Committee, but the Committee should bear in mind the facts which I have submitted, and, if it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to meet the factors between now and the Report stage—they may desire to see him— to ascertain if it is possible to make some Amendment later on that will suit them.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I think that the hon. Member has served a useful purpose in moving this Amendment. When I read the Bill I did not appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to include the coal supplied by the coal factor as well as that supplied by the coal owner. I am glad to learn that that is so. The right

    1685
    hon. Gentleman says that the Bill does apply to the coal sold by the coal factor at the pit's mouth. Am I to understand that it will not apply to the coal sold by the coal factor not at the pit's mouth?
    The CHAIRMAN: That point is raised on some later Amendment, and perhaps the hon. Member will put his question on that subsequent Amendment, or when I put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "exceeding" ["exceeding by more than"], to leave out the words "by more than the standard amount per ton the price of coal of the same description, sold in similar quantities, and under similar conditions, at the pit's mouth at the same coal mine, on the corresponding date (or as near thereto as, having regard to the course of business, may be practicable)," and to insert instead thereof the words "the average prices realised by rail, inland water, or land sale, respectively, for coal of the same description at the pit's mouth at the same coal mine."
    This Amendment is a matter of some importance. The Bill provides that coal at the pit's mouth shall not be offered by the owner of the coal at a price exceeding by more than the standard amount per ton the price of coal of the same description sold in similar quantities and under similar conditions at the pit's mouth in the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1914. I and others at the collieries with which I am associated dislike this Clause very much. There would be great difficulty in working it for this reason. I must not take the month of July, for that is about over, but will take August 1st, 1913. The sales at that date might have been made at a low price, and I will assume that there were two sales of 1,000 tons each—one at 10s. and the other at 11s. It is quite clear that the coal owner will have some difficulty in saying which price he is going to take. The coal owner might refuse to sell at all, and say that he was not going to make the sale at that low price, and that he would only sell at such times as he happened, from time to time, on looking at his books, to be able to sell at a higher price. Coal varies enormously from day to day according to the people to whom the coal owners sell coal.
    It may interest the House to know that, some years ago, I raised the question of
    1686
    the average profits made on coal, and, taking a series of years, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell me, the average profit—the gross amount, not the actual dividend—was somewhere about 8d. a ton. A shilling a ton, over a period of years, makes a very substantial return on the money that is invested. The capital sum may vary per ton of coal from 10s. or even from 7s. per ton. A man in some cases may raise a million tons where the capital value is £500, and in some cases it may be very much less. This provision will enable a coal owner to get 1s. a ton more if he works his books correctly. Would it not be very much better to take the average price of coal sold at the colliery over the whole twelve months from the previous June? I assume that every coal owner knows exactly the prices at which he sold' his coal until this Act came into operation, and when these prices are known any buyer of coal would know what price he had to pay by adding to what the coal owner made in the corresponding period of the preceding twelve months. I am not a member of, nor associated with, any coal owners' association, but when this matter was discussed by the coal owners they were practically divided; half wanted to get the average price over the twelve months, and some wanted to take the Clause as it stands as best suiting their book. But I do not think that Parliament should regard the matter as one for the convenience of the coal owner.
    Undoubtedly it would be to the interests of the consumer that each colliery should issue a price list showing what had been the average price for coal, whether by rail, canal, or land sale, and then he would be able to determine the price, and everyone would know where he was. I have a consequential Amendment later on providing that the price lists should be deposited in Somerset House, and every buyer on going to Somerset House could obtain the maximum prices at which every colliery was entitled to soil its coal until this Act comes to an end. I hope I have made it quite clear that the object of this Amendment is to enable every consumer of coal in the country to know exactly what he is going to pay for coal until this measure comes to an end. Whether the price is taken in the way I propose, or as the Bill provides, it would be precisely the same if it is taken legitimately, but, in point of fact, the coal owner sells from day to day, and from month to month, and he would always take advantage of the

    1687
    best prices in his books during the preceding twelve months, and, therefore, he would get more money as the Bill stands than by my Amendment. Taking the average price of each quality of coal in each individual pit, the suggestion I make is that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept this average Clause, or, if he cannot accept the average Clause, would he take another course—would he adopt the alternative proposal of allowing the coal owner to either take the provision contained in the Bill, or take this average Clause? He would not be allowed to take both, he would have to declare which he took; and, for my own part, I would very much rather have definitely stated what the average price was, for everyone would then know how he stood, and it must be an advantage to the consumer if the Amendment is accepted.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really means to leave out the words "by more than the standard amount per ton." If so, that takes away the whole benefit of the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is not my intention to defeat the object of the Bill, I am not a lawyer, learned in drafting Amendments. I have been in error, and see the importance of the point which my right hon. Friend has raised. Those words would actually have to be included.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point which has just been raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laurence Hardy) is undoubtedly one which must have been overlooked by my hon. Friend; obviously so, as we know that he has no idea of limiting the price of coal to exactly what it was in 1914. If he had done so it would have meant that the coal owners of the United Kingdom, so far from making a profit, would make a dead loss, and that by Act of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no!"] That is a great revelation as to the merchants' profits. They assured me that the working expenses of the collieries since the War broke out could be measured by shillings. If my hon. Friend had really meant to leave it at the price in 1914, I feel quite sure that ho would not be representing the view of the coal owners in regard to the benefit they would procure from this proposal. In one of the interviews with the representatives of the mining association they told me that they would prefer the average price, as my hon. Friend sug-
    1688
    gests. I considered that proposal, and it certainly appeared to me to raise considerable departmental difficulties. Moreover, I am not quite sure that it would achieve entirely the end in view, because of the different conditions under which coal is sold in many parts of England. For instance, it was pointed out to me, what is well known in the business world, that a firm of old connection, who had been buying from one colliery for thirty or forty years, and may have had no variation in the terms of their contract during the whole of that time excepting as regards prices and quantities of coal to be delivered per month or per annum, is' in a better position than others by the mere fact of having that long connection, because the coal owner happens to be on good terms with the firm who buys from him, the parties are almost in the position of a sort of limited partnership.
    In bad times the consumer does not beat him down too hard, and in good times the coal owner does not put too heavy a price on the consumer; they try to keep up a mutual arrangement to their mutual advantage. One of the advantages which the habitual consumer has from the coal owner is, that undoubtedly he never has any great variation in the terms of his contract. The firm which has an old connection with the colliery gets better terms. Although there may not be much difference in the figures that appear in the contract, the terms given to old customers are better than those given to new. That is only natural, and it applies to the coal trade as to nearly every other trade in the country. But in arriving at the average price a great deal depends on the terms of the contract. I believe that in some coal-fields the view is strongly held by the coal owners that the purchaser of even quantities of coal, making no difference in winter or summer, is better worth having than the customer who buys in a small amount in summer, and a large amount in winter. It is quite obvious that it should be so, because the colliery owner can carry even loads throughout the year. That is one of the conditions that is to be taken into account in arriving at the average. In regard to the conditions of payment, the well-established firm may be allowed more easy terms of payment than those who are in a new position and not so strongly established. There are other conditions not only as to delivery and payment, but as to description of coal, quantities to be delivered in certain times of

    1689
    pressure, when ease is to be given by the customer to the coal owner, or when it is desired to have a larger amount of screened coal in order to get the advantage of the fluctuations of the market. All these considerations create difficulties in regard to the average price, and I came to the conclusion that, from the point of view of the Board of Trade, on whom the duty is thrown to deal with the matter, it would mean an overwhelming amount of work, and that it would not be the clean-cut arrangement provided by the Rill as it stands.
    At another interview which I had with representatives of the coal owners I was much surprised to find that they had apparently changed their minds. Certainly many of those who were in the room discussing the matter with me preferred the draft in the Bill as it is now to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and, as naturally happens in a division of this kind, it really meant that the number of gentlemen from one district at one interview happened to be large and that the same district was badly represented at the second interview. It is a case largely of competing coal-fields or coal-fields in which there is a great division of views. I was bound therefore, as I found that the business men who were engaged in this matter were divided, and as I had to think of the administration of the Act and to endeavour to get an equitable basis, to form my own views irrespective of their representations. After giving a great deal of consideration to it I came to the conclusion that the comparison which we make is the easiest way of saving the customer from extortion. In using the word "extortion," I do not wish to say anything offensive—it is the only way in which one can express it. The method in the Bill is the easiest way of saving the customer from extortion and of enabling him to make comparisons, and of ascertaining whether he is getting the coal at fair or unfair prices. If the case is brought to the Board of Trade, it is much more easy for us to inquire under the system of the Bill rather than to do it by taking the system of averages. There is a further Departmental difficulty I must point out. If we were to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion we should be overwhelmed with the vast quantity of returns which must come in to us if we were to form a correct judgment on this method of measuring the price of coal.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask my right hon. Friend what is the number of collieries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure of the exact number, but I know that there are over 600 in South Wales. Whatever the number may be, I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to see the Department overwhelmed with an enormous quantity of returns which would not be as completely reliable from the customer's point of view as the comparison provided for in the Bill. Therefore on the grounds not only that I think it is simpler for the customer and for the Department, but also that it provides no injustice for those concerned, I think we should adhere to the proposal of the Bill rather than accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I have admitted there is something to be said against both systems, but my decision is that in the long run we had much better adhere to the proposal in the Bill than accept that of average prices.
    Mr. GALBRAITH: Since the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has said that the owners would be well satisfied with 1s. per ton I desire to state that I live in the midst of collieries, and with my left hand I could throw a stone to one that paid during the last few years a dividend of 36 per cent, and with my right hand I could throw a stone to another colliery that paid 45 per cent, for the last half-year's dividend, and just a little way off, owing to the conditions differing, there is a mine which through the nature of the soil and difficulties of production has not paid for some time, but since the War began has paid and is paying well to-day. Some of the miners who engage in hewing the coal and risk their lives in doing so do not get 1s. per ton. I have myself with my own hands got coal at 7d. The hon. Member talks about 1s. per ton, and if he is right there is an unfair distribution of profits.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I am thoroughly at one with the Amendment. I think the words in the Bill are very indefinite. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that this question has been before him in different shapes. I think there was a very large body who were thoroughly in favour of this principle of averages. If you leave the Bill as it stands the question is what "sold" means.
    The CHAIRMAN: I may point out to the hon. Member that I shall call on him

    1691
    to move a later Amendment on which he will find opportunity to deal with that point.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I should be quite satisfied if the system of averages was taken and I would not move my Amendment.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am one of those who believe that the system of averages would be very much simpler than that which the Government have adopted. I have often worked out these amounts in days gone by and I am quite certain that it would simplify the matter in many parts? of the country, and especially in the North of England, if these averages for each colliery were taken out month after month. There would be no difficulty at all about it. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would give his Department a great deal of work appeared to me to be a little beside the point, because the average prices are taken out for collieries from month to month and from half-year to half-year, and from year to year. It is so simple to work on a system of averages that in my judgment it complicates matters if you have to deal with each customer, and to try and find what was the equivalent in regard to a contract when the circumstances were quite different from those which may be obtained to-day. But, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the Amendment I cannot press it to a Division, but I think he overrates the difficulty in connection with the matter.
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted this Amendment. I do think he is mistaken in some of the arguments he put forward against it. First of all, he talked of the trouble that it would cause to the Board of Trade, but the return of these average prices would be made by the colliery owners, and surely it would not add to the difficulties of the Board of Trade for the colliery owner to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has just pointed out, there really would be no difficulty in collieries making the return. They have the prices from month to month, and half-yearly and yearly, and without any great difficulty they would be able to send them on. I think this proposal of average prices so far from giving more trouble would give less, because once the average is ascertained it is done so once and for all. Under the system pro-
    1692
    posed in the Bill mark what happens. The colliery owner can have the matter worked out for every day in the year, and he can insist on keeping the coal so that it may work out at a proper price. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises how unselfish is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, because this works out adversely to the colliery owner. It is another instance of that extremely altruistic attitude which he displays in such a genial manner in this House.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Wait and see.
    Mr. ROCH: What will happen under the proposal of the Bill? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if you take any month there will be two periods for prices of coal —one good and one bad. There would be a variation in price in the days when contracts were made and in the days on which coal was sold on a somewhat speculative market. In the period corresponding to that in which the bad price prevails what would happen? My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield would not do such a thing, but some more selfish owner would say, "We are not going to sell in that period at all. We are going to wait for the latter half of the month," and upon that basis of the high price they would be able to add the 4s. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman has lessened some of the value of his Bill and the possibility of consumers getting low prices by not accepting this Amendment. I do not know whether there is any good in appealing to him to reconsider the matter, but we are unfortunately in this time of truce precluded almost from criticising the Front Bench or from even whispering that everything is not the most perfect in the most perfect of worlds. I do venture to think my hon. Friend should press this Amendment as strongly as he can, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his consideration.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask for the elucidation of the matter for the Committee whether the hon. Member for Mansfield, in asking us to accept this Amendment, means that his average price is to include the price of coal sold under a contract and the sale of free coal as well.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Coal delivered.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that is the case, may I point out exactly what would happen. I do not challenge the altruistic

    1693
    character of my hon. Friend. I know there is no one more frank or candid in the House, but I would point out if you take the average it means the average not only of the contract prices, but also of what is called free coal. Any one who knows the trade knows that the contract prices are, if not always, yet very generally, below the prices paid for free coal.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In this year they were higher.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very much inclined to think that we are much safer if we compare like with like rather than with free and contract coal. The Committee will remember what has happened during the last twelve months. Contract coal has been selling at comparatively low prices. The sensational figures which have appeared in the Press invariably applied to free coal. If we are to accept the average of free coal lumped in with contract coal it does not mean that you are going to have contract coal compared with contract coal, but contract coal compared with contract plus free coal. My hon. Friend says that in this period free coal was selling for less than contract prices. Ho knows a great deal about the coal trade and I do not wish to challenge his information, but I think the Committee, which docs not know -so much, would do very much better if they compared like with like rather than like with the average of dissimilar things.
    Sir C. CORY: I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his Clause. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) said that there was a division amongst the coal owners on this point, so therefore I think we may take it that, from the point of view of the consumer, there is not much in it one way or the other. I think they are pretty equally divided and therefore there cannot be much in it from the consumer's point of view. If you had a flat rate for all customers you would be doing a very great injustice to some as compared with others, and for the sake or convenience and of justice to the customers the method proposed in the Bill is the better system. If a man who is making a contract, say, for 300,000 tons and who pays promptly on the nail is to be charged exactly the same price as the man who makes a contract for 100 tons and perhaps pays in three months, and under other conditions, it would, I think, be very unfair. As to the hon.
    1694
    Baronet's remark that the seller would choose a day on which he had made a higher price and make his contract on the corresponding day, coal owners cannot deal with their customers in that loose sort of way. They have to consider their customers, not only for to-day, but also for the future. They cannot tell a good customer, "You must come to-morrow or next week and I will give you a price; it does not suit me to give you a price to-day as the price at which I sold on the corresponding day last year is too low." They would soon send their customer to some other coal owner. Moreover, if they charged him too high a price he would soon be disgusted and take his contract to somebody else. You must have regard for your customer and treat him decently or he will go to somebody else. We are not all in the fortunate position of the hon. Member for Mansfield of being able to knock 4s. off the price and yet make a handsome profit. That, at any rate, is not the case with the owners in South Wales. The fact that my hon. Friend is willing to take an alternative shows that he is rather looking out for his own interests. If he finds the average does not suit him he asks, "Will you give me an alternative?"
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It will not affect me, as the price of all my coal sold under contract was considerably below the prices provided for by this Bill.
    Sir C. CORY: If you take the average the opposite prevails in one district as compared with another. I believe that in my hon. Friend's district prices were going down after 1912. If you take the average you bring in a lot of contracts made in 1912 which it would not be the intention of the Committee to bring in, and which were made at very much lower prices than the prices of 1913–14. In South Wales we have what are called arrears of contracts brought forward—arrears of 1912 contracts delivered in 1913. From every point of view—the convenience of the Board of Trade, the convenience of the coal owners, and the interests of the consumers—the Bill is better as it stands.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: This point has been before the Mining Association. There was a difference of opinion on the matter, but the majority were in favour of the scheme of the Bill. They thought that on the whole it would be more convenient, and therefore they supported the principle put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I think the question whether the scheme of the Bill or the scheme of the Amendment is the better depends very much on the year. In some years there is a great variation in price in one part of a month as compared with another. In regard to such years, my hon. Friend's Amendment would be much more important. But in regard to this particular year, where the variations were comparatively very small, I think the scheme of the Bill is as useful as that of the Amendment, and that the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. Member for Mansfield have not so much weight applied to the year 1913–14 as they would have if they applied, for instance, to the year 1914–15. In the latter case the Amendment would have to be adopted in order to secure what the right hon. Gentleman wants in his Bill. I did not quite understand what the President of the Board of Trade meant when he said it was desirable to compare like with like—free coal with free coal. You cannot compare contract coal, because contract coal is not affected by the Bill. You have to pay for your contract coal according to the contract you have made. It is only in regard to the free coal that is left that you can compare the period 1913–11. As has already been said, 70 per cent or 80 per cent, of the coal has been already sold under contract and has to be taken. You can only compare the free coal which you can buy with the free coal that was sold at the same period two years ago.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield, that the colliery proprietors would be able to choose favourable days and refuse to sell on days which did not suit them. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) said that colliery proprietors would not be in a position to deal with their customers in that way, as the customers would go somewhere else. That is not the case in the Potteries. There they are in the hands of a combine. They have not a number of individual colliery proprietors to whom they can go. I think there is a great deal in the point put by the hon. Member for Mansfield, and I should very much like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it.
    Sir J. WALTON: How is the buyer of coal to ascertain the maximum price that the colliery owner can charge? Has he power to demand that the colliery owner shall produce his books, and show the actual sales made in 1913–14 upon which
    1696
    the new quotation is based? I do not know what method the right hon. Gentleman has in mind by which the buyer shall be able to ascertain that he has not been overcharged. As to colliery owners choosing particular days on which to sell because higher prices were obtained on those days in 1913–14, I do not think there is much in that point, inasmuch as there were very slight variations in prices in that particular year.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The President of the Board of Trade does not really understand this question now, although he ought to as he has had a great many interviews with the coal owners on the matter. The point is really a simple one. The right hon. Gentleman tells the House that it would give the Board of Trade enormous trouble if the average prices of the twelve months preceding the War were taken. He is going to take the average price of coal sold on similar dates, in similar quantities, under similar conditons, in every single coal mine, on every single day in the whole year.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. The hon. Baronet may say that I do not understand the coal trade; he certainly does not understand the Bill. The Bill does not do anything of the kind. The Board of Trade is not going to have a schedule of every parcel of coal sold on every day in the year in every coal mine in the United Kingdom- The only cases that will come to the Board of Trade will be those where the customer thinks he has been unfairly treated. The Board of Trade will then have power to call for the books and go into the matter with the colliery owner, and those books will, I hope, give the Board of Trade the requisite data for arriving at a just decision.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That argument means that, when the coal owners sell coal in the 1,700 collieries of the country on the 300 days in the year, it is only occasionally, when somebody complains, that their prices are going to be checked. It means that no coal owner's prices are to be checked day by day, month by month, or year by year. They will only be checked if somebody complains. Under my scheme, every buyer of coal would know what he was going to pay. Under the Board of Trade scheme as draw-n, no one will know what he is going to pay. The object of the coal owners is perfectly clear. They want to have the opportunity of selling coal at the

    1697
    present time, when the demand is greater than the supply. I really do not know how the scheme is going to be worked. The managers of the collieries with which I am associated tell me that they do not know how they are going to take the prices day by day and strike this average, according to what the actual conditions are. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. All I suggested was taking an average of the prices realised in each colliery for the given period. If the Board of Trade is too busy to receive the returns, let them be sent to the Home Office. The Home Office gets scores of returns—certainly half a dozen—from every colliery in the United Kingdom every year. The Bill as it stands, so far from being a useful measure in controlling prices, will give endless trouble, not only to the seller of coal, but to the Board of Trade.
    The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Cory) thinks that I am looking out for my own interests. As I have already said, I have sold all my household coal in the last two or three months at prices considerably lower than those which I should be entitled to charge under this Bill. Therefore, so far as household coal is concerned, it will not affect me in the slightest degree. Hence his argument does not hold water for a moment. I am not bringing forward the Amendment on behalf of myself or of any colliery with which I am associated. I represent in this House colliers, not collieries, and it is solely in the interests of the consumer and the public that I have moved this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it, he has a servile majority behind him, and I shall not take the matter to a Division. But it is very unfortunate, as the Bill as it stands will give a great deal of trouble in administration. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says that there is to be no inquiry except when complaint is made, I quite understand that there will be no trouble.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The discussion we have already had illustrates the fundamental unsoundness of a Bill which attempts to fix for a long period of time a maximum price, or prices, and which does not go further and attempt to regulate or control distribution. That is a general point which I know I should be out of order in attempting to discuss, and I do not propose to discuss it. I merely mention it to bring the point into relation with the discussion—which I conceive will be in order. As I
    1698
    understand it, the point which we are discussing is whether it is preferable to have a separate maximum price for each day in the year or an average price for the whole of the year. The right hon. Gentleman gave us two arguments against fixing an average price for the whole of the year. It seemed to me that these arguments were not conclusive. The first one was the difficulty of ascertaining the facts and fixing an average, and he mentioned two cases in illustration of that difficulty. In the first place, better terms were often given to old customers. It does seem to me that where better terms are given to old customers, better terms lasting throughout the year, the real difficulty is in fixing a price on any particular day, and the easiest thing to do would be to fix what is the average price for the year in regard to these customers. I think the instance which the right hon. Gentleman gave told entirely against his contention.
    The second instance which he gave was the fact that better terms were often given to customers who distributed their orders evenly over the year, and who did not give the bulk of their orders in the winter. There also it seems to me the easier thing would be to strike an average with regard to these customers and their orders, and that the more difficult thing to do in accordance with the facts is to say what is the real and particular selling price on any particular date. The right hon. Gentleman also gave a further reason against accepting an average. He pointed out that in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mansfield the average would be not only that of contract coal, but of free coal. That seems to me an argument, not against the general principle of fixing an average, but in favour of alteration in the Amendment. If it be conceded that on general grounds the policy of fixing an average were the better method, then it would quite easily be possible to fix separate averages for contract coal and for free coal. I think that the hon. Member for Mansfield has established his contention that the policy of fixing a separate maximum for each day in the year gives us an entirely fictitious idea of the price of coal as fixed by this Bill. The price of coal, as fixed by this Bill, is not regulated by the nominal standard maximum which is fixed by the Bill; it is regulated' by the coal owners themselves, who will pick and choose the particular days on which they sell their coal, so that the maximum in practice will really be, certainly many

    1699
    pence, and possibly even a shilling or so, over that which this Bill professes to fix. In spite of that, I am not convinced that the policy of the average is the better method.
    It has been pointed out that the great demand for coal and the rush of orders comes in the winter, and not in the summer, and that this disparity, this extra crush of business in the winter, is to some extent corrected by the fact that in the summer prices are very much lower and a certain amount of business is attracted from winter to summer by these lower prices. The variation in price certainly does serve a useful purpose in helping to distribute business more evenly over the year. It is a natural corrective. But if the average price is fixed, there will be no such natural corrective in the matter of prices, and so far as prices are concerned it will not matter in which part of the year one buys. Therefore, business will be attracted more and more towards that portion of the year in which there is the greatest crush of business. That may lead to congestion. It may load to such a state of affairs that there may be a real coal famine in the large centres where the coal is wanted at that period of the year. I am not sure that any of the methods in the Bill are good. They do not control distribution. I am inclined to think that the method which allows the greatest elasticity and the greatest variation is the one which, in the long run, best serves the public interests.
    Mr. RUSSELL REA: I confess that, on the whole, I am inclined to favour the suggestions of the hon. Member for Mansfield. I cannot see the force of some of the arguments that were brought forward by the President of the Board of Trade. Surely it is easier to ascertain the average, as the average prices vary little? It must be very much easier, from an administrative point of view, for the Board of Trade, which administers this Act, to have the average inserted here. If the Bill is passed as it stands the buyer always concludes his bargain in the dark. He cannot possibly know whether the terms of his contract are or are not in compliance with the terms of the Act.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I interrupt one moment? Surely the hon. Gentleman is now referring to buyers who have never bought before from a colliery? Any buyer who has had a contract in the year 1913–14
    1700
    will know perfectly well what he paid. He is provided by his own contract with the means of comparison if he is about to renew that contract. That is a much easier way of ascertaining—if he thus gets his coal in similar quantities and on similar days of the year.
    Mr. RUSSELL REA: That is quite true of that class of buyer who renews a contract with the same colliery, but to a certain extent it leaves him out of the competition of other collieries. What appeal has the ordinary buyer? He has an appeal to the Board of Trade. But my contention is that the ordinary buyer buys in the dark and does not know whether the price he is asked is in accordance with the terms of the Bill. By an average we are working in a simple manner. I would just, too, point out another thing. The average price is pretty certain to be a lower price than the sales in consideration here. Therefore the seller has the buyer at his mercy. He is always comparing for the purposes of sale the numerous sales which he makes of his free coal to outsiders the same day, under pretty much the same conditions, and it is very seldom that there is only one day that he can take for his comparison. He will take the day, perhaps, on which he made his biggest contract with the railway company, so that on the whole I think it will favour the buyer to adopt the words of the Amendment. He will have the advantage of the lower price by taking an average, rather than by making a calculation of the terms proposed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sold" ["sold in similar quantities"] to insert the words "for delivery not earlier than 1st July, 1913."
    The reason for this Amendment is that I think the word "sold" is not a very definite or reliable term on which these contracts are to be based. There have been a good many discussions as to whether this word is or is not satisfactory, and though I do not profess in any way to represent the Federated Body of Coal Owners or Coal Association, I think it right to point out that the majority—a very small one perhaps—considered that the word "sold" would meet the difficulty. Whilst, therefore, the word "sold" was accepted, yet there is no doubt that one set of districts overbore another set of districts in agreeing to the word, which

    1701
    I do not think is sufficiently definite. The differences were these: In one area contracts were low and prices were rising all the time between 1st July, 1913, and 30th June, 1914. That was the South Wales district. In the South Wales district all the time prices were rising, so that it suited them to have the word "sold" and not to have the word "delivery." On the other hand, as regards Lancashire, and I think also Yorkshire—in a very large part—the exact opposite prevailed. The contracts were higher prior to 30th June, 1913, and they went down during the whole of the year. So much so that I think the Bill, if it is translated in the way the word "sold" means on day-today prices during the whole of that period, would adversely affect Lancashire and Yorkshire to the extent of a shilling as compared with South Wales. That is a very large amount, and I think it is rather hard that that should be so. I would not like to say I accept the fact that the word "sold" means day-by-day prices irrespective of contracts. That would be hardly fair. For instance, during the month of June, 1913, the date on which most of these contracts were made, you make your contract for delivery after 1st July. You make your contracts, but no coal is delivered until after 1st July. I would like to know what the word "sold" means in that case. If the word "sold" in July, 1913, means the coal as delivered in pursuance of a sale after 1st July, 1913, then I am quite content to accept the word as it stands; but if the word is to be construed as affecting sales made in May and June for delivery after 1st July, 1913, I think we should be placed under a very great hardship indeed, and it is important that that question should be settled, because there is a difference of as much as 1s. a ton between the prices of May and June, 1913, and those in a later month that year in Lancashire districts in gas contracts, and I think of 10d. in railway contracts. We should be, therefore, put back to prices that were made for future delivery; that is to say, when we came to August or September of this year? we should not be able to compare those prices with the prices of August and September, 1913, but we should have to take those prices at which contracts were being made at that period, say for 31st December and subsequent dates. As I say, the whole of Lancashire and Yorkshire, with prices going down during that twelve months, will be put at a very great disadvantage,
    1702
    whereas in South Wales the prices going up during all that period gets an immense pull. What we want is that to the price the consumer paid for coal at that date you should add the price of 4s., and that should be the price at which we are entitled to sell. I think we should be within the law if we contended that was the meaning of the word "sold," and that we could not be fined if we said the word "sold" meant the price the consumer was paying on the day he was receiving his coal. I think it is better it should be made clear, and I think it is only fair you should not make a difference between districts, but should see that all districts are treated alike.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that the object the hon. Gentleman has obviously in view would be effected by his Amendment as drafted, but it is clear that it would enable comparisons to be made for this purpose with contracts made so long ago as 1912, and I need hardly point out to the Committee that in some of the coal-fields advanced prices in 1912 were fairly good.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: That is the reason why deliveries should commence after that date, so that would not cover the contracts referred to.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The deliveries might be a considerable time after the contracts had been made. If there is to be any comparison made it must be either with coals for delivery for next year, say, and with coal delivered in the standard year, or coal sold during next year with coal sold in the standard year. To have a different comparison would lead to different results in different coal-fields. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to insert these words. Undoubtedly, as he says, there is a division of view on this Clause because it helps coal owners in some districts, but not those in others. On the whole, I think we should take the course which will certainly be applicable to more of the coal-fields to the advantage of the consumer, by adopting the comparison we make here rather than the hon. Member's comparison.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quantities" ("sold in similar quantities"], to insert the words "or as near thereto as, having regard to the custom of the trade, may be practicable."

    1703
    My object is to insert qualifying words. I do not mind what qualifying words are used, but there is a danger that the Bill may become a dead letter if the words remain just as they are in the Bill, because there is no such thing, so far as my experience goes, of a merchant buying at ordinary times "similar quantities." He may make a contract one year for a similar quantity of coal as the previous year, but he is never buying to-day a similar quantity of coal to that which he bought this day last year. He wants one truck sent to a particular depot and fifty trucks sent to a larger centre. It is not ordered exactly by the ton. It may be a truck, two trucks, or a dozen trucks of coal. A truck contains from 5 to 12 tons. In the practice of the trade there is no such thing as buying from time to time a similar quantity to that bought on a previous occasion. You buy each day what you want, and, therefore, if a merchant goes to a colliery and names the price, not exceeding 4s. for the corresponding period referred to in the Bill, the colliery owner can say, "Well, it must be a similar quantity," and if the purchaser could urge that it should be a similar quantity "or as near thereto as, having regard to the custom of the trade, may be practicable," then, if there were a dispute, the Board of Trade would have something more reliable to depend upon than they have in the Bill as now drafted.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: To insert the words proposed by my hon. Friend would quite conceivably do what he requires, but the word "similar," I dare say he knows, has very often been the subject of litigation, and I am not sure that even now in this connection the word "similar" would give us any precise data on which to go. The safeguard is found in Clause 2, Subsection (1), which says that, if in any proceedings for the recovery of a fine, any question is raised as to the corresponding price of any coal,
    "the Court shall refer the question for determination by the Board of Trade, and the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive for all purposes."
    Obviously the point which the hon. Member has put is one of those which would of necessity be taken into consideration. I am, therefore, advised that to insert these words he proposes is unnecessary,
    1704
    and, unless my hon. Friend makes a strong point of it, I would suggest we do not alter the drafting of the Bill.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Of course I wish to help the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I am still rather under the impression that some words are necessary, but he is better advised in these matters than I am, and I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Clause which gives the Board of Trade some power, and on which the right hon. Gentleman relies, can only be invoked when criminal proceedings have actually been taken, and, consequently, a man faces criminal proceedings in the dark, and may or may not get a decision from the Board of Trade. I must further point out that the Bill merely provides that the person who makes the contract contrary to the Act shall be liable to a penalty; but, of course, there is a general law that a contract entered into contrary to an Act of Parliament is void, and, consequently, that would be set up as a defence to an action, and it might be necessary to be in the position of obtaining the decision of the Board of Trade, whereas the Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman referred only comes into operation when criminal proceedings have been instituted. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not see his way to meet the Amendment, which I think is reasonable. I think the Bill sets up an unnecessary dictatorship of the Board of Trade as to whether or not the provisions of the Act have or have not been violated. That being so, I do think the intervention of the Board of Trade should not be in the form in which it is at present, which limits it to occasions when criminal proceedings are instituted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and under similar conditions."
    I think many of us have been troubled about these words. Although the right hon. Gentleman has already pointed out,' with regard to the previous Amendment I moved, that very wide powers are given to the Board of Trade—in fact, absolute powers—of appeal, at the same time men carrying on business cannot stop to have controversies with people with whom they are doing business while they go to the Board of Trade and have it settled. Every

    1705
    one recognises that the main reason for introducing this Bill is to help over the coming winter, when everybody expects a great scarcity of coal, and it is hoped that this Bill during that somewhat famine period will avoid famine prices. Is that the time, when there must be a shortage and a scarcity of coal, when the people who are buying their coal are going to the Board of Trade to settle all sorts of questions with regard to "similar quantities, and under similar conditions?" Of course, I can understand that the Board of Trade under Clause 2 has very drastic powers to decide, but, apart from those drastic powers of the Boord of Trade, the danger of which is of their being brought in too late, the words, "similar conditions," are to my mind almost fatal to the Bill, because there are no similar conditions. A colliery can say that they are paying much higher wages than two years ago, and that it is not under similar conditions. They may contend that they are paying much more for material and that there is a scarcity of pit props, and endless points could be raised by the collieries to show that purchases are not taking place under similar conditions to those of two years ago. What I am afraid of is that there will not be time to settle the objections between the purchase of the coal and the settlement of these differences. Under these circumstances I do not suppose the colliery would supply the coal to a merchant who wanted it and have these questions settled afterwards. The man would have to buy the coal and get it first. It is not as if the colliery was being compelled to supply the coal, and the merchant finding when the bill is sent in that the charge is too high as provided for under this Bill, and then refusing to pay, the difference being settled by the Board of Trade. That is not what is going to happen. If the merchant will not buy the coal when he wants it he will not have it, and will not be able to carry on his business. I see very great difficulty in the working of the Bill if these words remain in it.
    I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman bringing in emergency legislation of this description, and I know he does not claim it as a watertight measure. I quite appreciate that, and I am not endeavouring in any way to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman by my proposal. If this Bill was to be made watertight with regard to this and many other matters, you would want a Bill of at least one hundred Clauses and a large number of Schedules. I am
    1706
    only raising this point in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether, by the retention of these words, he is not almost destroying the effective working of the Bill. I should have thought that colliery owners and merchants would have been able to work together better under this Bill without these words, because when this Bill passes into law it can only be made effective and useful by the co-operation of all concerned. If you get the hearty co-operation of the colliery owners and merchants generally then this Bill will be useful, but if you insert words which permit a colliery owner to plead that it is not under similar conditions, it will lead to controversy and it will prevent merchants and collieries cooperating to keep a steady price. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to leave these words out of the Bill.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment- I cannot imagine more vague words appearing in a Bill than "under similar conditions." I think these words are well calculated to lead to legal quibbling. I can imagine those who have purchased from the colliery owners using these words to proceed to the Courts. This type of emergency legislation ought to be so drawn as to prevent any unnecessary recourse to Law Court proceedings. An hon. Member says that the Board of Trade settles the matter, but he forgets that Clause 2 requires legal proceedings as a precedent to Board of Trade-intervention. I am sure that these words will lead to lengthy and unnecessary quibbling, and they ought to be deleted unless there is some very grave reason advanced in favour of their retention. Under the Bill the coal owner is very likely to suffer because possibly those who have purchased his coal may take the opportunity of using those words to refrain from settling their just accounts. No reason has been put forward to justify the retention of these words and therefore I support my hon. Friend who has asked for their deletion.
    Mr. ANDERSON: It does not seem to me that there words strengthen the Bill in any degree. I imagine that a vague phrase like "under similar conditions" would provide a perfect paradise for lawyers to decide whether coal bought before and during the War was bought under similar conditions. It might be argued that every condition at the present moment is different to what it was

    1707
    before the War. Practically all matters such as wages, pit props, and other things might come in, and I suggest that these words are quite unnecessary.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I want to ask a plain question, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to give me a straightforward answer, which I am sure he will do If a colliery owner desires to sell 1,000 tons of coal at a given date and he had no similar contract for a quantity of coal at or about that time, is he entitled to sell what quantities he likes? If these words are struck out, I take it that no coal owner can make any contract or any sale by contract unless it is precisely the same as in the preceding year. The Bill provides that the coal shall not be sold unless it is at a certain price and unless in similar quantities and under similar conditions. I want my right hon. Friend to tell me whether it is not a fact if those words are struck out, coal can only be sold in similar quantities to the contracts made during the previous twelve months? If so, that would be absolutely impracticable.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will answer the point put to me by the hon. Baronet as straightforwardly as I can. I take it that these words are necessary to meet the point the hon. Baronet has put, and if we do not have them in it would be impossible to meet the point he has raised. Obviously, if you are going to deal with only similar conditions, if the output has been doubled or trebled, and contracts are on a much larger scale and you have only the words similar quantities, it would be impossible to allow for any variations. Therefore, you must have these words to provide for such variations. I see the force of the objections which have been raised by my hon. Friends, and if I am not misjudging their view, I think what they have in mind is that war conditions are ruling now, and they were not ruling before. I am advised that it is not necessary to add to the words in order to make it clear that the conditions do not refer to war conditions, but in order to put it beyond doubt I suggest that we should insert, after the word "conditions," the words "affecting the sale," and so make the comparisons under similar conditions not allowing for war conditions. I think that will meet the object of hon. Members who have spoken, and if they will allow these words to remain in the Bill, I will move later on the insertion of the words I have suggested.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It is absolutely certain that under the conditions which have been referred to every person will enter a defence to the action, and will seek to raise in the Courts a legal defence to the effect that the contract violates the provisions of the Act because the price of the coal is excessive for the reasons given. I think the words of this proviso are dangerous. Of course, if these words are merely intended to guide the Board of Trade in coming to a decision, they are not objectionable, but they are very desirable and necessary in that case. I think that is necessary, and I do not in the least find fault with the Bill because it does that. While I am quite willing that it should be done, and while I am quite willing that the Board of Trade should be guided by these words in the Bill, I think it is a matter of the greatest danger, and might lead to the most serious consequences if it were possible, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, that it might be possible for any question to be raised in the Law Courts with regard to these words. If I were drawing up this Bill I should put an express provision in it that no question under it should be litigated otherwise than with the consent of the Board of Trade.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This relates more to Clause 2.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I have said all that I wanted to say, and I do not wish to go over it again, but I would respectfully submit that all I have said is perfectly relevant to these words, because they will be most dangerous unless there is some provision put into the Bill that questions of the kind are to be settled by the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade alone.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not quite clear even now—the right hon. Gentleman is going to add the words, "affecting the same," after the words "under similar conditions." Assuming a colliery enters into a contract for the sale of 100,000 tons of coal in the month of September, and that no contract has been made for five months previously for anything like the same quantity, how is that colliery to fix its price under the terms of the Bill? It cannot do it, because the Bill says that coal can only be sold in similar quantities, and the words now to be added are going, as far as I can see, to limit the quantity.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend is going to ask me conundrums of this kind—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am asking questions which apply to the trade.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: He must not expect me to reply to business problems with which he is familiar but with which other Members may not be so conversant. In reply to the question he put to me, I think the words "under similar conditions affecting the sale," as the phrase will now run, will to some extent meet his case, but I would draw his attention to Clause 2, Sub-section (2), which gives pretty wide powers to the Board of Trade, who will have to ascertain as nearly as they can what is happening in the same district in similar mines to enable them to get over the difficulty if it arises. May I suggest to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that a good deal of the criticism we have heard this afternoon is based on the assumption that this is a Bill fixing prices. If it were I agree with my hon. Friend (Sir E. Cornwall) that we should not be able to get it on two pages of print; it would take thirty pages, and I do not know how many Schedules and how many months of Parliamentary time. It does not attempt to do anything of the kind. All it attempts to do is to prevent panic prices operating, and nothing else. It does not mean that every contract made is to he 4s. more than last year—I hope nothing of the kind will happen—but if a man asks 6s. more, then this Bill would come in the way and block it. It is only in the way of panic prices, and it is in no sense an attempt to fix prices for various qualities and descriptions of coal under various conditions. The Bill being of that limited extent, I would respectfully suggest that a good deal of the criticism offered is somewhat out of place.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Healy) has asked me a question about the Courts. He knows much better than I do how often this word "similar" has been litigated upon in the Law Courts, but if any question is raised on the words "corresponding price of coal" he knows that the Board of Trade is to determine it. That is the safeguard against undue litigation on the words "and under similar conditions." It is only by that means, by what he called "the dictatorship," that we are able to avoid undue litigation. I hope that we may now make a little more progress with the Bill. There are two large outstanding points, and I know that the Committee is anxious to get to them. If hon. Members could see their way to
    1710
    proceed more rapidly with these small points, I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee. The two larger points affect existing contracts and what is the standard price. Those are the two outstanding points of criticism, and I would make an appeal to the Committee to allow us as rapidly as possible to approach those points and come to a decision upon them.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Supposing when a case is before the Courts a plea is put in that the coal, as a matter of fact, was not sold under similar conditions, would that mean that the judge would say, "This is not a case for my consideration at all," or would he be prepared, under Clause 2, to refer to the Board of Trade the question whether the coal was or was not sold under similar conditions? If he cannot close the action altogether, and must refer to the Board of Trade the question whether that is a good or a bad plea, then I do not see any harm in the words being accepted; but I am doubtful whether he has that power.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am told, under Clause 2 as to the corresponding price of coal, that it must come to the Board of Trade.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Surely the Board of Trade has no power to settle the question, even under Clause 2, Sub-section (2).
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We had better wait until we get there.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman referred us to Clause 2. With great respect, he is quite wrong in saying that this Bill does not regulate the price of each quality of coal.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Only the maximum price. The hon. Gentleman has again and again referred to this matter in the course of the Debate, but he surely must have misread the Bill. The Bill only affects the limit above which you cannot charge. The hon. Baronet, for instance, says that he has made a good many contracts for household coal at 3s. above the standard price of the previous twelve months. It does not under any circumstances compel him to raise that to 4s. Knowing how generous ho is, I hope that he will sell a good deal of coal below that limit.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not the point. The fact that my company has taken action which no other colliery has taken has nothing to do with the case.

    1711
    This Bill is actually going to fix the maximum price of every quality of coal, and the maximum price under this Bill will operate in all cases except the collieries with which I am connected. We have been selling coal—the hon. Member behind the Treasury Bench (Sir E. Cornwall) has been buying it from the colliery with which I am associated—at 10s. below the market price. This Bill is going to fix the actual maximum price.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Debate seems to me to be getting wide of the Amendment, which is that the words "under similar conditions" should be left out of the Clause.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have not finished my remarks yet, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. The words "under similar conditions," and the limitation that is now being pro posed by the President need further consideration. I understand you to say that I am not in order in dealing with the question of what are the similar conditions, but with great respect I submit that I am in order in comparing the conditions with those—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was precisely what the hon. Baronet was not doing when I called him to order.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: With great respect, is it not possible to show what are "under similar conditions"? When you called me to order and asked me to address my remarks to the question, I was pointing out that the words "under similar conditions' in this Bill necessitate a maximum price. The President himself pointed out that these similar conditions would not mean a maximum price, and you did not call him to order. Ho said that the Bill did not fix maximum prices for all coal. I say that it does.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman said that the maximum price of each class of coal would not be regulated by this Bill.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I never said anything of the kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so, but we are really talking too quickly. My mind does not travel as quickly as that of the President. I understood him to say that
    1712
    this Bill would not operate with regard to each quality of coal, and that in practice there would be lower prices than those provided for under the Bill. I say that the Bill will actually fix prices for each quality of coal, and the coal owner will have the last penny to which he is entitled. Let me come back to my original question. If I make a contract to sell 100,000 tons of coal in a given month and there is no corresponding contract for six months, I want to know how I am going to sell it. I have taken counsel's opinion about this matter. I have just asked a legal Gentleman of this House, and he tells me that a colliery owner will not be allowed to offer large quantities unless there is some provision put into the Bill later on. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking to put words in at a later stage, then I do not wish in any way to impede the progress of the Bill, but the words in Clause 2 to which he refers do not cover the point. If the matter is not clear, will he bring it up on Report? I am quite certain that he is wrong. If he will see my hon. Friend, who is a legal gentleman and whose authority he will not doubt, he will tell him that we shall not be able to offer coal under the Bill if there is a large contract made in one particular month and no similar contract in the previous twelve months. If my hon. Friend convinces him, perhaps he will alter it on Report; otherwise, the Bill is unworkable.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made: After the words "under similar conditions" insert the words "affecting the sale."
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "four" ["four shillings"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    6.0 P.M.
    I think the present proposal leaves too wide a margin with regard to the price of coal. The President of the Board of Trade has stated repeatedly that there ought to be an effort made to prevent exploitation, and that is the real purpose, of course, of this Bill. We had a Committee in London—a Departmental Committee—on Retail Coal Prices, and after investigating the whole question that Committee came to the conclusion that at that time 3s. for London, including the increased retail charges and distribution, as well as the increased charges at the pit-

    1713
    head, would amply compensate the coal trade for the extra charges made necessary by the War. But under this Bill as it stands 4s. extra is to be allowed to the coal owners at the pit-head in comparison with the previous standard, and in addition to that the retailers in London are to have an extra 2s., not under this Bill but by other arrangements, to compensate them for the increased charges for freightage and other matters. Really, therefore, the prices will be 6s. higher in London than in the previous period with which comparison is made. I feel that that is altogether too high a figure, and, seeing how it will work out, it is evident that this Bill is really going to be no improvement at all, or at any rate very little improvement, so far as the working classes of London are concerned. I should like to draw one or two comparisons.
    Take the quality of coal known as the best Silkstone. In January, 1914, that quality coal was sold in London at 29s. per ton. Last January it was sold at 32s. per ton. If the coal owners are allowed to charge 4s. extra on the previous standard, and if 2s. extra is to go to the retail trader as well, it will mean that that coal will be sold in London next January at 35s. under this Limitation of Coal Profits Bill. The same thing will happen with regard to the best Derbyshire coal. In January, 1914, it sold at 28s., and a year later at 31s. In January, 1916, under this Bill, the price will be 34s., and that will apply to eases where quantities of a ton and upwards are bought at a time. When you come down to the smaller quantities it will mean that the coal, as heretofore, will rise to a very high price indeed, especially as there' is, so far as one can see, no legal attempt being made to limit the operation of the coal rings.
    All that is attempted is to deal with the price at the pit-head, leaving even there a wide margin. But no attempt is made to limit the prices with regard to dealers outside certain rings. We admit frankly there have been additional expenses, such, for instance, as for pit timber, and, since the Report of the Departmental Committee, there has been an addition to the wages paid to miners in different parts of the country. Taking all these matters into account, and bearing in mind the statement made on the Second Reading by the President of the Board of Trade, we fail absolutely to realise that there is any cause for the additional 4s., so far as the pits are concerned. The President of
    1714
    the Board of Trade dealt very generously with the matter of expenses, and yet even on his figures he was unable to make out a case for a 3s. advance. The figures were below that amount. I contend, in these circumstances, that this is an exceedingly moderate Amendment, and one which should commend itself to those who are anxious there shall be some relief, so far as the poor are concerned, from the high coal prices which had to be paid last winter.
    Mr. DENNISS: It would have been very much more useful to the Committee if the hon. Member had given the figures on which he bases his claim to reduce the amount to 3s. Until we have those figures we are in the dark. No doubt the Board of Trade, in fixing the figure at 4s., took a great deal of pains to decide upon an amount which it thought fair under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, it is within the knowledge of the Committee that there was a meeting of more than 200 Members of this House on this subject, and that meeting appointed a Committee to go into the question of prices. The Committee included three colliery proprietors, three shipowners, three representatives of the Labour party, and three representatives of consumers of coal, and it reported to the 200 Members of the House of Commons that 4s. 3d. was a fair price to put on. I had the honour of moving a resolution which is practically embodied in the Clause which we are discussing. I naturally take great interest in the matter. The Board of Trade cut our figure down to 4s., but, on the other hand, I have had applications from various persons interested in coal asking that it be raised again to 4s. 3d. But, inasmuch as I assume the Board of Trade had good reasons for cutting the amount down, I do not propose to bring forward that proposition. It is no use hon. Members voting blindly whether the figure shall be 3s. or 4s. They ought to be satisfied before supporting the reduction to 3s. that that is a fair figure, and they ought to be given the data upon which it is based.
    Mr. ANDERSON: We have the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and also the Report of the Departmental Committee on Retail Coal Prices. If you deduct the 2s. extra to be allowed to the retail people in London, we are prepared to say that 1s. is a sufficient increase at the pit-head. I am therefore leaving a very wide margin indeed.
    Mr. DENNISS: No doubt the hon. Member has satisfied himself, but what he must do is to satisfy the Committee. I should be delighted to vote for 3s., or even 2s., if it can be proved to be a fair price, but I believe I am expressing the feelings of the majority of the Members of this Committee when I say we cannot blindly vote 3s. simply to secure lower prices to the general public when we may be doing an injustice to the other people concerned. I assume that the Board of Trade have fairly considered this matter, and I hope the President will take this opportunity to give the figures on which he bases the 4s., and that he will do so in such a way as will convince the Committee.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have an Amendment down on the Paper which is much bolder than the one moved by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson). My Amendment is to substitute 2s. for 4s., and I want to attempt to show the Committee the reasons which I think justify that. It was stated by the last speaker that we are more or less in ignorance of the actual facts upon which the 4s. is based. I want to show the Committee what the country will have to pay, even if the figure is put at 2s. This is a most serious matter for the country. The genesis of this figure of 4s. is, I think, to be found in what was done by the Committee upstairs. I attended one of the meetings there, and I remember hearing a very prominent Member of this House, a very large coal owner, state that if 2s. was fixed the colliery owners would become more or less millionaires.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I never said anything of the kind. I said it would mean a profit.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member for Mansfield has divulged the fact that he was the hon. Member to whom I was referring, I will say now that he stated that 1s. would cover all the expenses, and the colliery owners would make large fortunes. The hon. Member certainly gave us the impression that he is most generous in his treatment of the consumer. He was a member of this Committee, and I should like to ask him if he voted for the recommendation that 4s. should be fixed. Did he recommend the Board of Trade to suggest that increased price to the consumers? If he voted in favour of that recommendation, that the price should be 4s. 3d., and not 2s., then
    1716
    in that case certainly more than 2s. profit would accrue to every colliery owner. I want to show how this will affect the country. We are in a position to know exactly what will be the tonnage of coal left in this country for home consumption. We have had a report from an important Committee, over which Sir R. Redmayne presided, on Coal Mining Organisation, and in that report it is stated that the production of coal in 1913 was 287,411,000 tons. Looking at the returns I find we exported 73,400,000 tons to foreign countries. We exported, also, in the form of bunker coal, 21,400,000 tons, giving a total export of 94,000,000 tons. This practically leaves for home consumption 193,011,000 tons. In the report Sir Richard Redmayne estimates that the reduction in the output of coal, owing to the War and the large number of men who have joined the Colours will amount to 36,000,000 tons as compared with 1913. That would reduce the output of coal to 251,411,000 tons.
    We are saving in this respect, that we shall export according to their estimate, 24,842,000 tons less to foreign countries, and my estimate is that we shall supply something like 6,000,000 tons less of bunker coal, which amounts to 30,842,000 tons. Taking the export and the bunker coal, that will leave us altogether 63,558,000 tons against 94,000,000 tons we exported in 1913. That is the estimate given by this Committee. If you deduct the 63,558,000 tons from the 251,411,000 tons it will leave for home consumption 187,853,000 tons. If the price of coal should be raised to the maximum—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield that if this price is put into the Bill and it becomes an Act of Parliament, the natural tendency will be for all the coal owners, if they can, to raise the price to the maximum of 4s.—if the price is raised to 4s., that will mean that there will be a cost to the nation of no less than £37,570,600. That is what I work out to be the cost to the nation upon the home consumption. Taking my figure of 2s. as the maximum, that would mean an increase cost to the nation of £18,785,000. I think everybody will agree with me that that is a very large sum of money for the home consumers to pay upon the home consumption of 187,000,000 tons. Take the question of the 63,000,000 tons for export to foreign countries and bunker coal. I have formed an estimate upon the figures given by the hon. Member for Mansfield,

    1717
    who stated that in some cases the price of coal for export purposes had gone up to 38s. per ton. [HON. MEMBERS: "28S.!"] He stated that that was the figure which some of the collieries were asking for export coal. I will take the figure at 28s. That will mean an increase of 10s. per ton upon export and bunker coal.
    Sir J. WALTON: That is on the free coal—on the small margin of free coal that the collieries will have to sell. They will not have higher prices from their old contracts.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understood from the President of the Board of Trade that there was no limit to the price of coal for export purposes, and that there was no limit in this Bill for coal for bunker purposes. If that is the ease, my point is that if the average increased price was to work out at 10s. a ton—
    Sir J. WALTON: You are ignoring existing contracts.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make my statement, then he can make his. I have fixed the price based upon what I have listened to in the House of Commons. It is a very low price according to the figures. On the 63,000,000 tons for export and bunker coal it will work out at £31,779,000. Taking the price of coal at 4s. extra for home consumption, and bunker and export coal, I make out that if the colliery owners charge the maximum sum under this Bill they will obtain for these three classes of coal no less than £69,349,000 extra revenue. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am prepared for anyone to test my figures. At the sum suggested by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), 3s. upon coal for home consumption would work out at £28,182,000. Export and bunker coal, if they reach the increase of 10s. after this Bill becomes law, will work out at no less than £59,961,000. Those are actual figures based upon the Returns which have been presented to Parliament and also upon the figures which were given by the President of the Board of Trade, who stated in his speech that every shilling increase in the price of coal to the home consumer under this Bill meant £9,000,000. I work it out at about £9,300,000.
    I do not see why the coal owners of this country should be made a privileged class at the expense of the general community. If my figures are correct, and if they can-
    1718
    not be challenged—I challenge even the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Mark-ham) and the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) to deny that these large increases will be made—the effect of these increases will become a most serious matter for this country. Everything depends upon cheap coal. All our manufactories depend upon cheap coal. The price of steel, of ships, and of every article in the country is raised in consequence of the price of coal being raised. It has another effect, upon which I wish to make an appeal to this Committee to fix the price at the very lowest maximum. Take the case of a town which owns gas or electricity works. This is going to be a very serious matter for them. In the first place, the rates in our large towns were going up by leaps and bounds even before the War. Our taxes are going up. If you speak to tradesmen in our large towns they will tell you the turnover is going down and that the profits are going down. Consequently the tradesmen are affected by increased rates, increased taxes and less profits. Already in some of our large towns the price of gas has gone up 6d. per 1,000 feet. For every corporation and council in this country the question of the contracts for coal and the heavy price that is going to be charged is a problem to be settled. Suppose you have this large increase in the price of coal for gas works, you have this factor: that the same consumers who pay the large increased prices for their domestic consumption have to pay again on the gas rate, in addition to which, in consequence of the price of coal, the profits of the gasworks go down and the rates gain nothing to make up the deficiency. Therefore, looking at it from any point of view, the ramifications of the increased price of coal is a most serious matter for this nation. I should like to make this appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. As Members of Parliament we are asked to go about the country to appeal to the people to save money. I have been asked to go into my own Constituency to do what? In the first place, to ask the people to
    "eat less meat."
    I have to ask them to be
    'careful with your bread"
    and to tell them that the country wants every pound to pay for the War. If this Bill is going to make this enormous charge, which, putting it at the very lowest, comes to £37,000,000, it is not right to extract something like that very large sum from

    1719
    the whole of the community, and, when they have paid it, ask them to save money to contribute to the War Loan. Let me take my own county of Durham. From an estimate of a committee containing some of the most eminent authorities in the county, including one of the largest coal owners, Mr. Arthur Francis Pease, of Darlington, it appears that they say that Durham will produce 33,000,000 tons of coal. If the whole of that is used for home consumption—if it is not so used they will make even a larger profit—we in the county of Durham, the large manufacturers and consumers, will have to pay no less than £6,645,000 extra. That is too large a price for the public to pay to make rich men richer. That is what it comes to. Some colliery owners, as the hon. Member for Mid-Durham said, are already making 40 and 50 percent. I do not say all are doing it. But here you have struggling tradesmen and struggling working men who do not know what to do to make both ends meet, and you are extracting money from them when they cannot extract better prices for themselves. I appeal to the hon. Member for Mansfield, in all seriousness—I am not saying it in any joking spirit, because I look upon this matter as a very serious one—and to all parties in the State, to make their sacrifices. The hon. Member came down to the House to try to save £200,000 a year; he is at it every day. But he is going to make a huge fortune out of this Bill. He has admitted it. We are not all in a position to make these huge fortunes, and if we were, I dispute very much the right of men to come to the House of Commons and protect themselves at the expense of the general community. In my town the price of coal has not increased more than 3s. above what it was last year. This will naturally put it up another shilling, but looking at the prices exacted from the community since last January, this Bill will be a protection to London. I admit it. But I think 4s. is too high, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way, when this appeal is made to him, and when the fact is brought out that this 4s. extra revenue will put something like £37,000,000 a year into the pockets of the coal owners, to agree to the Amendment and fix it at 3s.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am somewhat surprised at the figures which have been used by my hon. Friend. Anyone who has
    1720
    lived in Durham ought not to have been misled in the way he has by stating certain statistics. I do not take any exception to the figures which he has quoted in regard to quantities, but I take the greatest exception to the way in which he has presented his case. He has assumed throughout the whole of his argument that the whole of the coal is going to be raised 4s. a ton He has then gone on the assumption that the whole of the coal raised is going to be subjected to this 4s. increase. As a matter of fact, even if the first assumption is correct the second cannot be correct, at any rate until after the lapse of some years. Take, for instance, one of the largest firms, with which I am associated, in the North of England. My firm, before the War, sold coal for several years ahead, and it has pre-war contracts, some of them not expiring until April, 1917. On none of these contracts is it possible for us to raise the price of coal, and yet the cost of raising it has been very materially raised and will continue, probably, throughout the whole of that period. The cost varies in different collieries. Some are in the best position and have a large quantity of free coal, but the average colliery is making less money now than it did last year, and the amount of free coal available is in most large businesses very small. Take, for instance, one item which my hon. Friend has entirely overlooked, the item of waste. You produce a lot of coal, and you lose 5 per cent, in waste. About another 3 per cent, of your output goes in colliery consumption for your engines and for your workmen. In one district the workmen get their coals free, and we have to pay more for those coals to be raised, and yet we get nothing for them. If you take certain other contracts which have been made for a long time ahead, I can compute, certainly in many instances, that during the next six months not more than 10 to 20 per cent, of the output can get the benefit of the higher price. But the increased cost of 6d., 9d., 1s., 1s. 6d., up to 2s. which operates in these collieries, operates on the whole output of the colliery, and that is the reason why many colliery proprietors at present are losing money on some of their collieries, while on others they are making no more than they were making a year ago. I think these facts ought to be taken into account.
    I want to put this other point to the President of the Board of Trade. The tendency always is, where you have an

    1721
    artificial price to an Act of Parliament, to create both a maximum and a minimum, and in the event of anything of this kind being done, although export coal is going to be limited, in my judgment, and in the opinion of many others who have sold coal for many years, if an artificial price is going to be fixed in regard to coal for home consumption it will have a tendency to operate prejudicially in connection with the export trade, and the export trade will obtain very little advance over and above that limit which has been placed on the coal for home purposes. The result will be that this country, during the period of the War, will be deprived of many millions of pounds in connection with the prices that they will obtain for their exported coal in neutral countries. Information has been supplied to me which dwells very much upon that particular fact, and whilst I agree with the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment that for household purposes it is very desirable to curtail the price which might be charged in regard to the consumers of the country, I think it is a very serious thing if, at a particular juncture like this, the limitation in connection with the whole of the home consumption should be much less than two shillings. Four shillings seems to me to be a fair price if the price is to be limited at all. Further, this is an artificial fixing of price in regard to only one material, produced only by one particular interest. The coal owner and the coal producer will probably have to pay increasing prices for all other commodities during the period of the War, and the cost may increase to a very much greater extent in the future than it has in the past. But, if we are able at any rate to obtain our higher prices, owing to the general demand for this in common with the demand for all other materials, which apparently can be raised to a very much higher price, I am glad to say the workmen will get some benefit in regard to the increased wages which they will get for the average prices realised.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel), who is generally full of statistics, has given us a great many with regard to the food prices which were incorrect, and he has now given us an equally wrong set of figures about the coal trade.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL Mr. J. SAMUEL rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made his speech, and must listen to the answer.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What I said upstairs at the private meeting was that the price of coal had in my own case doubled, and if the colliery owner was able to make a profit of 2s. a ton he had made a fortune, and did very well. The Amendment proposes 3s. I will tell the House exactly how much my cost has gone up. In Wales the cost of timbering has gone up from 100 per cent, to 120 per cent.—from 8d. to 1s. 6d. a ton—and for every ton of coal produced in Glamorganshire the average cost for timber alone is 1s. 6d. In the colliery with which I am connected in Monmouthshire it is 8d. to 10d. a ton, and in some cases over Is. Since the Departmental Committee was set up there has been an advance given to the miners in the federated area of 25 per cent, on the old standard rates of 1889, and, in addition to that, there has been a reduction of output of very nearly 25 per cent., and the net result is that in my own colliery there has been an increase of cost which will necessitate a few collieries going to the President of the Board of Trade and asking for an increase above the 4s. If you take the collieries as a whole throughout the federated area—I am talking of house coal—I do not think the increased cost has been more than 1s. 6d. to 2s. per ton. Perhaps I am on the low side. In some of the older collieries the increase is considerably more. I am giving the House the figures of the best collieries. When you come down to Wales, if you take the price at 3s. it would not really cover the actual increase in the cost of wages and timber, and I do not think, therefore, that the figure of 4s. is an unreasonable one. What I suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this. It is not fair that one class of coal owner in the federated area should, under the provisions of the Bill, make a larger profit than the people in South Wales, and I have therefore urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a pronouncement in the House to-day that he will take all surplus profits made by coal owners. That will get rid of the whole injustice about the 4s. The moderate collieries say, "Why should you, by Act of Parliament, have the power to charge 4s. per ton, which will give you a very substantial profit, while it will yield us very little if any at all?"
    This Bill is brought in not for the purpose of fixing a natural price at which coal is raised in the collieries throughout the United Kingdom. It is brought in to prevent panic prices, to prevent the price of

    1723
    coal being doubled on the consumer as it has in many cases, and the price of 4s. is very little more than the price prevailing in the year 1900, when, although the prices were very high, the miners were not getting anything like what they are asking now. The coal owners and miners between them think the country at large ought to pay any price they fix. The miners have had this addition of 25 per cent., which makes their wages 90 per cent, above the standard, and in addition to that they will be entitled directly to another 20 per cent.—that is, in the federated area. I cannot think it is right that we should have one large trade union which is able to exercise great pressure on the community, or that either coal owners or miners, or both together, should be able to force on the general community a high rate of wage in a time of national danger, and if the President of the Board of Trade could in some way introduce into the Bill a provision that there should be no further increase, either on the part of the owners or of the men, I think that would certainly meet the views of the miners themselves. The miners in the federated area have this 25 per cent, and they are perfectly satisfied, and they are the last men to desire to ask for any further increase of wages, although they are entitled to it, and if the price of coal goes up they will have it. Therefore I think it would have been better if my right hon. Friend had introduced, after the word "increased" the words "or decreased." There are certain classes of mine in which he might well have made the prices lower than they will be under this Bill.
    I did not know that an Amendment had been moved to that effect. I have endeavoured to do my best to protect the consumer. I think we ought to do that. It is the desire of everybody in the House to do so. However, when the hon. Member for Stockton gives these figures of immense profits, I can assure him that it is not so. If lie will take the trouble to come to my house, I will show him the cost of the collieries with which I am connected, and he will see that they are actually making to-day, some of them, less money than they were making at this time last year. I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that when the taxation comes for the profits of last year it will be found that the collieries in 1914 made less money than they did in 1913.
    Mr. O'GRADY: In Command Paper 7866 it will be found that the sum of 3s. is mentioned there. That was the reason that induced the Members with whom I associate on these benches to suggest the sum of 3s., and also the fact that the President of the Board of Trade in his speech on the Second Beading mentioned that figure. We would not like to have the figure so fixed that it would endanger the position of the miners' wages. To be quite frank with the House, I may say that the miners themselves have agreed upon the figure 4. At the same time we want the public to know that they are not agreeing to that for the purpose of increasing the cost of coal to the ordinary consumer, whether industrial or domes-tie. All things considered, the view taken by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) and myself, and those who sit upon these benches, is that really 3s. is a fair price to put in the Bill for the extra cost the mine owners have been involved in since the War started. I was really appalled by the astounding figures the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) gave us. The mind reels at the millions with which he treated us. I am inclined to think that upon investigation they will turn out to be very wide of the mark. He gave the President of the Board of Trade some figures, and if these figures which he has now given us are like those he gave to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think they will stand the test of investigation. As between the figure of 2s., which the hon. Member suggests, and the figure of 4s. in the Bill, I think that from the information that we possess in the Departmental Committee's Report, and from the information that the President of the Board of Trade himself possesses, we ought to compromise the question and accept the 3s. contained in our Amendment.
    Sir J. WALTON: If the figures given by the hon. Member for Stockton were true, all I can say is, advocating as I have done, in season and out of season, as a coal owner, that the whole extra profits ought to be taken by a war levy and put into the National Exchequer, I would gladly welcome his figures because of the grand haul the National Treasury would receive. What we are concerned with, however, is to try to ascertain what addition to the price of 1913–14 would at present be fair. Personally, I do not desire that collieries should make one penny piece more money during the War than they made in the

    1725
    year ending 30th June, 1914. What are the facts? We have heard from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) that there is a great variation in the effect of war conditions upon collieries in different districts, and on different collieries in the same district. At his large new collieries, working coal close to the shaft, with gloriously thick seams and enormous output, he is working under the most favourable conditions of any colliery owner in the world. Not only that, but whereas our output has been diminished through the patriotism of our men going to serve their King and country to the number of 230,000, and our output is down 38 to 40 per cent., the hon. Member told me the other day that owing to the big wages the men got at his pits—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: We have taken them from Yorkshire.
    Sir J. WALTON: The men have kept to their work, and that has practically brought the output up to the figure it was before the War began. That is a magnificent result. The hon. Member knows, however, as well as I do, that a great many of the old collieries in the country are not so favourably situated as his. Let us take the case of the diminution of output. That, in some cases, has increased the cost of coal over 1s. a ton to my own personal knowledge. In some collieries we are heavily watered, and we have the great cost of pumping on a largely reduced output. Then there is 120 per cent, more to be paid for timber. In addition, there are enormously increased costs in charges to pay for steel, iron, and engineering work, which is by no means a small item in connection with colliery undertakings. You have an increased price to pay for these things, and everything else that is needed in that way. There is an increased price to be paid for oils, and colliery stores of all sorts. The total of these increased costs represent a substantial increase in the cost of coal per ton. Not only have you that enormous increase due to diminished output, higher pumping charges, etc., but you have in many cases old collieries working thin seams with bad roofs, which entail extra timbering, and, as I have remarked, timber is 120 per cent, more costly than it was before the War.
    What evidence have I personally of what is the real increase of cost in producing coal to-day as compared with twelve months ago? I have the personal knowledge that
    1726
    I possess of the costs at collieries in Durham and Northumberland, which I receive monthly. In the majority of these collieries I do not hesitate to say that, owing to war conditions, the cost has gone up in some cases 3s. 6d. and in other cases over 4s. per ton. I have a letter from a large group of colliery owners in the county of Durham, which says:—
    "The figure proposed by Mr. Runciman's Bill, namely 4s., is in the opinion of myself, and several other coal owners in this district, totally inadequate to meet the extra cost occasioned by the shortage of labour, thereby considerably reducing the output, the high price of materials, and the advance of wages which has already taken place."
    An HON. MEMBER: Take 10s.!
    Sir J. WALTON: An hon. Member says I should make it 10s. I only want to make it what it is really. I only want to show what is the increased cost to-day as compared with twelve months ago. In connection with collieries I am interested in I am prepared, if the Board of Trade desires it, to have the exact figures taken out, and to abide by them, as to the increased price I should be allowed to have compared with 1913–14. I have here a letter from South Wales:—
    "The 4s. per ton advance allowed on the price obtained in 1913–14 in many cases will not meet the increased cost, and, unless the colliery affected is to be run at a loss, it will mean confining its operations for shipment and shutting off the home trade. This move, Mr. Pretyman said, will be met by the Licensing Committee. I frankly cannot see bow this will work smoothly, when you work out the details and how they operate."
    I have another letter from Newport, Wales, in which I am told that there is another point that ought not to be overlooked. The bulk of the coal of Wales is exported, and it is "anticipated that very high prices will be realised for it. The miners' wages are regulated on the selling prices, and the smaller collieries in South Wales, which do not export but sell for home consumption, are likely in the near future to have their wages bills considerably increased by being lumped together in the taking of the average prices in Wales with the great exporting collieries that are obtaining much higher prices. In this letter my correspondent foresees great difficulty for the small collieries who must face this still further increase in wages. I do not know whether the settlement so happily arrived at in South Wales disposes of that matter or not for the duration of the War and for six months afterwards. I hope it does. This letter from Wales also points out that the cost of these smaller collieries in Wales have gone up to an extent that justifies the 4s. increase per

    1727
    ton proposed in the Bill, and suggests that if they have further increases in wages to pay they ought to be allowed to add them to the 4s. I have a similar communication from Yorkshire. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) always takes things good-humouredly, and I would tell him that when I spoke of the Ishmael of the coal trade that it was a quotation from a letter of a friend of his that I have. We all know that he has the honesty and courage of his convictions, and we welcome his intervention in every Debate. In the letter I have received from Yorkshire this outspoken Yorkshireman says:—
    "Obviously this Bill is being engineered by Sir A. Markham to benefit his thick scam pits, and to standardise the coal from them. The Government are being hoodwinked, but I am sure if they pass this Bill there will be a rude awakening for them."
    The hon. Baronet, however, treats all criticism in that light genial way which he has. In conclusion, I maintain that the proposals in the Bill are fair as a whole, though it will give the hon. Member for Mansfield increased profits at his collieries and will give me no corresponding profit. So long as he continues to advocate and give his powerful influence in favour of our joint project of taking the whole of the excess profits for the Treasury, then I agree to the passing of the Bill in its present form.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend (Sir J. Walton) suggest that this Bill will bring no profits at all, but will leave a good deal of profit to the hon. Member for Mansfield, and then to add, as a corollary, that he is in favour of the heavy taxation of war profits. It appears to me that both my hon. Friends are prepared to agree to schemes which will see that the profits made by the other go somehow into the National Exchequer, without accruing to those with whom they are associated. They have both discussed in a good-humoured way the Amendment before us, and have thrown some light upon the increased cost to which collieries have been put during the last twelve months. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that any figures that are produced for individual collieries can be taken as typical of the whole trade. For instance, the deep collieries of my hon. Friend in South Yorkshire are new and have many advantages over some of the older pits. There are many of the older pits in Monmouthshire, the Midlands, and Scotland where the costs are particularly high. There are,
    1728
    however, none of these that you can take as typical of the whole. The only way you can arrive at any figures likely to be at all just is by taking the averages of sample collieries over very large areas. The fact that there has been a large rise in wages for miners all over Great Britain has in itself had a considerable effect upon the increased cost of getting coal. The war bonus had added in the federated area 15½ per cent, on current wages. It is better to take current wages than the old standard. As far as one can tell, that in the federated area means an addition for that area of about 1s. a ton. It is somewhere in that region, but it varies, of course, between colliery and colliery, but that is on the average the amount of the rise. You have also to take into account the fact that the amount that is consumed for colliery purposes remains pretty much the same, and there is consumption of coal for other purposes which does not leave as large a proportion free for sale as formerly when the output was up to the maximum. It is probable that 1s. 2d. per ton would not be an unfair amount to take in the federated area in respect of the increased charge caused by the war bonus. Then it is 17½ per cent, on the basis rate in South Wales, which must have added something over a shilling a ton—I am now taking an average again—to the cost of getting coal in South Wales. In Scotland 18½ per cent, was added on the standard. I forget what that means on the current wages.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Nincpence a day.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I can gather, from the calculations which we have been able to make, this would mean that the increased cost in Scotland of the war bonus could not have come to much more on the average than about 8d. a ton. In Cumberland and Scotland and the Forest of Dean, there have also been other increases as well as those which they have suffered under the war bonus. In Cumberland there was an increase of 2½ per cent, on the standard because of the increased selling price of coal. In Scotland the increase recently given under the arbitration of Sir George Askwith, came to about 12½ per cent, on the standard. It would be roughly another 5d., as far as we can make out, on the coal owners. So that in Scotland the increased cost in wages alone works out at something in the region of 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. The House will

    1729
    observe that I do not give precise figures, because precise figures would be misleading. I am afraid that it would be impossible to have quite precise figures, but the amount is somewhere in that region. In the case of the Forest of Dean the increases have amounted to 25 per cent, on the standard, which is, as far as I can gather, something like 1s. 6d. additional on the output in that district. In all that I have given the averages. It is only fair to say that in the case of every one of these coal-fields there will be a great many collieries where the increase is above the average, and in many others which are more fortunate, so far as cost is concerned, it will be less. We cannot leave that out of account, but it would not be an unfair estimate to allow 1s. 6d. or thereabouts as added to the cost of getting coal throughout the United Kingdom since the War began. The figures that were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds were quoted from a Command Paper which was issued some time ago before any of these increases were given. Therefore the figure would have to be increased if only the addition were made for the extra wages which have been granted, I might point out, to the men by agreement.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The figure is not a pit-mouth figure, but includes the whole of the additional charges.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite true, and therefore it is scarcely applicable to the calculation which we are now attempting to make up. But, apart from wages, there are other elements of increased cost. More than once reference has been made to the shortage of pit props, which have gone up in price. Scarcely anything has fluctuated more, perhaps, during the last twelve months than pit props. Sometimes we have had an increased supply, say, from the South of France, which I may say we have obtained largely with the assistance of the French Government. Sometimes we have had unexpected shipments from Portugal. Arrangements have been made, though not very much has come of them up to the present, for an increased supply of pit wood from Canada and Newfoundland, but until these come forward the necessity of collieries providing them is so urgent that they have had to pay abnormal prices in order to induce shipments to be made to this country at all. I find it extremely difficult to arrive at anything like a fair calculation as to what the increased cost of pit wood will have come to—it varies so much in individual collieries. In
    1730
    some of the coal-fields a much larger proportion of wood must of necessity be used for the amount of coal that is raised. In those cases the increased cost of pit wood is a very powerful factor in affecting the cost of getting the coal. In others more fortunately placed, and in some districts in England and Scotland, they have been able to lay their hands on a home supply, of which I regret there is not more, and that has relieved the burden thrown on them. In the matters of pit wood and the cost of fodder, oils, and all sorts of materials which are requisite for machinery, illuminations and light, there have been a great many additions made to the standard charges, and all these bring up, as far as we can tell, the cost of material since the War began to something again in the region of 1s. 6d. It is above that in the case of some collieries and below it in the case of others.
    Then you have to add something for increased expense owing to lower output. There are all sorts of standing charges which must of necessity go on. You have got to keep ways open and in. good order, and the pumping must be conducted exactly the same as it was before. Interest and capital charges remain exactly the same as before. In addition, all these standing charges must be spread over a very much lower tonnage. In some cases the drop in the output has been as much as 20 per cent. The average, I am glad to say, is not more than about 10 per cent. But in some districts it has been very heavy, and in those districts where it has been very heavy the increased burden per ton, measured by tonnage, thrown on these collieries has, of course, been proportionately increased, and we have therefore reached something over 3s. In many cases I fear that the increased cost of getting the coal has been considerably more than 3s. Instances have been put before me in which the increased cost of getting the coal has been over 4s. It will, however, be unfair to take these extreme cases for the standard price which we put into the Bill. On the other hand, I think that it is quite clear from these average calculations which have been drawn out with as great care as our statisticians have been able to apply that to put in 3s. would mean that actually in this Bill we should be facing the coal owners with a definite loss prescribed by Act of Parliament. This has a further effect. My hon. Friends below the Gangway, who

    1731
    have proposed that the figure should be 3s. and not 4s. are leaving out of account the fact that in a great many of the colliery districts wages have already been increased and there has been an increased cost on the selling price of coal of above 3s.
    Mr. ANDERSON: You have power under this Bill to increase the price of coal where the circumstances warrant an increase.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That argument is leaving out of account the exceptional power. If you take an average of the whole, you must take the average as the standard of price. But if you are to use that exceptional power of departing from the standard of price and accept the adjudication of the Board of Trade, it would be much better to leave to the Board of Trade altogether the complete regulation of the matter, as indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side has said.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It will be better than this Bill.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that of the Board of Trade. But at all events I was not prepared to throw on my Department the whole burden of dealing with the matter simply on appeals. I am not egotistical enough to think that I would be allowed to do this. If I were to ask the House of Commons to take 3s. it would definitely let the average collieries of Great Britain in for loss. That would have been grossly unfair, and it would also besides have complicated wages calculations and have had a detrimental national effect. This was pointed out by one hon. Gentleman—I forget for the moment who it was. There are a great many colliery districts where there is a choice of selling abroad and selling at home. The Coal Exports Committee does check to some extent the undue selling of coal abroad—that is to say, selling coal abroad to such an extent as absolutely to deprive the home market of coal which we must have here. But if we definitely put into this Bill a figure which would impose a loss on the collieries, so long as the Bill was in force, it would not be a choice as between selling coal at home and abroad, but it would mean that the collieries would find it better not to get the coal up to the surface at all rather than be under the provisions of this Bill. As far as any such
    1732
    districts who would only raise coal to sell abroad are concerned, nothing that can be done by the Coal Export Committee would be sufficient to force the coal into use in places where we need it for certain uses, if a Statute with that provision were imposed on these collieries.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by extra loss? Does he mean that the profits have been reduced or that the cost of production is greater than the amount received by sale?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It really depends very largely on the collieries. A great many collieries last year made no profit at all. The average certainly did make profits, but it would put them in such a position—when I speak of loss, I mean more loss apparently than absolutely in substance—it would put them in such a position as to make it not worth their while to raise the coal for home consumption if the figure of 3s. were put in.
    Sir C. CORY: A number of collieries last year actully lost, not in comparison with previous profits, but they received less than what it cost to raise the coal.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite true. Still, I am afraid that we must deal with the average, taking neither the exceptionally good case nor the exceptionally bad case, and what I have tried to do is to put in the figure that is fair. I am sure that the Committee will be well advised to arrive at a figure which is fair, taking all the increased cost of working into account, rather than to attempt to make this a penal provision without there being a corresponding benefit. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. Samuel), that every extra shilling added to the price of coal in this country would mean that the consumers would have to pay over £9,000,000 extra, is quite correct. The exact figure is somewhere in the region of £9,250,000, but the whole of that does not go, and, owing to the increased cost of getting coal, cannot go into the pockets of the coal owner I feel sure that my hon. Friend, when he talked of 4s. representing something like £37,000,000 extra expense to the consumers in this country, could not have meant that the whole of that went into the pockets of the coal owner. It has gone in the price of materials and extra wages very largely. Some of it must go as extra profit in many cases, but I believe that on the average this is

    1733
    the fairest figure which we can adopt, and I must remind the Committee that when the Committee was sitting upstairs looking into the matter they arrived, not at 4s., but 4s. 3d. I have taken a more severe view of the situation than they have, and have left out the 3d. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept the figure inserted in the Bill without feeling that they are giving the coal owners undue profit, and that, all those things which I have mentioned being taken into account, they will agree that the 4s. is a fair sum, which will not act to the detriment of the consumer, and will not give the coal owner a greater profit than he is entitled to, and will not disturb the arrangements which have been made as to wages, which would certainly occur if the figure in the Bill were reduced to 3s.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In this case we have had, on one side, the voice of the coal owner, who, of course, is seeking the highest figure possible, and, on the other hand, we have seen the attitude of the Labour party. In this matter the Labour party and the coal party are, to some extent, in one boat, and therefore the Committee has not the protection which it has under ordinary circumstances, when we have not the Labour party what is called attacking capital. Here, we are, so far as wages are concerned, deprived of the protection of labour opinion, because the Labour party well know that if they were to oppose some such proposal as is now made it would be said that they were going against the advance of wages. Therefore the Labour party and the coal party are in one boat in this matter. But I say, with great respect, that the fact of the Labour party being ready to fix the amount at 3s. instead of 4s. gives the ignorant man, whom I represent, a beacon light. If the Labour party, with all their interest in the advance of wages, have fixed 3s. as the maximum which would give the coal owner complete power to raise wages up to the labour standard without loss, then I say that the ignorant man whom I represent may well express the hope that the Labour party will go to a Division in support of 3s., and I shall have satisfaction in voting with the Labour party for a sum sufficient to raise wages, and to compensate them for the prices to which the War has driven many of the necessaries of life. Will the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment go to a Division? I hope he will.
    1734
    Whenever the question of coal is raised, I think what is called the ingle-nook point of view is the one that should be considered. I complain strongly that no attempt has been made to separate the qualities of coal—namely, household coal and steam coal. As regards steam coal the man who is charged, in my opinion, has the protection that, to a large extent, he can "pass it on," to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he tried to double the tax on beer or whisky. Of course, gas companies and electric companies, whose prices are fixed by Statute, cannot pass it on; but if you take steel, iron, cotton, or any other article in which coal largely enters into the price, they can to an enormous extent pass it on. The man who has not that protection is the ordinary man who buys three, four, five, or even twenty-five tons, of coal in a year. Why is not his case considered? It has received no consideration; yet he is the person with whom I, and I think the House, very largely sympathise. What is the effect of this Bill? In many cases in Ireland £2 a ton is being charged for coal—that is to say, that the poor are being charged that amount for coal. In some cases I have heard that £2 5s. and £2 6s. a ton is charged. What increases the price of coal to these people? The price is talked up; it is talk that raises the price of coal; we hear of Stock Exchange prices being talked up. This Bill may be an excuse for further talk to raise the price of coal to poor men in distant parts of the country. For my part as between 4s. and 3s. I should gladly vote for 3s. I heard the speech of the late Minister of Education (Mr. Pease), who referred to long-running contracts to those people who made contracts for years at 5s. and 6s. I should like to see some of those contracts. The persons most interested in making them are gas companies and electric companies, but they all say that they have not made such contracts, and they ask that the price of gas and electricity should be raised. Some of them are raising their prices.
    With whom are these long contracts running? We are not told, and they have not condescended to speak of them. I hope that a Division will represent the sense of this House as regards what I call the ordinary poor consumer. I have only given in this House one vote which I have ever regretted, and it was when I was persuaded by the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to

    1735
    vote for repealing the Coal Duties. I have always regretted it. Any question in relation to coal is one which should interest this House more than any other and should be most carefully scrutinised. If ever justification was wanted for the nationalisation of an industry, or the application to it of socialistic principles, it is found in the question of this prime element of public and private existence. Therefore I want this Amendment to go to a Division, and the coal owners should at all events consent to allow themselves to suffer in the same way as every other man in the community suffers. The story that collieries are run at a loss I disbelieve. If I had a colliery running at a loss I should shut it up, and I am sure that I would represent ordinary human nature and Christian principles in doing so. Therefore, my humble opinion is that tall talk, booming, newspaper puffery, and the important position of colliery proprietors in this House, have largely accounted for the price of coal that in distant parts of the country the people are paying.
    I have great respect for the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham), who spoke of the patriotism of miners who have gone to the front. It is quite true, and I do not think that there is anything more remarkable than the way in which they have come forward, and in many cases they make most efficient soldiers. But why reward the patriotism of the miners at the front by increasing the wages of the miners who have not gone to the front? I disbelieve in this Bill, I dislike it, and I believe the better plan would be to put in no figure, not out of any extraordinary confidence in the President of the Board of Trade, but if no figure was mentioned you would not give a foothold for an increase to 4s. I do not think it would be right, in referring to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield, if I did not say that I believe that every time he rises he is actuated by unselfish and patriotic motives, and, though I have sometimes come in conflict with him, I submit that he is entitled to have that opinion expressed. I think he has done nothing to raise the price of coal; I think his attitude throughout has been fair and honest; and I am quite certain that if his advice were harkened to at the Board of Trade and the War Office things would be rather better for the country.
    Mr. A DAMSON: I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork,
    1736
    who, in the course of his observations, stated that, the Labour party having proposed that the amount should be 3s. instead of 4s., he was prepared to support them. The Amendment we are discussing at the present moment is not the Amendment of the Labour party, but has been put forward on the personal responsibility of the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). Doubtless the hon. and learned Member for Cork was led into the error owing to the mistake made by my hon. Friend who spoke on this Amendment. The Labour party, the representatives of the miners in that party, are not concerned about increasing the coal owners' profits to an enormous extent, as has been stated by some hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate. The Committee should bear in mind that there are the men's profits which enter into the selling price of coal; the miners' wages enter into the selling price of coal as well as the profits of the coal owners; and while the miners have no desire to take advantage of their fellow countrymen in any respect, I do not think it will be denied in any part of the House that the cost of living has been increased for miners as well as for other sections of the community, and the cost of living having been increased for miners, they are entitled to get an increase in their wages wherewith to meet the increased cost of living.
    The increased cost of living is one that bears on miners equally heavily with other sections of the community. The miner has to get the wherewithal to meet this increased cost of living, and it is bound to come on the selling price of coal. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in the course of his very able speech, in the increased cost of producing coal the increase in miners' wages represents a fairly substantial part of the amount which is put in the Bill. I do not exactly agree with him as to the figures, still at the same time I agree that the increase in miners' wages represents a fairly substantial portion of the increase provided for in the Bill. I only intervene for the purpose of pointing out that if the hon. Member for Cork or any other Member of this House support this Amendment under the idea that it is brought forward by the Labour party, they are making a mistake. It is not put forward by the Labour party, but by one who happens to be a member of the Labour party.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I listened with attention to the President of the

    1737
    Board of Trade to see whether he could justify the figure of 4s., and when I found that the increased cost of production came to about 3s. I arrived at the conclusion that 3s. should be the sum put down in the Bill. We have had the argument from those who know of the working of old and new collieries, that there are some where the increase of cost would be more than 3s., but there are many others where the increase is very much less. There is, however, a provision in any case where the increase is more that the Board of Trade may set down a figure. I am quite sure any representations from any colliery where the cost of production was more than 3s. would be considered fairly by the Board of Trade. There is not, how-
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "class of" ["any class of coal mines"], and to insert instead thereof the words "coal mine, or."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent the Board of Trade taking a whole district and classifying the mines in it,
    ever, the slightest doubt that if the 4s. is reduced to 3s. there will be a saving to the consumer of the country of £9,000,000 per year. If the figure is not reduced, we do not know whether the extra 1s. will go into the pockets of the colliery owners, or the workmen. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will share it."] I doubt but that that extra 1s. will nearly all go into the pockets of the coal owners. If the hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Amendment will go to a Division, he will find me at any rate in the Lobby with him.
    Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 33.

    Division No. 8.]

    AYES.

    [7.33 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hinds, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Banner, Sir John S, Harmood

    Hogge, James Myles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bellairs, Commander W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Keating, Matthew

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Boyton, James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Brace, William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Brunner. John F. L.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, Rt. Hon. George

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

    Morgan, George Hay

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Nield, Herbert

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Partington, Oswald

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    E. Talbot and Mr. Gulland.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    NOES.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Radford, George Heynes

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Clough, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Snowden, Philip

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    King, Joseph

    Thomas, James Henry

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Wardle, George J

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Dixon, C. H,

    O'Grady, James

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Anderson and Mr. Pratt.

    as being outside the provisions of the Act with regard to the 4s. I do not think the Board of Trade ought to exempt any mine from having to charge 4s., unless the mine could prove that it was losing money. Otherwise the President of the Board of Trade might take, for instance, West Yorkshire, where there

    1739
    are a number of poor mines, and say, "I am going to exempt the whole of the mines in that district." That would be manifestly unfair, because there are a number of mines in that district which make far more money in proportion to the capital invested than in other parts of Yorkshire. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: One of the difficulties by which we are faced is that, I am told, the number of applications we shall have from collieries, in order that they may have exemption, will be considerable. I think it is very much better if we can to take an area. Any idea of taking a whole district, like West Yorkshire, and excluding it altogether from the operations of the Bill, was far from my mind. On the other hand, to take the Amendment would mean that any individual mine in any individual area might be subject to the exemption we should be asked to give. It is better on the whole that the class of mine should be kept together than individual mines taken. Unless my hon. Friend feels that there is a strong point in this, I would rather the opening was not given for appeals to be made by individual mines in order to gain exemption from the provisions of the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "increased" ["should be increased"], to insert the words "or decreased."
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. According to the Bill, where the circumstances are quite exceptional, the standard rate may be increased, but even if there be exceptional circumstances in the other direction, the standard rate cannot be increased. If the matter holds good in one way, it ought to hold good in the other. The right hon. Gentleman told us of very considerable fluctuations, but they are not all in one direction. They are not all upwards, they go downward as well. Where the fluctuations are of a character to justify a smaller figure, it should be possible to do so. It is from that standpoint I move, so that the figure can be decreased as well as increased.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I am afraid that this Amendment really goes beyond the scope of the Bill. The amount four shillings, which has just been approved by the Committee, has been fixed after the most careful consideration of the extra expenses, as to which the President of the Board of Trade has given the details; and this provision is meant to deal only with very exceptional cases of particular districts, such, for instance, as the Kentish coal mines referred to by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), and possibly other districts where the conditions are quite exceptional and the expenses are very heavy. I do not think my hon. Friend can point to any one district or any one class of mines with which this Bill deals where it could be suggested that on the whole the expense of raising coal, including wages and all the other items of expenditure, would be so much less than the figure already approved as to justify the Board of Trade in interfering to suggest a decreased figure. This is really a maximum figure. As regards particular mines, I think it is obvious that a particular mine in a district will have its price fairly regulated by the price at which its neighbours are prepared to sell. This is a maximum price fixed for the time being, and so far as any figure below the maximum is concerned, every mine will be open as before to competition in the market. If in any particular district a mine has particular advantages, I do not think it would be possible to interfere with that mine in this respect, because the price would be regulated by the competition of its neighbours. Therefore, on the whole, I do not think that this Amendment would be of any particular advantage.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I fail to follow fully the contention raised by the Secretary to the Board of Trade. The fact that the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division voted in the "No" Lobby in the Division a few minutes ago clearly indicates that he is of opinion that there are a number of mines where a less increase than 4s. is possible. It is clearly the opinion of a gentleman responsible for the management of a considerable portion of the coal-fields in the Midlands that there are circumstances which would warrant a reduction from the maximum. If the Secretary to the Board of Trade rightly contends that there are no such cases, then the Amendment would not operate. All that the

    1741
    Amendment does is to place it within the power of the Board of Trade, if such circumstances do arise, to give the consumers any advantage that can be given from the fact that there are not so many expenses associated with the getting of the coal as have been contended. Therefore, as no harm would be done by the giving of this additional power, I suggest that the matter should be considered between now and Report, if we do not press the Amendment on the present occasion.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is hardly fair to blame the Secretary to the Board of Trade for not accepting this Amendment. What has happened is that the President has left the House, and the hon. Gentleman thinks it better in his absence to stick to the Bill. He is really only tiding us over until the President returns. I would suggest that the matter might be dealt with on the Report stage. The Committee has undoubtedly shown by its vote in the recent Division that in the opinion of many Members 4s. is too high. Why, then, should not power be taken enabling the Board of Trade to reduce the figure if that opinion is shown to be well founded? This measure will remain in force not merely for the period of the War but for six months afterwards. Supposing these great pit profits come down with a run, and that wages, elsewhere than in South Wales, do the same, you are still to stick to your 4s. We simply ask the Government to take power to do justice; but they say, "No; under our inspirational system we, the Popes of the coal trade, have fixed upon the infallible figure of 4s., and under no circumstances will we consent to allow that figure to be reduced." I hope that between now and the Report stage the hon. Gentleman will represent to his chief that this is a reasonable Amendment. It hurts nobody; it can do no harm; it may possibly do good. This coal business is hitting the people more than taxes; it is felt in every hearth and home in the country. I believe that one of the tests at the next General Election will be the side on which Members voted, the 4s. or the 3s., and the man who voted on the 3s. side will be likely to get the vote. I hope the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) will raise the matter again on Report.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite appreciate the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and while I think the decision of the Government can be defended on its merits, I will certainly make the representation
    1742
    which he suggests, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will carefully read what he has said. But I must again emphasise the point that this is not a Bill for fixing prices for coal.
    Mr. HEALY: We say that it is.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No. If we debate the Bill on that basis, we shall debate it on a wrong basis, and take up a great deal of time which might be better spent. This is merely a Bill for fixing a maximum and to prevent panic prices in the coming winter and under circumstances which may arise after the War. If we were to attempt to make this a Bill really to regulate prices, the contention in this Amendment would, I think, be answerable. If it were the business of the Board of Trade to regulate from day to day or from month to month the prices at which coal should be sold at the pit's mouth, giving just the proper modicum of profit to the producer, and at the same time seeing that the consumer got fair treatment, all these points would have to be gone into most carefully. But we do not profess to do anything of the kind. We could not ask the House of Commons to deal with a Bill of that description in one short afternoon. The hon. and learned Member should take the Bill on its merits as put forward by the Government, and not as a much more ambitious scheme to which he might most justly apply his acute and critical mind. In war time we have to divest ourselves of a large proportion of our ordinary peace principles in the discussion of these matters. In peace you are passing a Bill for all time, and you have to consider its effect to-day, to-morrow, and in years to come. Here, we are not doing anything of the kind. We simply ask the House of Commons to enable us to fix a limit which shall be, not the best price for coal, but a maximum beyond which coal cannot be sold during the period in question. To attempt to fix the proper price of coal at any given moment would be straining the Bill altogether beyond its proper ambit and take us into a region which the Government refuses to enter. If the hon. and learned Member will treat the Bill merely as one fixing a maximum price, I think he will see that I am justified in refusing the Amendment on its merits.
    Sir A. MOND: I am rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Gentleman that this Bill does not fix coal prices.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It fixes the maximum price.
    Sir A. MOND: The maximum price will be the price. You not only take power to fix the maximum price at 4s., but you take power to increase the 4s., so that you have not even a fixed maximum. As I understand the Amendment, it does not affect the principle of the Bill; it simply says that, as you take power to increase the 4s., you may as well have power to diminish the 4s. I think that that is only fair. I voted for the 4s. because I thought, on the information given by the Board of Trade and other information which I have received, that on the average 4s. is not an unreasonable figure. But there are certainly a number of cases where 4s. would be unreasonable. After all, the right hon. Gentleman must have fixed his 4s. on some basis. I take it that it was fixed on the consideration that it fairly covered the increased cost of production. Why, in cases where it can be clearly established that 4s. is excessive, the Government should not have power to say that 3s. would be a reasonable maximum, I cannot understand. That is a very different question from fixing the price. The Government ought not to refuse a power which it may possibly be wise to exercise in the future.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I understand that one of the chief reasons why the Board of Trade fixed 4s. was that they took into consideration advances of wages, the increased cost of props, which represent a considerable item in the cost of production of coal, and other expenses. Once we get the Baltic open it will make a considerable difference to the price of props. The closing of the Baltic has increased the price of props by more than 50 per cent. Once we get the Baltic open, the price of props will come down by at least 25 per cent. That, I think, is one reason why this Amendment should be accepted.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROCH: I really had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have accepted this Amendment. I quite appreciate the fact that, owing to convention, he does not, perhaps, like to do so in the absence of his chief. But really the right hon. Gentleman talked about the magic figure of 4s., and said that it was the magic figure which had been agreed upon by the House. I think he missed the point which was the object of this particular Amendment. That magic figure is fixed, but it can be altered in an upward tendency, and therefore the force of that argument as to its magic falls to the ground. All that this
    1744
    Amendment asks is that in case circumstances are altered, that which applies to the upward tendency shall equally apply to the downward tendency, if a case is made out for it. Pit props, I think, show from 100 to 120 per cent, increase in price. It is quite possible that circumstances may arise in which that price might be considerably lower, and that you get back to the normal price. I do think the Amendment would not have done the slightest harm to this Bill. It would have given the Board of Trade a power which in some cases would have been of some value. It would do no harm to give the matter some consideration. I hope something in the direction desired may be done between now and the Report stage.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: As to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said with regard to the opening of the Baltic, that will only take place when the War is over. Apart from that, I really cannot follow the arguments about this Amendment. Certainly I should have preferred that there should have been no question of altering the 4s. at all—either higher or lower. I do not see the object of it. Competition fixes the price. Whatever the Government may say, a man will not get any more for it, because he will have the competition of everyone else. To suggest—it has been suggested—that because there may be some exceptional cases that this should be done is, I think, wrong. I do not know anybody who is getting so much for his coal that he will ask for a decrease.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I quite agree with, the last remark that it is unlikely that any colliery owner will ask for a decrease in the price of his coal. But that is not the point. The point is that of giving the Board of Trade wider powers than they possess at present. They have got the powers, where circumstances justify it, to increase the price. We are merely asking that, where circumstances are such that there is no right to that increase, that the Board of Trade, obviously, shall be able to consider the reduction of the figure. I think that is entirely reasonable, and I am astonished really that opposition to this has come from the Front Bench. It almost appears as if they had made up their minds in advance that nothing put forward by any Member of the House should be accepted or have a chance. There ought to be some discretion given to Members of this House, and there ought not to be this refusal to

    1745
    any proposal, however reasonable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the President of the Board of Trade that practically every speech made on this matter has been in favour of this proposal, and I hope that before the Report stage the Government will see that the matter is reconsidered. If I get that undertaking, I will not press the Amendment any further at the present.
    Sir C. CORY:As has been pointed out, this is a maximum based on the average of the increased cost at the different collieries. Some collieries have been shown where the cost is more than 4s. There may be some where it is less than 4s. So far as the provision of the Bill goes, if a mining district shows that it is working at a loss, those concerned may go to the Board of Trade for an increase. I consider this of no value at all, and for this reason: If they get their increase they dare not, and cannot, obtain the increase from the buyer. If their neighbours are selling at 4s. and they ask 5s., how on earth can they got it? There is no value in this Clause of the Bill, and I certainly think it would be unfair to put in the decrease. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea said if you have a maximum people will necessarily always charge the maximum. I know from experience that is not so. Very often a maximum is fixed, and people, owing to competition, go below the maximum. People in business take business at a considerable loss owing to competition and in order to get customers. It is quite conceivable that under the Bill the same thing may happen, and they will sell under 4s. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his Clause. So far as the Baltic is concerned, if it is opened, I do not think it will very materially decrease the cost of pit-props. The increased cost does not come from that. Most of our pit-props are now coming from Bordeaux and Bayonne districts; besides which we have some from Norway. The increased cost is not due so much to the difficulty in getting the wood as it is to the increase in freights. This is due to the withdrawal of steamers from the freight market, whilst many of our steamers have been sunk and others have been taken over by the Admiralty.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert,
    "(3) In every contract for the sale of coal at the pit's mouth under which such
    1746
    coal has been sold but not delivered at the time of the passing of this Act it shall be an implied term that the price of such coal shall not exceed the lawful price as determined by this Act, and any disputes arising there from shall be submitted to the Board of Trade for determination in accordance-with the Board of Trade Arbitrations, etc., Act, 1874."
    I think it will be generally agreed by the House that this Amendment is probably the one of most consequence on the Paper. Without it the Bill, from the point of view of the household consumer and from the point of view of authorities which have large undertakings—large gas and electricity works—will be valueless. The right hon. Gentleman in charge on the Front Bench described the Bill as an effort which was not ambitious. That is its failing. It is not sufficiently ambitious. If the Board of Trade, at the outbreak of the War, had accepted responsibility for the coal-mines as they did for the railways a good many of our present-day difficulties would not have arisen. Unless this Amendment be accepted many of the contracts, representing probably about 70 per cent, of the output in the next year, will not be touched by this Bill. It will mean that for the greater part the people, with whose interests at least I am particularly concerned, will get no benefit from the Bill. I imagine that most of the contracts have been determined and fixed up recently, extending possibly for a year; but if we cannot touch those which arc-concerned with future supplies, then this Bill will have failed in its primary object.
    I agree that we can scarcely hope to touch supplies of coal already delivered. The complications would be such as to render that practically impossible. But in the matter of coal yet to be delivered it would appear to me, in view of the special circumstances which now exist, that it would be the correct thing for the House to touch the sacred law of contract. Normally, of course, it would not be suggested that contracts legally entered into should be broken—particularly by the House of Commons; but the circumstances are so special and extraordinary that we should, in my view, undertake powers under this Bill to protect the interests of those who are most keenly hit by this enormous rise in the price of coal. The pit price may not rise to any considerable extent. It is probably fair for the coal owners to urge that the price which is paid to them at the

    1747
    pit-head is not responsible for the enormous increase which is put on the price of coal when it is delivered to the householder. But unless we can touch the contracts the old game will go on of the householder being exploited by the middleman. I believe this Amendment would touch that class of individual who has been having of late a kind of time of his life at the expense of people who feel most any rise in the price of coal.
    In particular the small user in London has been hardly hit. When he has to buy, as it has been his unfortunate position of late to buy, in quantities of twenty-eight pounds, and less, the price has been raised against him very very considerably. I believe the increase must have amounted to almost 20s. on the ton on the normal price—this against a possible rise at the pit-head of 4s.! The position of the municipalities is severely prejudiced if the Bill stands in its present form. Take the case of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, the town clerk of which has probably written to other Members of the House besides myself. You have here an authority, which, in view of its electricity undertakings, has had to make contracts because its coal supply was almost exhausted. An extra price of 6s. per ton has been put on the old contract. That appears to me exorbitant, and particularly since the colliery owners concerned must have known from the negotiations which have been carried on with the Board of Trade what was contemplated in this Bill. Though 4s. was the figure which was in the mind of those negotiating with the Board of Trade, yet in the contract which has been executed with the Stoke-on-Trent municipality for the coal for the electricity undertaking 6s. per ton has been added to the old contract price.
    Not only, therefore, are householders hit through the prices they pay for the coal, but they will be hit—and I believe it is common for some of them now to have electric light in their houses—by having to pay an enhanced price for the small supply of electricity to their homes. The same will be true of the gas undertakings of municipalities. The householder, again, will be hit, not only because of the higher contract price of the coal, but by having to pay more for his gas. I venture, therefore, to urge upon the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should not tell us that the sanctity of contract must operate here. Nominally it should; but
    1748
    in the particular circumstances of the present prices, the position of the householder and of the huge undertakings of municipalities for the supply of electricity or gas should be borne in mind, and the fact that 70 per cent, of the output of the collieries for a year ahead is now probably contracted for, unless he touches those contracts for coal yet to be supplied, his Bill will be in the main valueless in the majority of cases.
    Sir C. CORY: Contracts in South Wales are made for the whole year. If you are going to deal with the contracts which are higher, surely you ought to deal with the contracts which are lower as well; otherwise the unfortunate coal owner who makes contracts will be at a loss. This does not affect me personally, or only to a small extent, and I am only looking at it as one who has experience of the trade and who wishes to put before the House his knowledge. I do not think it is fair to deal with one class of contract and not with others.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to support this Amendment for one or two reasons. No one wishes to be unfair, or consciously unfair, either to those who have coal to sell or those who have coal to supply; but municipalities and statutory companies are obliged to buy coal at certain times of the year, and to buy a long way ahead. I have in my hand a communication from a town clerk in an important borough in the North who says his corporation have already entered into a contract for coal to be delivered between 1st September next and 31st August next year. That is a contract which has had to be entered into, or otherwise the essential public services would be put in jeopardy. It was entered into only a few weeks ago. There was not, when that contract was entered into, the real fredom of contract which is necessary if the contract is to be sacrosanct. What is asked for in this Amendment is that where you are dealing with a contract entered into under conditions to which this Bill is intended to apply, and which contract has still to be carried out, then, if this Bill is to do what it is intended to do, and to secure to consumers of coal that they shall not be unduly charged owing to the exceptional circumstances, surely the Bill ought to cover contracts of that kind. I am not quite sure my hon. Friend who spoke last has put forward a really valid argument when he

    1749
    says that if you bring in any kind of contract you must bring in all kinds of contracts—those that were made at less than the maximum provided in the Bill—but surely these could only be brought in if it were shown that those contracts were made under such disadvantage to the coal owner that he was practically obliged to make them at a loss or at an inadequate price. In all the discussions there have been in this Committee and in this House, and in conferences upstairs and elsewhere, I am bound to say, although I have attended most of them, I have never heard it put forward that those who have coal to sell were placed at such an extreme disadvantage owing to national circumstances that they had to take long and extended contracts practically at a loss.
    Sir C. CORY: So far as South Wales is concerned, really they are bound to take long contracts. They are taken for practically the whole year. If they do not do so, the expense of keeping the collieries standing open would be greater than any loss on contract.
    Sir R. ADKINS: All I desire to say is, I do not believe, or, at any rate, I have not yet had it proved to me, that during this War period there have been anywhere such conditions as to force the coal owners to a disadvantage so great that it would require to be redressed by this Bill; whereas it is undoubtedly the ease, not only in the borough to which I have alluded, but in a number of cases, both of municipal authorities and statutory companies, that they have been obliged to enter into contracts at higher prices than would be allowed under this Bill, and yet under conditions precisely like those with which this Bill deals, and also entered into them a very little while before this Bill was brought in. I submit the true principle is this: When a Government brings in a Bill in such abnormal times as these to deal with a state of things which has arisen, the Bill ought to be made to apply, as far as possible, to the whole period in which such state of things has arisen recently, so that you are not dealing merely with things which happen to-day but which have happened under war conditions.
    I cannot see that the two kinds of contract are really in the same position. Those which have been made, which would have been within the powers of this Bill, the Bill will not interfere with. Those
    1750
    which could not have been made under this Bill, but which have been made within the last few weeks and which apply to months and months ahead, ought to be brought under the Bill, if it is to accomplish the object it is intended to accomplish, and if it is intended to meet the very grave disadvantages which follow from the very high prices of coal—I will not say artificially made, but arising out of these peculiar circumstances. When the hon. Member replies for the Government, I hope he will not meet this Amendment with a mere blank non possumus. I can assure him that simply to vote down this Amendment will be to leave the problem unsolved, and will not prevent the matter coming up again and being, what no one wants it to be, a returning trouble both to the Government and to the country. I do not say that the words of this Amendment should be regarded as absolutely final, but I do say that the substance of it should be accepted, and that those contracts which were made under precisely the same conditions which led to the introduction of this Bill should be brought in in such a way as to get the benefit of this measure in the same way as other people who enter into contracts or take action under this Bill. It is not for me to suggest any modifications of this Amendment, but I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. I believe it will meet the widespread wishes and the judgment of the Members of this Committee. I ask the Government not to reply that they cannot deal with this matter in some way other than that which is provided for in this Bill.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I had not the pleasure of hearing the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, but I believe that he dealt with the general principle that old contracts should not be included.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I do propose by my Amendment to deal with contracts already entered into. My point was that, as a normal thing, the last thing Parliament ought to do would be to interfere with contracts generally.
    Mr. ROBERTS: This Amendment, if carried, would do a great injustice. Only this year contracts were made extending over the next twelve months or more. They were entered into quite openly, and I say that it would be an injustice to interfere with those contracts. In South Yorkshire the colliery proprietors recognised

    1751
    six months ago that it would not be right for the colliery owners to exploit this War for the sake of increasing prices, and we agreed that prices should not be extended beyond the price which this Bill allows. I believe that undertaking has been properly carried out.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: By what collieries? There has been no undertaking whatsoever given by the South Wales collieries.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not believe that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield is a member of the Colliery Owners' Association of South Yorkshire. A meeting of that association was held in February, and it was decided that they would not contract beyond the price which this Bill allows.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That applies only to my county and not to the Yorkshire association.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Baronet does not know there was an agreement come to at a meeting which was held in Sheffield of colliery proprietors, and they did not desire or wish to extend the prices beyond about the price which this Bill allows, and I believe those prices have been honourably carried out, and contracts have been made on that basis. They could have got much higher prices, but they have not done so. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Yes, they have."] As far as my information goes, they have not, and prices have been maintained on that basis. With regard to old contracts, if the Government are going to interfere with the present contracts which have been made at the advanced prices, in all fairness the other point of view ought to be considered. There are contracts running at the present time which were made before the War at prices which are not remunerative, and which are being worked at a loss by the collieries. Is it fair that the present contracts should be interfered with, if the old contracts are to be left as they were? You ought not to interfere with one without the other, because you do a great injustice. If these contracts are to be interfered with, it will be very unfair for the owners, to whom I allude, who early in this year made up their mind that they would not take advantage of the War to advance prices more than this Bill allows. So far as I know that is what has taken place. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield does not know this, for he is not a member of the association to which I have referred.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I happen to be a member of that association, and so I do know.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Baronet is a Member of that association, all I can say is that I have never had the pleasure of seeing him at its meetings. There is no desire on behalf of the coal owners to take advantage of this War with regard to prices. The President of the Board of Trade has given the Committee an account of how increased prices are arrived at. He has taken an average and we agreed. The mining associations support the principle of this Bill, but we cannot submit to proposals which would perpetrate the injustice which I have referred to. The proposal of this Amendment is that the price shall be restricted, and that contracts already made shall be disallowed, while at the same time the old contracts which are running at unremunerative prices, and made before the War, should be allowed to stand, and not have the advantage of those prices.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do not understand the argument which has been advanced by the hon. Member who has just spoken. As I understand the matter, the coal owners of Yorkshire have agreed amongst themselves to sell coal at an extremely moderate figure and not to advance the price. If that is so, they will not be touched in the least by what we are proposing.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The present Amendment does not include the old contracts.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I will briefly explain the scope of this Amendment. I associate myself entirely with several previous speakers, who said that unless this Amendment, or some such Amendment as this, is carried, the Bill will be practically useless so far as the poor people are concerned. It has been said already that this Amendment is not verbally inspired. We agree with that contention, and we shall hand over our Amendment gladly to the President of the Board of Trade in the hope that something better may be done if he will concede the principle of it. This Amendment is going to test whether this Bill is intended to be a piece of effective legislation or a mere political demonstration, because the fact that 8 per cent, of the coal that is going to be dug for the next twelvemonths has already been contracted for, and therefore unless this Amendment, or some such Amendment is carried, it means that 80 per

    1753
    cent. of the coal for the next twelvemonths will be outside the scope of this Bill altogether. It means that coal dug twelve months from now but contracted for already will not fall within the scope of this Bill, and, if that is so, the Government may practically tear up the Bill so far as any good it is going to do during the probable period of the War is concerned.
    It is stated that the Bill will apply to free coal. How much free coal shall we have to which to apply this Bill? About 20 per cent, of the coal produced is free coal. A large part even of free coal has always been used in the coal market to have in some districts something of a gamble in the winter time, and through this prices for free coal in certain times have been high. These prices will be taken into account when comparing with that which previously obtained. The fact of the matter is that in London large contracts have already been entered into, though the coal has not been delivered, and coal is 8s., 9s., and 10s. higher than it was the previous year. An hon. Member complained about the South Wales coalfields, where there seems to be a loss. One of the most extraordinary things about this matter is that nobody is making a profit; everybody is making a loss. Prices go up, and yet no coal owner or coal merchant is making a profit. They are all heading for bankruptcy.
    Last year the London County Council contract for Graigold Merthyr large smokeless coal was 11s. 3d. per ton at the pit-head. This year the London County Council were offered the same coal at 21s. We hear this wailing about the loss that is involved in South Wales and elsewhere, but when we investigate the prices really charged we see that there is very little to complain about. There is one argument which can be used with regard to the London County Council's contracts. A number of coal owners on their own account have voluntarily entered into an arrangement with the London County Council that if Government legislation is carried they will associate themselves with that arrangement and will rearrange their contracts on the basis of it. If one or two coal owners can do that, why should there be any discrimination between one coal owner and another. If it is possible for these coal owners to interfere with their contracts, it is possible for the same principle to be applied all round.
    1754
    I say that this is not only unfair between one coal owner and another, but it is unfair to the great municipalities not to interfere with these contracts. We hear again and again in this House of the need for public economy during the War on the part of our great municipalities. We all agree with that, though some of us do not carry it to the length that other hon. Members would carry it. What scope is there for economy when you get figures like these: Here is the Glasgow corporation's new bill for their coal supply for gas and electricity — 811,000 tons for gas at an increase of 5s. 3d., and 160,000 tons for electricity at an increase of 6s. 3d. The total increase in the Glasgow corporation's coal bill is going to be over £265,000. And then we ask the cities to practice economy. The very best way that we can help the Glasgow corporation to practice economy is by relieving it of the increase on its contracts, and allowing it to get back to more normal figures. The same thing is true of the traders. I have received only this morning two letters from large co-operative societies at Sheffield, and they say that unless contracts are going to be interfered with this Bill, so far from doing them any good, is going to do them harm. This is what is said by the Brightside Co-operative Society:—
    "The directors of this society ask for the Bill to be made retrospective. I may say that we, along with a large number of other societies, have already entered into contracts for the supply of coal for the next twelve months, and the Bill in its present form would be a severe blow to us."
    Mr. Rose, the secretary of the Sheffield and Ecclesall Co-operative Society, says:
    "I have to point out, so far as this society is concerned, that in common with others, our contracts have been made at the usual time, from 1st July, 1915, to 30th June, 1916. This year's contract has been made at an average increase of 5s. 6d., and we shall be placed at a disadvantage of 1s. 6d. per ton. This means that the consumer will derive little benefit from the proposed legislation. In our view, if the measure had provided for the cancellation of contracts, it would have been a distinct gain."
    These letters are an expression of working-class opinion. Under this Bill, other firms in competition with them and with each other may come under the new Government terms, and you will certainly be setting up discrimination as between one set of dealers and another. If only 20 per cent, of free coal remains, you are practically going to do no good for the consumer, whom we are supposed to be trying to help in this matter. If 80 per cent, of the coal is already under contract and will not come within the scope of this Bill, then I absolutely fail to see what we are driving

    1755
    at or what the Bill is really intended to do. All law is really more or less an interference with contracts, because people have to readjust themselves to the new conditions under the law. The whole point is whether it is to the interest of the State and the community and in the interest of industrial peace that these prices should remain for the next twelve months. I believe that it is wrong, that this ought to be a real measure, and that it ought not to be a make-belief. I believe that by a measure of this kind, and by a measure dealing with profits, industrial peace could be obtained if the workpeople were made to feel that they were having a fair field. It is only in that way and not by compulsion that you are going to have industrial peace. I do net believe, when they come to know what this Bill amounts to, they will have any regard for it at all unless some such Amendment Is carried. I have, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment hoped that no pedantic reply would be given as regards the sanctity of contracts, and one or two hon. Members who have since spoken have hoped that the mere form of the Amendment would not be dealt with, but that the question would be treated on its merits. May I clear away both those points by saying that I, at any rate, and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend is in the same position, do not propose to answer this Amendment on the point of the sanctity of contracts. We have already claimed that this is war legislation. No war legislation could be a precedent for peace legislation; it could only be a precedent for legislation in the next war, which we all hope may be many generations removed from to-day. Therefore I do not propose, in the few remarks I rise to make, to base any opposition to this Amendment on the ground that sanctity of contracts must be considered in war time at all costs against the interests of the community. Nor will I deal with the mere verbiage of the Amendment, because what we are discussing at this point is the principle whether this Bill is to go back on contracts—whether it is really to be a Bill for regulating delivery prices or whether it is not. I do not propose to go into the niceties of verbiage, but I will deal with the main points.
    I do not think any arguments have been put forward in this Debate—and they have
    1756
    been very strong arguments ably put forward—which were absent from our consideration at the time this Bill was being drafted. Every one of those considerations, and perhaps even stronger ones, were brought forward when the drafting of the Bill was under consideration. It certainly was the desire of the Department, as it is the desire of every hon. Member here, to make this measure go as far as is practicable in the general public interest. I do not think my right hon. Friend will find fault with me when I say that, in the original draft of this Bill, it was hoped and intended to make it a delivery Bill, but when that came to be considered from a practical point of view, from a point of view which every Government has to consider—the actual difficulty of giving effect to a Bill drawn on these lines, and when we came to see the region into which that would take us, we came reluctantly to the conclusion it was beyond the scope of the Bill and that it would alter its character. We found it was not practicable to do it, and we were therefore obliged to confine the Bill to one which will prevent panic prices in the future, and not make it a more ambitious Bill which would deal with the present difficulty and bring war prices down to something approximating peace prices.
    The Committee will naturally ask: "What are those difficulties?" Hon. Members will say: "Before we can accept that argument we must understand what the difficulties are, otherwise we cannot accept a mere statement of that character." Mainly the difficulties arise in this way. Every hon. Member of this Committee, everyone who has had business experience, knows that the price is only one item in a contract. When you are considering a contract you consider that contract as a whole, and, if you alter the price of any contract between two persons, you cannot possibly resist the demand for the whole terms of the contract to be revised, where price is only one item. If we were to accept any Amendment which went back on the existing contract it would mean that the responsibility would be thrown on some tribunal, presumably the Board of Trade, to adjudicate not only on prices, but on all clauses in a contract made between buyer and seller. Actually there has been experience of that kind in a private Bill. It is a recognised principle of legislation that if you break a contract you must allow the person to whose detriment that contract is broken

    1757
    in one clause to have an opportunity of revising his position under the other heads of the contract, which he agreed to in consideration of the price. If you inserted a different price he would rightly demand the opportunity of revising his position.
    If you made a sudden change of that kind there would be no time for adjustment in the matter of wages, and we should be bound to assent to the demand that wages based on present prices—prices which have been prevailing during the last few months should be revised. If the system we propose is adopted what would be the effect? I am accepting figures I believe to be quite correct. One hon. Gentleman spoke of 70 per cent, of the coal as being already under contract, and my hon. Friend put it at 80 per cent. I do not think they would apply that percentage to the whole country; there may be districts where there is such a large proportion under contract, but there will be other districts where it is less? Still, if you take 70 per cent, as being the average figure for the whole country, what does this Bill mean? It does not mean that you are immediately going to bring down prices of the whole 100 per cent. That is actually what we would like to do, but it is impossible to do it. We do, however, immediately bring down the prices of 30 per cent., and the prices of the remaining 70 per cent, will be brought down in the future.
    Therefore something very considerable is accomplished now, and more will be accomplished in the future. Existing prices, even if there were no panic, would be brought down, and we do go beyond our claim, therefore, as our only claim is to prevent any crisis in the future. We may claim in this respect to have gone beyond that, because, under the Bill, the immediate effect will be a reduction of price as regards 30 per cent, of the coal, while as regards the remaining 70 per cent., as the contracts run out the level will be gradually reduced to the advantage of the whole community. So far as coal owners are concerned and their wage bills, the effect would be—and I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield will agree with me on this point—if we were to introduce a very sudden change in a great industry in regard to prices, very disturbing indeed. It is very desirable that any change which is made should be made as gradually as possible and that there should be some opportunity of adjustment between the various interests concerned.
    1758
    If we look at the effect of this Bill we shall see that what the coal owner has to look at is not what he is getting for any particular contract, not what he is getting for 20 per cent, or 70 per cent, of his coal, but what his total receipts are in proportion to his total outgoings and what is the average price he is getting for the whole output of his colliery. The effect of this will be that whereas under his present contract the coal owner is getting to-day and will for some time after this Bill has become law be getting a larger price than is laid down in the Bill, part of his coal will immediately drop and the rest will gradually come down, and in due course there will be a period when practically the price of the whole of his coal will be reduced to this standard. If you drew a diagram of prices you would find that instead of a sudden drop, which is always most injurious to the trade concerned, you would have a gradual fall, and, during that fall, the different interests—the interests of the wage earner, the wage payer, and the people who are using the coal—would have some opportunity of adjusting themselves to the new conditions.
    I would make this further observation upon the matter: that there are not only to be considered the contracts which would be dealt with under this Amendment, but also a very large number of sub-contracts and subsidiary contracts. A very large number of people who have contracted to buy this coal have sub-contracted to sell it. The coal factor—I think I am using an expression which will be understood here—is a man who buys large quantities of coal at the pit's mouth and sells it in considerable quantities to coal merchants in various parts of the country, who, again, resell it to their customers. Under this Amendment a coal factor who had made a contract for large quantities of coal would be compelled to accept a price, say, 2s. below the price for which he had contracted. It is quite obvious that it would then be necessary to impose similar conditions upon the sub-contractor. That would take us into a most difficult region beyond the area covered by this Bill, and, in respect of the duties thrown upon any tribunal which had to adjust the matter, a whole area of difficulty would be created by taking contracts now entered into. I can assure the Committee, not that I am an authority on a Subject like this, because that is out of consideration altogether.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: No, no!
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, entirely. I do not pretend to know anything about coal, and I do not speak here on my own authority at all, but when one has taken part in conferences on questions of this kind, even the most uninformed person begins to understand the opinion of those who have really studied the question and have a life knowledge of it, and is able to form a judgment that is not without some value. I may say that I did go perfectly prepared to approach this subject from the point of view that this is War time, and having no pedantic feelings about contracts in War time I entered upon this question myself with a feeling that I hoped it might remain a delivery Bill, and not a contract Bill, but, after hearing the whole case argued by people whose wishes I believed were the same as my own, but who had practical knowledge not only of the coal trade but of the whole area of trade which would be covered by the effects of carrying this Amendment, I came to the conclusion that to carry out that principle would be impracticable. Therefore I put it to the Committee, that however much we may all wish or may have wished to get the great advantage which I admit this Amendment would confer upon the community, on the whole it would take the Bill into a region into which we cannot attempt to travel at this time. I hope that looking at the matter in that light those who have proposed the Amendment will be prepared to accept the lesser benefit the Bill proposes to confer, and will not attempt to confer the larger benefit which the Department concerned feels it cannot agree to.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: I occupy in this matter, perhaps, a somewhat middle position in the Committee. It does not seem to me so easy as it seems to my hon. Friends on either side. It is easy to suggest that the price of coal should be reduced at the pit's mouth in order that constituents, such as municipalities and so on, should get coal cheaper. That is a simple proposition which would commend itself to some people either in peace or war, but I am not sure that it states the whole of the case. Neither is it quite fair to assume, on the one hand, that coal owners are making enormous profits out of every seam, or, on the other hand, to suggest that they are living by their losses. So far as the places with which I am personally connected are concerned, this Amendment would not
    1760
    make a scrap of difference, and from that standpoint I do not care whether or not it is passed. I would remind the Committee that there are a number of collieries which are worked with great difficulty, collieries with thin seams, bad roofing, and a great deal of dirt and so on. The experience of a number of collieries in the country, taking them from the commencement of the War until now, is that they have made a considerable loss. Taking the entire scope of their business, it cannot be denied in the case of small, difficult quarries that up to the present the War has brought them nothing but loss. That is not stating the whole case, but only a small portion of it, and apparently it is entirely overlooked by a good many speakers in this Committee. I quite see that in a time of great difficulty that the interest even of deserving people, or even of some poorer collieries, should not stand in the way of the general need; indeed, the probability is that, as the measure is framed, some will suffer. We must take it because we know that during the time of war there is a great deal of sacrifice and loss occasioned to various interests. At the same time, I utterly fail to follow my hon. and learned Friend for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), who introduced an argument that seemed to me rather to defeat his point, if he will forgive me for saying so. He wanted this Bill to go back into the kind of contract that was made before the Bill passed, and to try to restore the conditions. I should think that he, as a lawyer, must know that you cannot do that. If part of a contract—a complicated contract—has been performed and it was worked for some little time, I defy any common lawyer or any Chancery lawyer to go back and restore the original conditions. It cannot be done in any walk of life. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to this: If you go back into contracts and pick out a certain proportion of them where you say they get too high a profit, and you want those attended to, can you in common fairness—you might as a lawyer, but should you as a business man—disregard entirely some other contracts which are run at a loss? There are many contracts placed not only before the War but after the War by many individuals which are now being executed at a loss. The conditions of the advances in wages and the advances of freight have been very much more this year than during the first six months of the War.

    1761
    I put this to my hon. and learned Friend: Suppose one colliery, in making a contract, has an order for an equal number of tons from two different seams of coal. They balance the two prices. They may get rather more than a fair profit on one 100,000 tons and might be taking less on the other 100,000 tons. But, says the seller, "Looking at the order as a whole, it will pay me." Looking at the order as a whole, it may come within the scope of this Bill. The order as a whole might not be more than a 3s. advance, whereas the Bill allows 4s. If he had the foresight, or if by accident he had proposed to the purchaser to reduce the price on one and increase it on the other, so that there might be no difference on the total deal, he would escape this Bill. Therefore, if you go back into contracts which have been made, it is purely accidental whom you hit and whom you let off. I would not at all mind going back into these contracts if we were sure we were accomplishing what the Committee wishes to do, but I am perfectly certain that the Government cannot follow this out. Immediately you strike certain men you let others off. You even go a stage further with the factor and a stage further with the sub-contractor. How far are you going to follow it? We will say a colliery has made a very large bargain above the 4s. They are very fortunate if they have. I have not had any such luck as that. But suppose they have sold at 6s. above last year's price. Suppose they have sold 100,000 tons to a big factor or merchant, and he has placed it all out. This Bill will enable that factor or merchant to go to the colliery company and get a reduction of 2s. a ton on his whole purchase.
    Is he bound to give that advantage to the consumer? Is that in the Amendment? It cannot be carried out if you try to put it in the Amendment. The Board of Trade cannot follow it out from man to man, from contractor to sub-contractor, and from sub-contractor possibly to a third sub-contractor, and ultimately to the consumer. These are the difficulties that present themselves to my mind. I regret that on this occasion I cannot be as dogmatic as, perhaps, I sometimes am when referring to other matters, but it is largely because of my knowledge of this question, and having thought it out as carefully as I can; and if hon. Members who so lightly cheer a certain sentiment would only make themselves familiar with the trade, how coal is bought and sold and how it is distributed, they would pause before they
    1762
    attach themselves to some of these Amendments. As far as this is concerned, I can only deal with it on broad and general grounds, but I appeal to the House not to let much passion come into this. The hon. Member for Cornwall happened to suggest that there were coal owners in South Wales—not anything he is connected with—who had some contracts at a loss, and the reply came in the usual political way, "We do not believe in these South Wales coal owners working at a loss. Of course not. I dare say some of them have contracts on their books which are at a loss. I appeal to the House not to be led away on the one hand by a desire to allow people to have coal cheap merely at the pit-head, without following it up and being sure that the Amendment carries it out. I am waiting to hear what some other Members may say, but I should like the Committee to bear in mind that we have had quite a number of collieries which are in difficulties. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) generally challenges any statement at all if he does not agree with it, but he was silent upon it, and I challenge anyone in the House to deny that quite a number of collieries have difficulties, and from the time of the declaration of the War up to now have made a considerable loss on their dealings. It may be that they will be hit a little more in the general interest. If so, one must grin and bear it. I appeal to the Committee to think what the programme is and be sure it accomplishes that which it desires.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY(indistinctly heard): I gather that this Amendment raises a question which is very important for England. I do not profess to know much about English conditions and I do not rise to discuss them, but unless some Amendment of this kind is adopted, as far as Ireland is concerned, this Bill may be taken and torn up. Ireland may be said to have an interest in this question which is very special. I should suppose that Ireland is the place in the United Kingdom where coal is sold dearest to the ordinary consumer. I doubt if there is any spot in Great Britain, no matter how remote from the collieries, which is so situated as Ireland. There is practically no coal industry in Ireland. All our coal is sea-borne, and is brought from a long distance, and we are far more hit by sea transport than are most parts of England. At any rate, in England you have rail and water, while in Ireland we are entirely

    1763
    dependent upon water carriage. The result is that in Ireland the householder and the consumer for commercial purposes have to pay for their coal a price which is higher than that which prevails in any other part of the Kingdom. I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has not over-stated the case when he puts it that between 70 per cent, and 80 per cent, of the total output of coal is affected by these contracts. In Ireland contracts of this kind are usually made in June. That is in one sense against me. It may be said that to enable these contracts to be cancelled would be harder on the coal vendor than it would be in other cases, but there remains the fact that, as regards three-fourths of the coal supply to Ireland, Ireland is excluded from the benefit of this Bill. It is unfair to the Irish consumer and it is unfair to the Irish coal merchant, because the coal merchant who has been in the business all his life and who has in the past few months committed himself to contracts extending over twelve months will find himself, if the Bill is passed, faced with the competition of persons who enter for the first time into the business, knowing that they can procure coal at prices which the ordinary vendor is unable to get, because he is bound by the contracts into which he entered. Accordingly, Ireland is especially hit by the point which is dealt with in this Amendment, and I am greatly disappointed at the non possumus which we have heard from the Treasury Bench.
    I do not think the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are convincing. They certainly did not impress me. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he had a whole volume of arguments, but his case, when stated, was in the end reduced to one; the case of the sub-contractor. It is said that if you enable the coal owner at the pit's mouth, or the factor, to cancel his contract for coal, you must also enable the man who has bought from him to do so. Why not? The fact is that vendors of coal take very great care to protect themselves by their contracts, whereas the purchasers are not protected at all. I have never read a contract for the supply of coal which did not contain an elaborate clause in which the gentleman who undertook to sell the coal did not protect himself by saying: "If this happens, or that happens, if there is a strike, if there is an accident, if the output is lessened by any serious
    1764
    accident we are entitled to cancel the contract." I only know of the contracts that I have read, and I have never read a contract for the sale of coal which did not contain a provision, not merely protecting the coal owner against strikes and accidents, but also containing a provision that if from any cause the output of coal from the mine was substantially reduced the coal owner could cancel the contract and refuse to continue the supply. I do not say that the existence of that particular clause in the coal contract would protect the coal owner against this Bill; of course it would not. But nothing would be easier than to introduce into the Bill a Clause which would protect the coal factor or the sub-contractor who had resold coal on the strength of the contract which he had made. I do not see the difficulty which the hon. Member for Pontefract raises. He says that if you break the contract with the factor you must break it with the man he has sold to, and that there is a difficulty in saying that where the man whose contract is broken is affected he may claim the benefit of the Act so far as any contract he has entered into goes. There is no difficulty whatever. I quite agree that perhaps this will impose a great burden of labour and difficulty on the Board of Trade, but I take it that the Board of Trade would have to be made the supreme arbiter in all these cases. It would be quite out of the question that the Courts of Law should inquire into the various topics we have investigated tonight. The Board of Trade will have to be made more or less—I do not say it in an offensive way—the dictator in this matter. I quite agree that that would be absolutely necessary, and I do not think anyone will object to that.
    In introducing this Bill the only ground which the right hon. Gentleman gave for preserving contracts was the case of the sub-contractor, and the only ground which the right hon. Gentleman gave to-night was the case of the sub-contractor. Accordingly, we are really only faced by one question. I do not pretend that it is not a difficult question, but this Bill is full of difficulties. It is of a character which would make one's hair stand on end if it had been introduced in ordinary times. It bristles with difficulties from end to end. We have heard all kinds of topics discussed upon it to-night, and whatever view was put forward on one side, another view was immediately put forward on the other side. Therefore, whatever we put into this Bill,

    1765
    difficulties will undoubtedly arise; whatever we do there will not be a complete solution for all the difficulties. What we have to do is to do our best, and the question is, is it best to leave contracts to stand, or is it best to leave the coal consumer to be plundered, as he undoubtedly has been and will be plundered? I am glad that we have had so early in the Debate a full statement against this Amendment. I say with great confidence that it is not a strong case. It is a case which can be answered, and I hope will be answered in the subsequent Debate. There is only one point against the Amendment, and that is the case of the sub-contractor. There is no difficulty in dealing with the sub-contractor if the Board of Trade will have the courage to face the difficulty and deal with it. All that would be necessary would be to impose by Statute, on the top of the common form of contract by which the coal owner protects himself, a Clause enabling the coal factor, in case he was hit by his contract being broken under this Act, to get similar benefits against the man who was purchasing from him. I do not pretend that that proposal is a small thing, and I do not pretend that it is not full of difficulties, but this Bill has been brought in to meet an enormous difficulty, a crying evil and a great grievance, and it will fail to meet that difficulty or redress that grievance if the right hon. Gentleman passes the Bill as it stands in this respect.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I only want to say a few words on an important point in regard to this Amendment. The points that were put by the Parliamentary Secretary were, I need hardly say, points which any Member of the party which I used to represent, when parties existed in this House, would appreciate, namely, the difficulty of revising contracts. But I represent a Constituency in which a very keen interest is taken in this Bill, not only by those who are merely domestic consumers, but also by those who are great industrial consumers, both of electricity and of gas. There is one question which is being asked in that constituency, and which will be asked, and I am going to put that question here now, because I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give a satisfactory answer to it. I believe it was on the 6th May last that the great meeting was held in London of the users of coal, and especially of representatives of what are commonly known as the public utility companies and municipalities. Those
    1766
    municipalities and those great statutory companies raised this question at that meeting in the beginning of May, because they knew that immediately in front of them the time was approaching when the twelve months contracts would have to be made. The question is being asked at the present time, and in no mincing phrases, what can be the state of inefficiency which can allow nearly three months to go by before a Bill is introduced, apparently designed to meet the difficulty which was raised last May—a Bill which is introduced in a form which is almost ironical and which will be described as a Bill shutting the door when the horse has been stolen. This question which is being asked, and which will be asked, is pertinent to this Amendment, and it is the reason to a very large extent why this Amendment has been brought forward.
    I do not say that I should be prepared to support this Amendment in its full extent and in the wording in which it now stands, but I would point out the position of a corporation like the corporation of Glasgow, which contracts for something like one million tons of coal a year, and which has to earmark its supply, because it is under statutory obligations to deliver gas and electricity, and which, at the present time, has thrown upon it demands for increased supplies of electricity in order to meet the new munitions factories and the departments which are being set up in old works for that purpose. That great undertaking, with these great statutory duties laid upon it, came to the' meeting in London, and I believe it is no secret that it was one of the chief bodies which inaugurated the whole movement. Representatives assembled in London from all over the Kingdom at the beginning of May and that great conference took place. As a result of that conference there was initiated a movement in this House and an informal Committee was appointed, on which, as it was stated the other day on the Treasury Bench, there was probably a larger number of Members than has ever sat on any Committee upstairs. That Committee met again and again to discuss this question, and it is felt to be amazing and ironical that after the whole of the contracts or, admittedly, 70 per cent, of the contracts have been made, the Government brings forward this Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has some explanation to give on that subject, because undoubtedly it does lead to

    1767
    discontent and to much of the trouble between labour and capital which is occurring at the present time, when it is felt that there is not a plain meeting of the difficulty, but that resort is had, it is said—I do not say that for a moment—to subterfuges in order to defeat the plain demand, and appear to yield to it when in fact they do not yield to it. The delay of this Bill will cost the people of Glasgow £70,000, and that fact will be the measure of what I venture to say is the inefficiency that has been shown at the present time in not acting speedily, when obviously speed was of the very essence of the demand put forward.
    Mr. DICKINSON: This Amendment I look upon as by far the most important in connection with this Bill. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some far better reasons for rejecting the Amendment than have been given hitherto. I hope that he will do so not only from the point of view of public interest, but from the point of view of his own reputation and that of the Government. I cannot help saying seriously that if this Bill goes forward in the shape in which it now is the Government will be considered to have fathered a political fraud. It is no good saying that this is merely a Bill in order to prevent panic prices, and that it does not affect the actual price. The consumer will not look at that way. If the public in the course of next winter find, as I believe they will certainly find, unless this Amendment is carried, that they are not in a better position than they were last year, they will say that the whole thing has been a fraud. I was glad to notice one thing in the speech of the Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade. He did not attach very great importance to the so-called sanctity of contracts. He referred to the fact that this is war legislation, and might well be looked upon as exceptional. I am very glad that he took that view, because, oddly enough, the Government have committed themselves to the same view on this very same day. I have in my hand a Bill which was introduced to-day in another place which provides that contracts entered into for the purpose of registration in the present year may be annulled. That is an instance of what one Department can do when it wants to interfere with contracts.
    There are special reasons to justify interference with contracts in this particular
    1768
    case. It is well known to be the custom that contracts for the sale of coal for the whole year are made in the months of April and May and June, mostly in the month of June. Before that time this year the Government had established a Committee to investigate this question, and the Committee reported by the end of March. From that moment every coal owner had due notice that something would be done to reduce and limit the charges which he would make for coal. Therefore we are perfectly justified in interfering with every contract that was made subsequent to that date. I do not suggest that we should interfere with contracts prior to that date, but as a House of Commons we should be justified in interfering with contracts made during April, May, or June, and we are called upon particularly to do so this year. I am informed and believe that so anxious have the merchants been about the future that they have rushed into making contracts, and they have actually made more contracts for supplying winter coal this year than they would in ordinary circumstances. The consequence is that 80 per cent, of the whole twelve months' supply is already contracted for at prices exceeding the maximum which this Bill is going to lay down. What is going to be the result of that upon the consumer? Has the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill any estimate by which he can say what will be the price to the consumer in London under this Bill as it stands at present?
    I have looked into the figures in consultation with a coal merchant on whom I have great reliance, and my estimate is that if the coal is sold at the prices at which it has been sold under contracts recently, the poor man in London will be paying at least 37s. per ton for his coal in the winter. He was forced last year to pay 38s. 4d. If the poor people of London are this winter going to be forced to pay over 37s. per ton there will be not only dissatisfaction, but grave danger in our Metropolis arising from the feeling that they have been sold by the Government upon whom they depended to relieve them from this extraordinary imposition which took place last year. I have in my hand a letter which tells of the terms upon which a gentleman has contracted for coal. He says that Derby Brights, the price of which was about 11s. per ton at the pit, are raised this year from 1st July,

    1769
    1915, to 30th June, 1916, to a price approximately 16s. per ton on a sliding scale rising 6d. per ton as the retail market advances 1s. per ton. The contracts, under which coal is now being purchased for the London market, continue the system of sharing the profits between the owners of the mines and the merchants, which was condemned unanimously by the Committee and which we hoped to sec ended.
    As I read this Bill, the ordinary contracts which have now been entered into between the mine owners and the London coal merchants still contemplate this system, of which the House, perhaps, is not aware. The system which was condemned was this, that the mine owners sell to the London coal merchants coal at a certain price based on certain market prices to the consumer, and as the market increases 1s. a ton by that very fact the 1s. has to be divided between the mine owner and the coal merchant, and, therefore, if these contracts are not going to be affected by this Bill, as I read the Bill, there will still be that process going on. We shall still find that under the contracts the owners of the coal mines will be entitled to share the increased profits on the prices which they are getting in London. That is one matter of which I would like a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. Then there is a second question: What is going to regulate the price of coal in London? It is quite a romance to read the evidence which was given before the Committee as to the system which regulates the price of coal in London. It is regulated by a little, I will not say coterie—they are very important people—but it is regulated on the Coal Exchange by agreement between the principal merchants. It is regulated by what they think the public will stand. That is the whole system.
    If they think that the public will stand a rise of 1s. or 2s. then they put up the price 1s. or 2s., and everybody else puts it up. Under this system, under which the greater portion of the coal which will come to London will be coal under contract and therefore coal that was bought at the pit's mouth at more than 4s. extra—say 5s. or 6s.—above the prices of twelve months ago, will it be those higher prices which are going to regulate the selling price in London, or will it be the price which is based upon the smaller sum, 4s.? I think it is only human nature to imagine
    1770
    that the coal merchant in London will put the price on the highest figure. I am open to correction, but I am only judging by what seems to me almost certain, that if the majority of these great coal merchants under contracts are paying at the rate of 7s. more than the fixed price, and not 4s., they will fix the consumer's price on the higher figure, and not on the basis of the smaller sum in respect of free coal in small quantities. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman's Bill will absolutely fail in London, which forms a very important part of this particular question. The other question I should like to ask again is, whether or not the sliding scale price of coal is to regulate wages? Eighty per cent, of the coal is going to be sold under contract, and 20 per cent, is what is called the free coal price. Is the price which is to regulate wages to be 4s. or 7s.?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The average is to be taken out of the books of the colliery owner.
    Mr. DICKINSON: If that is so, then the wages would be adjusted according to the average between the contractor and the owner. It is a very difficult question, and it seems to me that the whole thing points to this: that we ought to aim at putting the whole of the mines of the country on the same basis, from the passing of this Act and onwards, as regards price. If one coal owner is limited to 4s. others should be limited to 4s., whether they have made contracts or not. I understand that there are, as a rule, very few subcontractors—perhaps one or two people. There is not a very complicated system of sub-contracts. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to look into the method by which I have tried to deal with this very difficult question. I have put down on Clause 3, which I thought the proper Clause, because it deals with contracts, an Amendment, which proceeds on these lines, namely, that all contracts made between the 24th March and the passing of this Act should be subject to revision on the application of either party to the contract, and such application shall be made to the County Court judge, who would have to adjust the price on the basis of the statutory amount. It is rash to say of any Amendment that it will hold water, but I believe that this one would hold water. I believe the Amendment shows a practical way out of this difficulty, and I do hope that if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept

    1771
    those words, at any rate it will be decided that these contracts are not to be maintained in their entirety, and that the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the particular method I suggest of meeting this question. It would be a terrible result if this provision in the Bill rendered the whole Bill absolutely nugatory to purchasers of coal.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: This seems to be one of the most important Amendments to the Bill. If there were any case in which the Government have a right to interfere, in these emergency conditions, there can be no stronger case than that which we have before us. Here is a case in which the natural resources of the country are in the hands of certain people. I listened with astonishment to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield to the effect that the coal owners have not taken the opportunity of raising the price against the public.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: In that district?
    Mr. WHITE: I have no knowledge of that particular district, but I know that in many other districts, in most other districts, they have certainly taken the opportunity to raise the price as high as possibly could be done. This tells against municipalities and statutory companies, and ultimately, therefore, tells also against the consumers. The municipality of Glasgow contract for more than 900,000 tons of coal, and the contracts have to be made about May or June. Contracts have been made before the War, but now the prices have been put up very considerably, and on a quantity of something more than 900,000 tons the excess price over the price of last year has been between 5s. and 6s. The result is that the Glasgow municipality have had to pay something like £265,000 more than they did last year for coal. If, instead of this greatly increased price, they had been called upon to pay on the basis of the Bill, an extra 4s., the extra amount would have been about £195,000, a saving of £70,000. I was astounded by some of the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on this question. We were told that we were going to hear an argument to show the difficulty and impracticability of this Amendment. When we came to the argument it did not seem nearly so strong as foreshadowed. It did show a certain amount of difficulty, but disclosed no difficulty which any Government in earnest in
    1772
    the matter could not conquer. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not influenced by pedantic feelings, but the House is less concerned about the pedantic feelings of Ministers than about pedantic action on the part of the Government. Their action in regard to these contracts seems to me distinctly pedantic. I say that these prices which are to be paid for coal go to persons who are in possession of national resources of this country. They have used this emergency time to get the highest prices they can, and, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has pointed out, it is not merely a matter of all existing contracts. I should be content, I admit, if the Government go the length of saying that this class of annual contracts, made during May, June, and July, should be subject to revision. I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder) said concerning the action of the Government. This whole difficulty was anticipated at a comparatively early date in May. There was an important meeting here, and May passed and June passed, and here we are towards the close of July, and we have only now got a Bill to deal with this matter. The Government now talks, I will not say about the sanctity of contracts, but the Parliamentary Secretary says that those contracts have been made, and that they cannot interfere with them because of the enormous difficulties which would arise. Surely the municipalities which entered into those contracts, and other people, may well come to the Government and say: "We gave you notice of this difficulty as far back as May, and you have done nothing but let it stand over, and stand over, until now we have had to enter into contracts, and you decline to save us from a difficulty which is of your own creation." That is a charge which may very reasonably be made against the Government. There has been a great deal of talk concerning the action of the coal miners. I really think it is time for the House to turn its attention to the action of the coal owners as well. I have nothing to say in defence of what has been happening in Wales lately. That is not a matter to go into, but do the coal owners come to this House to-night with clean hands? This is a matter that goes to the very vitals of the nation. I know in Glasgow how the people are suffering with increased rents on the one hand and increased prices of coal on the other. Until

    1773
    the Government come to look into the fundamental question of the rights of the people, and the obligations of the Government to secure them their right to these elementary products of nature, things will go still further wrong. I do say this is one of the cases in which the Government could act, and, even though they do not take the whole of the proposals, let them take the proposal of my hon. Friend with regard to contracts made during May, June, and July, and they will then at least have gone some way to solve the difficulties and to meet the fair demands of those who came to them as far back as May.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I would very earnestly urge on the President to give very careful consideration to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). The suggestions that be has made are made with the object of facing a very difficult and anxious situation. We all recognise we are facing at the present moment one of the most critical questions which could possibly arise. It comes to us from every part of the Kingdom. Every constituency is representing itself to its Members, and showing the difficulties they are placed in by the contracts which have been entered into during the last few months, and that if in some way those difficulties cannot be met, times of necessity will necessarily result. I, for one, perfectly recognise the grave danger of interfering with contracts. We all recognise that, but we are acting under very anxious conditions, and we have got to face a new situation, and therefore facts have got to be looked in the face. It is stated that the men who entered into contracts recently have got to take the risks. So they have, but they have got to take the ordinary risks that they might reasonably look forward to as taking place, but the risk now is different, and it is brought about by an Act of Parliament. This is an Act of Parliament which interferes with contracts, and which places those who made their contracts after the Act has passed altogether on a different footing from those which were made before it was passed. When we realise that this is not an ordinary Act of politics, but an Act produced by the state of war, then it does seem to me that we are bound to face this situation somewhat on the lines of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    I, for one, am not prepared to accept the Amendment now before the House. It does not seem to be quite fair to meet
    1774
    the situation, because I recognise the force of the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that after all, price is only one element in a contract, and that it is not fair by Act of Parliament to alter merely one item against one party to the contract. Therefore, the Amendment before the House, which would do that, seems to me to be unfair. As our object is to be just as fair as we can to all parties, it seems to me our duty is, if we find that in the interests of the nation we must pass an Act of this description, to place all the parties as nearly as possible in the simple position they were in before. The only fair way is for the Government to give either party to the contract the right to cancel it if, in view of the new situation created by the Act, they think it unfair to either of them. By some such method as that suggested by my hon. Friend, or by something analogous to that, a difficult situation would be met, and I think it would be the best way to do it. I do not suppose the President can face so difficult a situation right on the spur of the moment, but I do earnestly trust he will be able to hold out to us the hope that it is one which he sees the necessity of facing, and that if he cannot do it on the Committee stage he will try on the Report stage to meet a difficulty which is felt in every quarter of the House and by every section of the community.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In very little of the War legislation that has been passed have Irish Members intervened. The general body of the Irish Members are not present in the House, for the reason that they felt they could rely in every matter concerning the War that the general interests of Ireland would be cared for by English and Scottish Members, because our interests are all identical. In this matter of coal there is a special Irish interest which I think should be voiced, and that is why more than once to-day I have intervened in this Debate. As the House has been told, coal in Ireland is dearer than anywhere else. It comes harder on the poor than anywhere else. And in certain districts the prices for the ordinary necessities of life have gone up so much that even the ordinary beggar man on the road will ask you for an extra copper. When you are dealing with coal, which is a matter of absolute necessity in everybody's house, you are dealing1 with a matter which affects our country in a very special degree, although, as a rule, we are only, except to a small degree, con-

    1775
    sumers of household coal. This Bill, in my opinion, is either a sham, or worse than a sham, or it is a reality. For us in Ireland, unless this Amendment is carried, or an Amendment substantially the same, this Bill is not merely a sham, but a mischief. I take this case in this way. I have listened with very great respect and attention to the two very able speeches made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He produced on me this impression, and he will forgive me for giving utterance to it, namely, that of an official new to office, necessarily new to office, overpowered by the Departmental chiefs. I suppose when a man goes fresh to a great office like that of the Board of Trade it is inevitable that he must put himself more or less in the hands of those officials. What is their interests? I assert that the interest of the permanent official of the Board of Trade is against the interests of the country. They do not want to be bothered, and if this Amendment is carried it will treble the work of the Board of Trade. That is a serious statement to make, but I will prove it.
    10.0 P.M.
    Why is it that this Bill, when the volume of demand culminated in May last, was not brought in at once? There is not an official of the Board of Trade who did not know that the month of June is the great month for making contracts. You waited, waited, waited, until the month of June had passed, and contracts all over the Kingdom had been completed. Then you bring in a Bill to deal, forsooth, with contracts for coal to be made in the month of August. What an absurdity! That is officialism. If I were asked the conundrum, "What is a Coalition Government?" I am sorry that I should have to reply, "A thing constructed with power to defy the opinion of the House of Commons." That is what a Coalition Government is. The voice of the House of Commons, as heard all through this Debate, has been against the Government, if I take the independent men on both sides, the men who are directly interested in the question. How do you get your majority? By whipping up men from both sides who have not taken a keen interest in the Debate. Accordingly—I begin to see it already—the result of the formation of a Coalition Government will be that men who take an independent stand will have to speak more sharply and more thoroughly in addressing themselves to that
    1776
    Government than they would do if it was a Liberal or a Tory Government. The knowledge that you Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have that you can call up your squadrons on both sides is a great temptation to you to defy the opinion of those who voice the opinion of the country.
    Do the Government believe that all the agitation to fix the price of coal was an agitation to fix the price of August coal? It was an agitation to fix the price of June-coal, or coal during the time when the June contracts were being made. Now that you have allowed the June contracts to be made, you say, "Oh, well, we cannot do anything; the sanctity of contracts!" There is a precedent for breaking the contracts of sub-contractors. I remember that when Mr. Gladstone reduced the rent of the tenants he was asked, "What about the middleman? He will have to continue to pay his rent to the head landlord." Mr. Gladstone said that it was bad enough to break the sanctity of contracts in the one case; he could not go further and allow the middleman to break his. What happened? Within five years a Tory Government came into power, and so great was the injustice that that Tory Government broke the contracts of the middleman as against the head landlords. So there you have this particular case. Suppose a man makes a contract in June at, say, 7s. over the normal rate, while a man who makes his contract in August can make it at 4s. over the normal rate. How is the man who makes the June contract at 7s. to compete with the man who makes the August contract at 4s.? I think it would be a splendid thing in a country like Ireland, now that you have got everybody handcuffed to his June contract, to go into the coal business. Irish contractors have made their contracts at the June prices, and now we shall have the benefit of the Government Bill enabling us to get coal at 4s. over the normal price of a year ago. If anyone advertised—I will take a fancy name, say, as Runciman and Company—offering coal to the Irish people at 3s. under any other other man by virtue of the Act of George V., chapter so-and-so, he would make a fortune. I invite the hon. Member for Mansfield to come over and help us.
    That is really the position of affairs. What is the argument? When I heard the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) opposing the Amendment. I knew the Amendment must be right. His speech supporting the Government was the

    1777
    shakiest speech I ever heard. He did not know on which side of the fence he was coming down. He had evidently been appealed to by that telepathy which exists between certain sections of below the Gangway opinion and the Treasury Bench to say something from the independent point of view in resisting the Amendment. What was his argument? He says that you cannot follow the price of coal. Why can you not? It is all on paper. If you put in a Clause enabling the sub-contractor to appeal to the County Court judge, I venture to say there will not be much litigation, because he will get the concession as a matter of course. The Amendment may, perhaps, go too far in applying to all contracts, but it should certainly apply to contracts made since this agitation began—that is to say, May and June contracts.
    Again, look at the hardship of statutory companies. Take gas companies. Would not this House have been flooded with private Bills to enable gas companies to raise their statutory charges but for the hope and expectation than the Board of Trade would deal with this matter? I venture to say it would. I was glad to hear what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dundas White) said about that great industry which Glasgow carries on—its great tramway system with its halfpenny fares. Why did they make their contracts? Because they had to make them. I suppose their coal bunkers were empty. The bayonet was at their breast. How long were they to wait? When you are dealing with a municipality, with hundreds of thousands of pounds, when the lighting and traction of a whole city are at stake, are you to take risks and say, "We will wait until August?" What men do you expect to stand halting between two opinions when the lighting and traction of a great municipality are at stake? The thing is absurd. What are we up against? We are up against the vis inertice. of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, and the sooner it is known and stated the better. If the right hon. Gentleman says, as he might well say, "It will throw a great additional burden on the Board of Trade," let him ask for more help. The fault I find sometimes with the Government is that they seem to think that this House will not rise to the demands which they make. I say that any demands the Government make during this War the House of Commons will cheerfully vote. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more help in the shape of Under-Secretaries,
    1778
    the House of Commons will give it to him. [Laughter.] He evidently does not appreciate the gift. At all events it is now simply a question of drawing a Clause to enable the sub-contractor, if necessary, to appeal to a court of justice. Let him do that, and I venture to say, if he does so, he will have grasped the nettle, and have settled the question, and all these great difficulties, which have been formulated by the permanent officials, will disappear in a puff of blue smoke.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I should just like to say this, that on the Second Reading I made a very strong appeal—as strong as I could—to the Board of Trade to include contracts in this Bill. It seemed to me that with the exemption of contracts a great part of the object of the Bill would be lost, as has been said by many hon. Members. This Bill, without the inclusion of contracts, it is quite clear from the speeches of hon. Members, is three months too late. Contracts had to be entered into by coal merchants and corporations, because it was not possible, or safe, to-delay making those contracts. These have been made, and the prices are in advance of the 4s.; especially for manufacturing coal. At the same time one must recognise that there are very serious obstacles in the way of the Government invading contracts. I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras said with regard to his particular Amendment, and it did seem to me that it was possible to have a compromise between a general breaking into contracts, and that the action of the Bill should be applied to contracts made, say, since the Report of the Retail Committee. There is some justification for such alteration of contracts. That Committee did make specific recommendations with regard to prices charged by collieries, and their Report indicated that prices were far in advance of the cost of the previous period. This Bill gives them 4s. instead of 1s., so there is some justification for the Government and the House making this Bill apply to contracts made since the Report of the Retail Committee was issued.
    It is well for the House to understand what it really means. As I understand it, at all events from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, if we do not apply this Bill to contracts it means that the cost of house coal in the country will, be from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a ton more. If this

    1779
    Bill does not apply to manufacturing coal and its contracts, then it means in pounds shillings and pence something between 1s. and 5s. per ton. My right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras dwelt a good deal on the question of the cost of household coal in London. The difference between carrying his Amendment and not is, I believe, between 1s. 6d. and 2s. per ton. Again, there is the very serious matter which has not been mentioned in this Debate with regard to the effect on the prices of household coal and manufacturing coal in London. There is nothing in this Bill with reference to freights. We have not discussed that, and I do not want to start a discussion upon it now. I only mention it because it has a very very important bearing on the cost of manufacturing coal in London. It may have a far larger bearing on the cost of coal than the question of applying the Bill, or not applying it, to contracts. If the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to accept an Amendment somewhat on the lines of that proposed by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras it would be well, and it might perhaps include in that Amendment what is proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, which is now before the House; that is, that although it might apply to contracts made since the Report of the Retail Committee, it should only apply to coal not delivered prior to the passing of this Act. I do not think the Amendment of my right hon. Friend means that?
    Mr. DICKINSON: Yes it does.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: If it means that then it will meet my point. I do not think any serious injustice would be done to anybody if this Amendment were accepted. I do not think anybody who makes contracts would be very much surprised if the House of Commons took the course which this Amendment suggests. Everyone who has been trading in coal has understood that the whole matter has been under the consideration of the Government. They have expected that something would be done. If it had been done three months ago, and this Bill had then been passed, no one would have been surprised, no one would have objected, and the trade of the country would have been going on practically on the lines of this Bill. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will fully consider whether it is possible to make
    1780
    some compromise in view of the various arguments which have been urged on this very important question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have waited patiently all through the Debate to say a word or two on this very important question, because I do think really that if this Amendment is not accepted, or some such suggested alteration of the Bill, the Bill is not worth having. I want the House to observe what the President said when he introduced this Bill. He made the most amazing statement which has ever been made from that Front Bench. He said that people had only themselves to thank if shrewd business men had nothing in their contracts knowing that legislation was coming, and that those people who entered into contracts would have to stand by them. Just imagine the President saying that shrewd people were going to get the benefit of those people because they had not entered into their contracts, when he for five months had deferred bringing in this Bill! It was essential that those people who had to buy to carry on public utility services should have their supplies secured. The demand for coal is greater than the supply, and it was therefore essential for all merchants and people to secure their contracts. What has happened in the last few days? It has been said there is 20 per cent, of free coal. Not at all. What has happened on the Coal Exchange since this Bill has been introduced is that the coal owners have gone there and through their agents have said, "Unless yon buy at once at prices which were given you, now we will not give you coal at all." Therefore, innumerable contracts have been entered into in the last few days by merchants who want their supply of coal; otherwise they would not get it. Then the President tells us that they are shrewd, indeed, who have not entered into these contracts. The situation means that more contracts are being made, and simply for the reason that there is this shortage of coal. The proposal of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras is, I think, an admirable one. The Secretary of the Board of Trade said yesterday that the House of Commons was not going to be allowed to do what they liked. I asked him whether the House, of Commons could vote freely and he said. "No; we are going to have the party Whip." I have never asked the Whip how I am going to vote, and I never shall. But when an Under-Secretary gets up, in reply to a

    1781
    question as to whether the House of Commons will be allowed to act on its own free judgment, and says, "No; you have to do as we, the officials of the Board of Trade, tell you to do," I do not think the House of Commons—
    Mr. RRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make that statement. The hon. Member asked me whether the matter would be left to the House, and I told him what our advice would be. I made a perfectly plain statement. I said that I considered in a matter of this kind it was the duty of the Government to give its advice to the House, and not to leave the House without leadership, but that the House, of course, would come to its own decision.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is exactly what I said. The only difference between my hon. Friend and myself is that, instead of leaving the House to their own judgment, when they put on party Whips for party loyalty hon. Members vote with their party irrespective of the merits of the question. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman definitely said he would not leave this question to the House of Commons. Let me tell the House what they will have to vote by way of loans and sums of money if they are not going to accept this Amendment. Railway companies are paying to-day in some cases in Wales double the price they were paying for coal twelve months ago. The railway companies, I think, consume about 40,000 tons a day. Parliament, however, has guaranteed the dividends of railway companies, and, as a consequence, this House will have to make good to the railway companies the enormous difference in these charges. An advance of 4s. is a reasonable sum to meet the difficulty the trade is in, but to allow people to charge prices which have been charged in many contracts renders this Bill absolutely worthless. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) made a statement that the coal owners of Yorkshire last February entered into an arrangement that they would not increase the price of coal above that approximately in this Bill. I challenge him to name one colliery that did so.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I could name a great many.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I ask him to name any colliery selling coal right up to the end of June, when coal was selling at f.o.b. Hull and Grimsby as much as 25s. I do
    1782
    not know whether he has the daily returns, as I have, but I can assure him the figures I have given are market prices. No such combination was ever made. The association to which he referred is only an association which deals with railway contracts and certificates. With that association are connected some of the collieries with which I am associated, and therefore I know exactly what happens. It has nothing whatever to do with it at all.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Baronet does not attend the meetings of that association, and does not know what takes place. I do, and I know five months ago that association met, and we decided amongst ourselves not to charge more than this Bill charges, and I believe that understanding has been honourably carried out.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: To the general public? The hon. Member is quite mistaken. My representative attends all those meetings.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Contracts.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Contracts, too. Contracts have been entered into. We are not talking about contracts; we are dealing at this particular moment with free coal, when coal has been sold. It is no good the coal owner saying he has not had the plunder, and the merchant says he has not the plunder. The public has had to pay. We have all had our finger in the pudding; I have had mine. I have had more than I am entitled to.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Disgorge it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Coal owners and merchants between them have had it, and consumers have had to pay. If we go to a Division on this question we shall beat the Government. I see the Patronage Secretary has been moving rather briskly up and down the House, and I have a very shrewd suspicion he knows the Government are in a very difficult position. Oh! but he has got, I understand, faithful battalions behind him, irrespective of the merits of the subject. If, however, the Government pass this Bill in the form in which it is it will do much harm to the Coalition Government in industrial districts, because the working people, under contracts which have already been made, will be paying as much money in the coming winter as they did last winter. It will be a scandal to the House of Commons to bring forward a Bill to limit the

    1783
    price of coal which practically places no limitation at all, because most of the coal has actually been sold before the Bill becomes law, and therefore the object of the Bill cannot be attained.
    Sir A. MOND: There is one aspect of this question which has not been presented to the Committee during this Debate. One of the great difficulties which I see will arise if the present intention of having two lots of coal prices, a high contract price and a lower maximum, is carried out, will be that those who wish to buy at the lower maximum price will never get any coal at all, because all the coal that is available will go to those who have made contracts at the higher price. A well-known colliery proprietor told me that it is obvious, having got people to pay the higher price, he will take care to see that nobody is going to get coal at the lower price. This is not an exaggerated view at all, because a colliery owner knows that the consumers must have the coal. I know cases in which contracts were in existence at the lower price, and the coal owners have refused to deliver under those contracts unless they do so at the higher price on the ground that they had better contracts, and therefore they would not sell under the old contracts during the War. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with them.
    It is no use looking at this question from the point of view of the London household coal. Really I never understood how anyone could defend the so-called sanctity of contract on this system. After all, the whole doctrine of the sanctity of contract is built upon the idea that you have two independent contracting parties who are at liberty to contract or not to contract. We are not talking now of people in the position of free and willing contractors, because one of the parties is bound to contract or close down their gas works or electric lighting works. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman did not give some warning to all these public bodies that he was going to produce this legislation and tell them not to buy for a month. I should have thought he could have given his advice confidentially in that way. How did they know whether he would introduce a Bill, or what maximum price he was going to fix? There is nothing so easy as to be shrewd when you have the information and the other party has not.
    1784
    The right hon. Gentleman knew what he was going to do, but these public bodies did not know. Those of us who have to regard the sanctity of contracts recognise the importance of contracts being observed, even at a considerable loss, but to penalise the large body of coal contractors because they have bought two or three weeks before the right hon. Gentleman has introduced his Bill is calculated to produce an acute sense of unfairness throughout the whole of the community, and will do a great deal of harm to the Government and to the House.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Debate on this Amendment has been much the most important on the Bill, and it has certainly led to a great variety of both theoretical and commercial doctrine. When my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Mond), who has just sat down, suggests that it is part of the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to give a private tip to one of the parties to a commercial transaction. I think we may say that we have got into a new commercial code.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not look upon public authorities in the same sense as private individuals. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am merely putting my view. It is not a question of a private tip to advise people that you are going to introduce legislation which is going fundamentally to alter contractual relations.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my right hon. Friend was talking relevant to this Amendment, he was dealing practically with every case, for this Amendment does not strike merely at local authorities, it deals with everybody who may have bought coal before the introduction of this Bill. The suggestion that has been made by my right hon. Friend is that owing to their feeling the pressure of necessity the local authorities were bound during the last few weeks, before this Bill was introduced, to make contracts at prices above the standard prices in the Bill. I understand that a large number of local authorities have been squeezed in Scotland as well as in England. I do not know how large the number is, but, if I may say so with respect, there appears to be a good deal of exaggeration about the extent to which the relief that could be given by turning this into a delivery and not into a sales Bill, would be likely to confer upon the local authorities. As a matter of fact, my information is that although a good many local authorities

    1785
    have made their contracts there are also a very large number who have refrained from doing so, and these local authorities who have refrained from making their contracts will undoubtedly get the benefit of this Bill, if it is passed.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the colliery owners supply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The colliery owner will certainly supply if he can make a profit out of it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has received a letter from the borough of Stoke-on-Trent, in which they say that colliery owners refuse to supply except at 6s. a ton more, and that they cannot get coal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a letter to that effect from Stoke-on-Trent, but it is not the only place affected. I am pointing out that some authorities have refrained from making their contracts as early as they were pressed to do so, and so have private individuals, and so have large numbers of merchants. It appears to be thought from the discussion we have heard to-night that 80 per cent, of the output of coal in Great Britain has been contracted for during the past few weeks before this Bill was introduced. That quite overlooks the fact that there are very large coal-fields in Great Britain which do not run from August to August or from September to September, but from January to December. Their contracts are made in the winter, and every one of these will get the full benefit of this Bill. If there is any case at all, it is certainly the case of the local authorities, who, as I have said before, may be squeezed. I will return to them in a moment, but, before I deal with them, let me deal with the whole case as put forward by the mover of this Amendment. He provides in his Amendment that contracts that were made before this Bill was introduced shall be torn up. It is true that we have done many bold things during the War, but I know none so bold as to definitely tear up commercial undertakings which have been entered into and which would really mean not only that you would be breaking what is the real basis of commercial life in this country, but that you would be actually conferring by Act of Parliament upon some business men a benefit which you deprive other business men the opportunity of possessing.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the beginning of the War certain collieries refused to deliver coal under their contracts?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If a man breaks his contract he can be taken, into Court. Nobody sympathises with one who breaks a contract. Yet this Amendment suggests w e should break contracts! The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said he had not much respect for the argument as to subsidiary contracts.
    Let us see how far that would take him. Suppose a big contractor—a bridge builder, a steel maker, a chemical manufacturer, or a potter—had entered into a contract in May last to buy coal during next year at a certain price above the standard rate. It is more than likely that that bridge builder, steel maker or chemical manufacturer would have taken into consideration the price ho would have to pay for the coal when he was making his own contracts for the ensuing year, and that price would be incorporated in the price he charged for the commodity which he produced. It is pretty certain ho would have taken into account the exact price he expected to pay for his coal. But along comes the hon. Gentleman with his Amendment to substitute 4s. for 6s. The 2s. would be put straight into the pocket of the steel maker or bridge builder, or potter, or chemical manufacturer! Are we going to have another Bill to provide that the steel maker's engines or motors, or whatever he may produce, shall be reduced in price in proportion? The Committee knows that that would be a perfectly ridiculous proposal. Yet by carrying this Amendment you would simply be giving 2s. right off to the producer of the article. Then there are the cases of merchants who have sold in double or quadruple. Are you going to place every one of those contracts in the same position? My hon. and learned Friend suggests that it should be left to the County Court judge to do. But how could he do it? We have on this side of the House one of the largest suppliers of domestic coal in London. I do not know whether he has made his contracts for the coming year, but I do know that once he has made his contracts for the succeeding year he proceeds, as rapidly as possible, to cover himself by subsidiary contracts for sale. It may be he makes a thousand such contracts; it may be twenty thousand, for he enters into an enormous

    1787
    number of them. Are you going to ask the Board of Trade, or some other authority, or the County Court judge, to consider every one of these contracts made for the sale of domestic coal? If you do not, you give this man the advantage of the 2s. under this Amendment.
    Further, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reminds me that you cannot always identify the coal. You cannot trace it, and it amounts to nothing more than that the Government would be taking away from certain coal producers and miners a benefit which the Governments thinks they should have, and the merchants, because you cannot trace the coal sold under the sub-contracts, will get the whole of that benefit. And all that is to be done because it is said the Bill should be retrospective. I have heard a good deal of the Debate to-night. I did not hear the whole of it, because I took my dinner at a reasonable hour. But it has been an appeal ad misericordiam from beginning to end. Certain authorities and certain merchants, it is said, have made contracts above the standard price named in the Bill, and it is contended that they ought to have had the benefit of an earlier introduction of the Bill, so that when the season came round for making their contracts they would have had this Bill as a protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested we had been guilty of a crime. I think we have been guilty of a crime which, in the minds of some politicians, k the greatest of all crimes — we have actually listened to the advice of the permanent official. What was the cause of the delay? I explained it to the House on Monday. One cause of the delay was that it was impossible to proceed with a Bill like this in which you entered a standard price like that unless you were of necessity sure that the standard price was going to be a fair one, and one that would help. If this Bill had been introduced in the month of April it would have been introduced before the War bonus had been decided upon for the wages of miners all over Great Britain; it would have been introduced before the great readjustment of wages in Scotland, and before there had been anything like equilibrium in the Welsh coal-field. It would have been introduced at a time when materials were fluctuating with great rapidity in price, some upwards and some downwards, and at a time when it would have been impos-
    1788
    sible to state with any degree of accuracy whether 4s., 3s., or 5s. was anything like a fair sum to put in the Bill. It was essential, before we started doing anything so drastic as this Bill does, that we should have something like equilibrium in the coal trade. I confess that I was reluctant to introduce the Bill at a time when in almost every coal-field labour troubles were unsettled, when negotiations were going on, and when this proposal would itself have provided one of the most disturbing factors in those very negotiations. If that was not a very good excuse, I have none other to offer. It is of first importance that at the present time there should be nothing done by Parliament which afterwards might cause greater difficulty between capital and labour.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Why not May or June?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have just answered that question. If we had taken May there would have been no wages readjustment in Scotland or a settlement of anything in South Wales. Then, if we had taken the beginning of May, there were grave doubts about the supply of the necessary materials for the collieries. I know that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mackinder) said he thought we had been inept, incompetent; that we had been ironical—I have forgotten all the other eloquent phrases he used. I would suggest to him that, when he is discussing a purely business project, he had better avoid eloquence and confine himself to business.
    Mr. MACKINDER: It cost £70,000.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Let us see exactly what has happened in the case of household coal in London. My right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Dickinson), who knows the London case very well and who appealed to the Committee on behalf of the London consumer, asked what was likely to be the price of coal in London in the coming winter. He gave some estimates with which I cannot quarrel, because I cannot prophesy what the price of coal in the coming winter will be. I do not know that you are going to benefit the London consumers if you are going to tear up all contracts. One of the greatest securities London has had in the past is that coal has come in under contract. It is true that one form of contract, the sliding scale contract, has been detrimental to London in the past. That is why

    1789
    the main suppliers of London undertook at the Board of Trade that in the coming winter they would abandon the sliding scale. If they do not do so, I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend—
    Mr. DICKINSON: Is that the mine owners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, the coal owners in the Midlands, who are the main suppliers of household coal in London. If my right hon. Friend knows of any cases, perhaps he will let me know who are the suppliers who attended at the Board of Trade who have departed from the undertaking they gave the Government. That has nothing to do with the Bill or the Amendment. It does not get rid of the sliding scale system and it does not cover it, so that in so far as what my right hon. Friend said was relevant, it would not help in the very least. The truth is that the Committee-has been much impressed by the special case of Glasgow. Glasgow is one of the largest purchasers of coal for its gas and electric light undertakings. I think something like 960,000 tons of coal have been bought under contract by the Glasgow corporation. The Glasgow corporation bought before the Bill was introduced. I have been found fault with for having used the unfortunate word "shrewd" in a previous Debate. It may be that the Glasgow corporation did their best to avoid contracting. Possibly they failed to buy from hand to mouth. It is quite possible that their stocks were so low that they could not afford to wait and run the risk of the market in any degree. If that is the case I dare say there may be good reason for taking the position of that corporation and others into consideration.
    Mr. MACKINDER: The demand increased owing to munition supplies.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That may be. I do not know what their demands were. If that was so, possibly their special case ought to be taken into consideration. But that is quite a different proposition from the one before the House. The Amendment would strike at the root of all commercial stability. No man would know where he was, no contractor would know where he was, no manufacturer would know where he was, and no sub-contractor would know where he was. It would mean that you would be transferring the definite benefit by this Amendment from one set of pockets to another, and if that is the wholesale way in which the hon.
    1790
    Gentleman means to deal with the Bill, I cannot accept his Amendment. It would give no relief, it would cause a great deal of trouble and mischief in nearly all our industries, and it would certainly do no good to those whom we wish to benefit. But the special ease that has been put of corporations is one which I think the Government is bound to consider, and I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division, or if it is, that it should be beaten, and that the Government shall, between now and the Report stage, endeavour to meet the case of local authorities and those public utility companies which are limited in the payment of dividends. In one form or another the local authority is the State, and it may be that we are doing right to protect the State with respect to some of these contracts. I am very doubtful about the principle of the thing, but the Bill is one purely of expediency, and to deal with the case of the local authorities is quite a different matter from tearing up all contracts which have been entered into before the introduction of this Bill. If the Committee will take the advice I give them and negative the Amendment, I can undertake that the Government will see what may be done for the local authorities and those who are in similar positions, and we will make a proposal on the Report stage.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has made a powerful speech and has shown some reasons to which weight ought to be attached for rejecting this Amendment. But I cannot resist the feeling that he has shown more reason against the Bill itself. The question that constantly occurred to me at the end of each of his arguments was, granted that that is so, of what use is the Bill itself. I have listened attentively to the Debate on this question, which is really the crux of the Bill, and I cannot resist the conclusion that without this Amendment the Bill is merely a piece of window dressing; that it is full of dummy parcels, which are made to show and not to sell that it is intended merely to have the effect of stopping criticism in the country, of calming public feeling, and of deluding the people into the idea that something is being done to prevent that high price of coal which prevailed last season. It will not prevent that rise in price to the consumer. The hon. Member for Mansfield has shown, I think, conclusively, that as the Bill stands the 4s. standard which is the basis of the Bill is wholly delusive,

    1791
    and that by selecting the days on which they will make their contracts the owners of the coal can really raise the average standard over all their contracts very much above 4s. average over last year. If this Amendment were carried the intention of the Bill would be legitimately and bonâ fide carried out. Practically the whole of the coal for the ensuing year is now subject to contracts already made. Those contracts have been made bonâ fide; they have not been made on selected days, and, therefore, if this 4s. standard were to apply to them, it would be a genuine standard, and would really carry out the intentions of the Government in regard -to the price of coal as it reaches the consumer. Attention has been called to the case of Glasgow, and I was very glad to hear the suggestion which was held out by the right hon. Gentleman, that the case of corporations should be a subject for special treatment. I do not think they are justly entitled to special treatment any more than the ordinary private individual or private trader who has entered into contracts. If a concession is made to corporations and public utility bodies, private traders who supply domestic consumers are entitled to claim the same concession. I am, however, glad to welcome the concession so far as it goes. There is only one further point. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very strong point about not interfering with contracts. I think he has forgotten the measure which was imposed by the Government at the beginning of the War, a measure called the Moratorium. That was an interference with contracts. We are acting to-day under the same coercion as the Government was acting when it imposed the moratorium on many people who had made contracts. I earnestly ask the Government, in considering the question with regard to public utility companies and corporations, to consider again, with an open mind, the question of applying the Bill to all contracts whatsoever.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I think it right that one supporter of the Government should say how very much disappointed he is at the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I do not think that it is at all satisfactory simply to yield to the corporations and the public utility companies, and I hope that before we come to the end of the Bill the Government will see its way to adopt some concession
    1792
    on the lines of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, so that this question of contracts made since March could come before a judge of the County Court, or some other judicial person, who shall decide in each case where it is not possible to do justice to the consumers in this matter.
    Mr. HODGE: May I suggest a compromise—that this Amendment be withdrawn if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot on the spur of the moment agree to that course. If this Amendment w7ere withdrawn I could give an undertaking that the matter will be dealt with as rapidly as possible by the Government. In reference to future procedure, we propose to finish the Committee stage tomorrow and take the Report stage on Monday, when we hope to show what our proposals will be.
    Mr. HODGE: In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: It can only be withdrawn by the hon. Member who moved it. Of course, that does not affect its being brought up on the Report stage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words,
    "Provided that a person shall not be liable to a fine under this provision if he shows that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was not committing an offence."
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will accept that Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: What precedent is there for accepting an Amendment of this kind? If a person shows that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was committing no offence, of course he would not be convicted. This Amendment would make the procedure under this Bill simply ludicrous. The provisions of this Bill are to be applied to intelligent people. You are not dealing with rogues and vagabonds. You are dealing with colliery proprietors, persons of high intelligence, who have skilled advisers. The Government, which has resisted reasonable Amendments all

    1793
    the night when they were proposed in favour of the public, accept this Amendment in favour of the colliery proprietor. That shows the trend of Board of Trade opinion. It is a coal trend. Unless some explanation be given of Amendments of this kind those who have been pressing in vain for Amendments in the interests of the public will take a Division against an Amendment in the interests of those who, if they break the law, must in my opinion break it advisedly.
    Sir R. ADKINS: There is an entire want of necessity for this Amendment. People are not convicted unless they have committed an offence, and I cannot conceive why these words should be put in, adapted as they are to throw doubt on the whole proceeding. I ask the Government not to accept the Amendment, or do anything in any way to weaken the character of the Bill, weak enough already.
    Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Gentleman opposite, though his reputation is great, I submit is mistaken. The Sub-section says, "if any person sells or offers for sale, "he shall be liable to conviction, and my hon. Friend is quite right that he ought not to be convicted unless he does it knowingly and wilfully. The words he proposes are absolutely necessary; otherwise, if a "person sells or offers for sale, "however, innocently, he must be convicted. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that if a person makes a sale, however innocently, he must be convicted by the magistrate because of the mere fact of the sale.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I join in the appeal to the President of the Board of Trade not to accept this Amendment. If a man sells obviously he does it "knowingly," and even the introduction of that word in the Sub-section would not strengthen it. How can it be possible that any dealer in coal does not know what he is doing in making a sale? If he commits an offence he knows perfectly well that he will be convicted in the ordinary way. Nobody ever dreams of putting in such words as these where there is a penal offence, and the assumption on which people are punished is that they know the law; and here is a distinct statutory declaration that a man dealing in coal who sells it in contravention of the provisions in the Bill is liable to be convicted. That the President of the Board of Trade has accepted an Amendment of this character is to me astonishing, for it is the most unusual departure from precedent which he could adopt.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite is much stronger than "knowingly "the words are "reasonable grounds. "The hon. Gentleman says there is no precedent for this; there is a great quantity of precedents.
    Mr. HEALY: Quote one.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not learned in the law like the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. HEALY: Did the right hon. Gentleman take advice before he accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I was advised to accept the Amendment, and I believe there are many precedents.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I desire to ask a question with regard to the method in which old age pensions are now being paid. I unfortunately did not hear an answer given to-day, but I have been told what it was. The information was conveyed to me, and I have every reason to believe it to be accurate; that instructions have been given, I presume by the Treasury, to the officers concerned with paying these old age pensions that they are not to regard any sum of money that the pensioners are earning, but to pay the pension irrespective of that amount. Instead of the limit of £31 10s. the person might be earning £52 and he would still receive the pension of five shillings per week. I have had a little conversation with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu), and I gather that some such instructions as that have been given. On what authority has he given those instructions? I have read the Bill through very carefully, and I find any number of Clauses dealing with the manner- in which the money is to be paid, and the total of £31 10s. stated, but I cannot find any Clause which authorises the Treasury or any Government official to depart from the directions given in the Bill.

  1795
  It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that this is only a temporary instruction given under temporary circumstances. I think that is the answer, but there is no authority for doing so in the Act. There is this direction in the Act, that the sum earned if there is no other way of ascertaining it shall be the sum earned in the preceding year, but even if the right hon. Gentleman founded any argument on that I think he will be met by this, that as soon as the £31 10s. has been earned then no further money can be paid during that particular year. I do not want to raise any question as to whether or not five shillings is sufficient or insufficient. I am not quite sure whether it would be in order because any alteration would require legislation, but I think I am in order in saying this, that if the Government are dissatisfied with the amount in the Act the proper way is to say that circumstances have arisen which require the revision of the Act. It is not the proper way to take advantage if they can—I do not think they can—of any loophole, if it exists, to do something which was never contemplated by the Act without coming to the House of Commons for the necessary authority by an amending Bill. Old age pensions are at present costing the country over £13,000,000 a year; we were told when the Act was introduced that they would cost only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. At a time when everybody is urging economy upon private people and private people are urging economy on the State, it is a very bad policy to introduce a system which really connives at fraud upon the intentions of the Act.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Perhaps I ought to explain exactly how this matter arose. There have been from time to time in the House of Commons requests to alleviate the lot of old age pensioners faced with war conditions and the increase in prices, and from all quarters suggestions have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the rate of the pension should be increased. For obvious reasons, and mainly because of the large demands now being made on the taxpayers, these demands have been most regretfully resisted. Besides that, there have been repeated requests from all quarters of the House not to let casual war receipts operate to reduce the pension, and the particular instance quoted has always been the agricultural labourer who, in
  1796
  order to repair the shortage of labour, undertook, as I think most patriotically, to assist in getting in the harvest. The case was pressed very strongly by the present President of the Local Government Board in the Debate on the Board of Agriculture Vote. It was in accordance with those representations that my predecessor, the late Financial Secretary, made this statement, which has not been quite accurately represented by the hon. Baronet. There have been no instructions to old age pension officers not to take into account the means of applicants for old age pensions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I only asked whether
  that was so.
  Mr. MONTAGU: There have been no such instructions. I will read the statement—
  "Instructions will be given to pension officers not to raise questions in the case of existing pensioners in respect of any temporary increase of means due to the pensioner's re-employment on account of shortage of labour arising out of and during the war, provided there is no evidence of a desire to pay on account of the pension less than the proper rates of wages."
  That is all. I venture to think that, on its merits, the overwhelming sense of the House would be in favour of such a lenient operation of the law, and that if the House of Commons wants to seek economy it will not do it at the expense of the old man over seventy who, in order to repair the shortage of labour during the War, goes back from his retirement, and seeks temporarily a certain amount of valuable remuneration for work which the State cannot do without. We want labour, and we are anxious to enlist everybody who will work. For that reason, and for that reason only, it has been suggested to pension officers, that for temporary employment arising out of the shortage of labour during the War, they should not raise questions about the means of existing pensioners. As to the legal authority. The Act says that the means of the old age pensioner should not be more than £31 10s. a year. The whole question turns upon how those means are to be ascertained. I am quoting broadly the effect of the Act, which says that, subject to certain conditions, a person shall be entitled to an old age pension. The pension officers may at any time raise before the Local Old Age Pensions Committee the question as to whether the statutory conditions continue-to be fulfilled. We have given instructions to the pension officer that he has to regard

  1797
  this as temporary employment. It is, I would remind the House, the case of an old man over seventy. It is not likely to be prolonged employment, and there is no reason at the outset to suppose that it will increase his means over the statutory limit for the year. There is nothing illegal in our taking the one test of what he earned last year. We have asked the pension officer not to raise the question before the Local Committee simply because an old man has come forward and done a little work in a time of shortage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not the Act before him. It does not quite convey all he says in his explanation. The first Section says:—
  "Every person in whose case the conditions laid down by this Act for the receipt of an old age pension (in this Act referred to as the statutory conditions) are fulfilled, shall be entitled to receive such pension under this Act so long as these conditions continue to be fulfilled."
  Mr. MONTAGU: I appreciate that. The whole question between us is how we are to ascertain whether or not the statutory conditions are fulfilled. For that purpose we have suggested in this time of stress to the pension officers that they are not to raise the question of temporary employment before the Local Committee. I venture to assert that the hon. Baronet can find nothing in the Act which makes that a non-fulfilment of the duty of the pensions officers. He has got to be satisfied before raising the question before the Local Old Age Pensions Committee that there is a reasonable expectation that the earning will continue long enough to justify the reduction. How can he be so satisfied in the case of an old age pensioner who goes back to work? I agree that in normal times the pensions officer has to assume that the old age pensioner — ruling out all notoriously casual earnings—will only take on such work as he can do, and the onus of it being only temporary is thus thrown on the old age pensioner! Would that be reasonable in the present emergency, when we want every man to work, and do not want him to risk his pension to the detriment of the offer of his services? If it is any satisfaction to the hon. Baronet to know it, I may say that though we have given instructions to the pension officers not to raise this before the Local Committees it does not mean that they are not to report these
  1798
  cases to the Board of Customs, to whom the pension officer is responsible. We have knowledge of the eases. We shall be able to see that this concession is not abused. There have only been some 400 or 500 cases of the sort out of a million pensioners. I venture to suggest that it would be very hard and totally against the public interest if the House were to endorse what the hon. Baronet says.
  Mr. MORTON: I desire very briefly to bring before the House a question which was asked by my hon. Friend this afternoon. It refers to the case of the late Private William Gordon, Sutherland. I am sorry I did not have notice of the question from my hon. Friend. If I had I should certainly have attended here at question time and I regret, of course, I was not here, and that the usual courtesy was not extended to me of giving notice that the question was to be brought forward. This case was brought to my attention some weeks back, and of course I am taking an interest in the matter because it is in my Constituency. I at once submitted the case to the late Financial Secretary to the War Office, and asked for its consideration, and, if possible, the granting of a pension to the widow in the usual way. No doubt there was a little delay owing to the change of Government, but as soon as the new Financial Secretary took office I wrote calling his attention to the case and asking for its consideration. I later wrote again stating definitely that I thought it was a case that ought to be attended to, and that the widow ought to have some pension. This man had been in the Territorial Force for some years, and he joined the Lovat Scouts last Autumn. He was taken ill and discharged as being unfit in health for the occupation. He was away from the Army when he died, and that, I am told, is the difficulty in connection with the matter. But the point raised, and very properly raised, so far as I understand it, is this: the medical officer who examined him, passed him as being in fit and proper health for the service of a soldier. It is all very well to say the doctor might make a mistake; no doubt doctors do sometimes, but they ought not to make quite such a big mistake as that, and allow a man to take up work for which apparently he was quite unfit. The result was that in a very short time he became ill, and was unfit to work, and was finally discharged. I do not want to make any complaint about anybody, but I must say that if all your

  1799
  medical officers acted in this way, you might have a very poor Army indeed. I received within the last day or two a very long, detailed letter from the Financial Secretary explaining the whole circumstances, and I am very much obliged to him for sending it. That I sent off yesterday to the relatives of the widow at Brora, and, of course, it has hardly been received yet, so that any comments which they may wish to make cannot be expected yet. I wish to say that, generally speaking, I have received the greatest attention to the number of cases which I have brought before the Admiralty and the War Office, and consequently I have not troubled the House with questions upon them. It is quite clear that the doctor ought not to have passed this man, and if his death was not actually caused by his duties as a soldier, it would certainly be accelerated. I think that his widow and children are entitled to the consideration of the Government, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to do something to meet this case. It is a hard case, and I trust that the War Office will do something to settle it in a reasonable and Christian spirit.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The matter I wish to bring before the Government is the question of the expulsion from Ireland recently, under military authority, of a number of persons. I wish to acknowledge the way in which the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland has discharged his onerous duties, and nobody will think that I am saying anything to embarrass him in the discharge of that duty, or that I am doing anything other than to make a suggestion which I believe will be helpful to the Government. It should be remembered that the Irish people en masse have for the first time in their history thrown in their lot cordially and willingly with this Empire in the great struggle in which we are engaged. That being so I would submit that any slight temporary aberration by a very small minority should be somewhat indulgently treated. It must be remembered that Ireland in the past has suffered very grievously and memories of this still remain, although many of our grievances have been redressed If you expel men from Ireland without cause shown they only go over to America and they do far more harm there by influencing public opinion in America than they could do at home, where their words and actions can be measured and where every allowance
  1800
  can be made of what they say and do. From the point of view merely of expediency I would suggest to the Government that great caution is necessary before you turn a man out of house and home and compel him to find a living elsewhere in a strange country.
  I would like to contrast the way in which these offences in Ireland have been dealt with in England. I was appalled to read in to-day's "Times" that a man who was caught signalling from one of His Majesty's ships in the Irish Channel, doing what is an act of war, for which if I were Commander-in-Chief I would have him shot out of hand, got three months' imprisonment. Three months' imprisonment for signalling in a channel invested with submarines and with all kinds of dangers to be encountered! Again, I read in some paper of a Dutchman, caught for the second time making signals, being let off with three months' imprisonment. Compare these offences of actual crimes with the fact that you impose perpetual banishment on men in Ireland for mere suspicion Of course, the Irish people read these contrasts, and take them into account, and my suggestion to the Government is this: Unhappily gentlemen like General Friend, and the present Under-Secretary, Sir Matthew Nathan, in Ireland, are practically situated as if I were sent to Sumatra, and had to deal with the' problems which arise there. I would suggest to the Government that they should associate with the military authority some persons who would give them independent advice which would not be tainted as some of the advice which they get by mere police suspicion. You can hardly take up an Irish paper in a morning now without reading of some incident. It is comparatively a new matter. It did not go on for the first eight or nine months of the war. Take yesterday morning's paper:—
  "Queenstown, Thursday.—At a very early hour this morning a party of police, under Head Constable B. Byrne, visited the residences of John Dowling and Patrick Curran and served them with notices to leave Queenstown within 24 hours, and forbidding them to reside anywhere within the confines of the county Cork. Dowling works as a fitter at Haulbowline, and is a native of Queenstown. Curran came to Queenstown as manager of the local Co-operative Society, and is said to be a native of the county Meath."
  I can understand turning a man out of Queenstown. There may be a reason for that, and it is not banishing a man out of his own country. But I read of four men— nearly all of them have English names, Blythe and Mellows, and are men not

  1801
  likely to belong to clans in Ireland or to command any general public sympathy— being expelled from the country altogether and without any notice. I am far from saying that when we gave these powers to the Government we never expected that they would be exercised, but the growth of these cases is well calculated to kindle men who are friendly or at the worst neutral and arouse them into hostility. I have seen a good many ups and downs in Ireland, but I have never known any good come of imprisoning or banishing anybody. I do not know that the existence of a state of war makes any great difference unless the man comes out as an open enemy, and then of course he can be dealt with. From what I know of the suspicion of what goes on in certain districts, where sometimes there is private malice, I can only say that my experience is to incline me to doubt the wisdom of these proceedings. I must entirely dissociate myself from any sympathy with these men. If they in any way contravened the real military necessities of the case, I would entirely support the Government in any action they took. The Government will not therefore take it that I am partially criticising or anything of that kind. Do not run any risk of inflaming Irish feeling. Do not run the risk of sending missionaries to the United States of America or elsewhere, who feel that they have been treated unjustly. Some schedule or form should be prepared, and the police and military should put in writing what it is they have against a man. It is a most useful thing to put in writing matters of that sort; it makes the man who does it justify himself. If you had a precise record of the charge against these men it would constitute a check; at present you have no check; a policeman may take a dislike to a man, he may make representations to the military authorities, and the man is at once ordered for expulsion. You need greater precautions and greater circumspection; it would be in the interests of the military themselves that you should have it.
  Mr. HOGGE: A matter to which I drew attention at Question time raises a much wider question than has been elaborated by the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton). It is the case of Gordon, Sutherland, a private in the Lovat Scouts. This man was recruited as far back as 5th August. He was then medically inspected and I have here a letter from his brother—a friend of mine who asked me
  1802
  to bring this matter up in the House—in which he states his brother was at the depot when the Scouts were medically examined, that the examination was a very thorough one, the men parading with nothing on, that a few were rejected, but that he was passed as fit. The inspecting medical officer was Dr. Campbell, of the 2nd Regiment of Lovat's Scouts. This man after being enlisted was taken with his companions into the King's Service, and in the month of September was put to work as a cook, work which the War Office described as light. Subsequently in September he had various illnesses for which he was treated medically by the military authorities. There is some question as to whether the method of his treatment accelerated his attack. I do not however wish to discuss that. I wish to base my claim for consideration of his case on the wider point. Finally the man was discharged and travelled to his home in Brora, Sutherlandshire, where he died on the 19th March—ten days later. The medical certificate showing the cause of death can be produced if necessary. It is obvious that the disease of which he died was contracted after he had joined His Majesty's forces.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No.
  Mr. HOGGE: If it had been before he would never have been allowed to join the Army. He would have been rejected. Had that been the case, and had the medical inspector acting for the War Office been competent he would never have passed the man as medically fit.
  Mr. TENNANT: I must interrupt the hon. Member. I understood him at Question Time to admit that this disease was contracted long before the man entered the service.
  Mr. HOGGE: I never made any such admission.
  Mr. TENNANT: I thought it was common ground.
  Mr. HOGGE: No. I do not want to argue it on any basis but that there is a common ground between us. It may be the case of the War Office that this man was so affected, that they are entitled to say that he was in a certain condition before he was enlisted. That is not my case. My case is a wider one, and determines a principle which must be

  1803
  applicable to all cases, namely, that Dr. Campbell passed this man as medically fit, and that the Army retained his services from 5th August, the day after war was declared, and the day on which he joined, until 5th March in the following year. The man returned home in a very ill condition on the 8th, and he died on the 19th. The point at issue is this: As my right hon. Friend knows, the War Office statement is that where a man dies of wounds which he has received abroad, or from disease which he has contracted either abroad or at home while in the service of the Crown, that man's dependants are entitled to a pension. Not only that, but my right hon. Friend also knows that if it can be proved that the cause of a soldier's death is wounds, or disease contracted either at home or abroad within seven years of the close of the War, that man's dependants are also entitled to a pension. That is why, if my right hon. Friend will excuse me putting it in this way, I am raising the wider question on this individual case.
  The wider question is whether or not the War Office are intending to stand by the declaration of policy, whatever their view may be about an individual case.— I will argue that in a moment—it does not affect the general proposition that they stated this ground quite closely and that they ought to maintain that bargain. In the case of this man, I claim that the fact that he was passed as medically fit and remained in the Army for that length of time is the only fact upon which the War Office can base their action. This man has left a widow and six children; the eldest is a girl of fourteen and the rest of the children are correspondingly young. The effect of this action of the War Office in that district of Sutherland-shire is that the Army will not get another recruit out of it. The intensity of feeling with regard to the treatment of this man after that length of service is such that the men who recruited him and the other men who then went into Lovatt's Scouts will not raise a little finger to raise another man for the War Office. That is a state of things which everybody obviously regrets, and which ought to be remedied, and it can be remedied only by the War Office fulfilling their contract. This is a question which cannot be left in its present position. If the case of the War Office, which we shall hear presently, is that this man was affected in a certain
  1804
  way before he joined the Army, I am prepared to debate that at any moment on evidence I have that that is not the case so far as those who were most intimately connected with this soldier can state, and I want to fix the War Office down to the point that the man was passed as medically fit at a moment when others were rejected as medically unfit, and that he contracted this illness while with the forces of the Crown.
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course I do not admit that.
  Mr. HOGGE: He is now dead and he has left a widow and six children who are unprovided for for the moment—the War Office are not making any provision—and at present are living on the charity of their neighbours. There is the broad principle which must be decided now or discussed at some time in the House.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The case which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House is not at all a solitary one and I can give him the facts of a similar case of injustice which in the past week I have submitted in writing to the body that purports to grant pensions in these cases. It is the case of a young man, strong and healthy so far as anyone could see, who enlisted for the City of Cork at the outbreak of war. He was sent for training to one of the camps, and lived in a but or shed, some of which w ere constructed in a manner which left something to be desired from the point of view of comfort. At the end of six months, as the result of cold contracted in one of these buts, phthisis set in. The man was sent back to Athlone, and was discharged as medically unfit, and on his discharge his commanding officer told him he would get a pension, and that he was entitled to one. He returned to his home in Cork, and received an announcement that he was entitled to no pension. I have submitted the facts in writing to the Department that deals with these cases. It seems to be exactly on all fours with the case that the hon. Member has brought before the House, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a considerable difference between the theory and practice of the War Department in these matters—their theory when they are asking recruits to join, and their practice in the manner in which they treat them when they are disabled for service.

  1805
  So far as I know there is no question as to the facts of the case. So far as I know it is not denied that the condition of health of this young man is the direct result of the hardships which he sustained while on military service. He is the only supporter of his family. While he was in the Army there was a separation allowance going to his mother, but at present neither he nor his mother and family are getting a penny from the Crown. He has lost his health, and I fear will lose his life in consequence of the hardships he has sustained. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if the facts are as I state justice will be done to the man.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I was glad to hear from the interjection made by the right hon. Gentleman that he does not base his attitude in this case on any question of principle, but that he bases it on the facts of the case. Of course, it is always possible that there may be some mistake as to the facts. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) after careful examination of the facts has given one view. It often happens that these cases are presented to the War Office by the soldiers or their relatives, who are not adepts at stating a case or presenting the facts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be agreeable to examine the case in the light of any additional facts which my hon. Friend may be able to submit to him. In my own experience I have not found the War Office adopt a non possumus attitude in regard to these cases. So far, I have had several cases presented to me, but I have only approached the War Office in regard to one case up to the present. In regard to the case which I brought to their notice the War Office examined it very carefully and they gave a temporary pension to the man, who had suffered in health as a result of his short term of service in the Army.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to make a suggestion in regard to this matter, because there will be a number of similar cases. I think they will increase in quantity as time goes on. It would be well if an inquiry were made as to whether they have got life assurance policies, and what the companies have done to meet these claims on the certificate of death. The man may have made some slight misrepresentation. He either concealed some material fact, or he was unaware of the condition he was in. These cases occur very frequently in industrial life
  1806
  assurance and sometimes they are cases of great difficulty. I should think that it will be found that a side-light of a very definite character can be thrown upon many cases by looking into the life assurance policy—they are nearly all insured in some industrial company—and seeing what information can be got from that source. I throw that out as a suggestion.
  Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend from Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) will allow me to deal with his point first. In relation to that I should like to say how glad I was to hear the observations which fell from him as to the capacity and character of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland, to which I would add my humble tribute. Of course, we all gladly acknowledge the response which has been made generally from Ireland during the great crisis in which we now find ourselves. When the House of Commons passed the Defence of the Realm Acts, no one was more conscious than my hon. and learned Friend of the enormous powers which Parliament was placing in the hands of the Executive by that instrument. It was obvious that in a crisis of this kind some such powers were absolutely necessary, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman also concluded in his own mind that these powers were not going to be taken by the Executive for nothing, and that there was—I was going to say a great chance—certainly an obvious chance that they would be used at times when their use would, almost certainly, be found to be difficult to the persons charged under them. It stands to reason if you bring into use such great powers as these the person against whom they are used will experience some inconvenience, to say the least. But in the main, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear me out, these great powers have been utilised by the military authorities with caution and discrimination. As far as my information goes, they have never been put into use except after careful consideration of all the aspects of the case, and the benefit of the doubt, if any, has nearly always been given to the person concerned. At the same time, where there is real necessity on the part of the military authorities, I am sure the House will bear me out that if there be doubt the State ought not to be the loser. In such a case you ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the

  1807
  State. Maybe my hon. and learned Friend has in mind a case where he thinks injustice has been done.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I was speaking rather of the impression of injustice produced on the country than of the fact of injustice.
  Mr. TENNANT: The impression on the country, I agree, is a matter of the greatest importance, and we should all be anxious that there should be no impression of in justice having been committed. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend I shall be glad to co-operate with him in any case he may bring to my notice where he has ground for fearing injustice has been done. Passing to the case referred to by hon. Members on this side, I was a little surprised in listening to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, because he seemed to take different ground from what I understood was common ground between us at Question Time, namely, that this man had been the victim of heart disease for a very considerable time. That point was made almost ad nauseam at Question Time—
  Mr. PRINGLE: No.
  Mr. TENNANT: By me, anyhow.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is not common ground. My right hon. Friend insists that the man had chronic heart disease, whereas we never mentioned it. It cannot be deemed for a moment that that is common ground.
  Mr. TENNANT: That he was suffering from chronic heart disease, there is no question about that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, there is."] He was suffering from pericarditis, so that I do not think my hon. Friend has much ground to go on there. He is stated by a board of three doctors to have been suffering from chronic heart disease, and you do not get chronic heart disease in five minutes. He had really been suffering from this for a considerable period. My hon. Friend is inaccurate when he says the man joined the Lovat Scouts in August. He enlisted on the 6th June, 1910, so that he had been in the force nearly five years before he died. As the House is aware, there is no medical examination for the Territorial force when they first join, therefore it is not ascertained whether a man is or is not perfectly sound.
  Mr. HOGGErose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better allow the Under-Secretary for War to make his answer. The hon. Member made a very full case, and surely he should give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make his reply.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is a question of dates. The right hon. Gentleman said this man was examined on the 5th August, last year, when the War broke out. He had joined the Lovat Scouts previously, and that is a different point altogether.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to make his reply if, on every statement made, the hon. Member puts in his own statement; nor would it be possible to conduct a debate in the ordinary way if that course were followed.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not questioning the statement of my hon. Friend. The man was medically examined in August. I was only stating that the man joined the force so long ago as 1910. I do not make any particular point of that, but it is the fact. My hon. Friend asked me if men who contracted disease, and were invalided out of the Service, would be pensioned if they survived, or whether their widows would be pensioned if they died. My answer is, yes; but the whole of my contention is that this man did not contract his disease during Service. If my hon. Friend is prepared to prove to the War Office, by evidence which has not been before us that we are mistaken, I should be most ready and willing to listen to the evidence which he has to bring. I am perfectly prepared, also to agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very sad case, and I am exceedingly sorry for the widow and children. I think it is one of those cases which might be brought before the Statutory Committee when it is set up. I do not think it is possible for the Department to alter its standing rules with; regard to pensions in the way suggested. I do not think it is possible to say that persons who come into our Service already suffering from one of those various diseases should be allowed to receive a pension because he died in our Service. But I do make this suggestion to my hon. Friend, that I can engage to put the case before the Statutory Committee—about to be set up—in a special way, so that, as I hope and believe, a representation coming officially from the War Office

  1809
  might be treated in the most generous manner. I am exceedingly sorry for the poor woman and her children, and it is really a hard case. Having said that, and having said that I do not think it is possible to use public funds in such a case, I cannot see that there is anything more that I can say. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork, I am sorry he did not bring to my notice the case which he had in mind. If the particulars had been put before me I might have been able to deal with the question with advantage, and certainly generously. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will make it my duty and pleasure to look into the case and see whether anything can be done. Generally speaking, I do not think the charge lies against the War Office of want of generosity in these matters. Of course, a great Department like the War Office must lay down some rule. It is not possible to say because it is a case which presents a very sad picture that it should be dealt with in a particular way. Cases do come along when it appears to the casual observer who does not know of the difficulties of the case that we are really a hard set of people, but that is really not the case, as we have to draw hard and fast lines.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We all recognise the sympathy and consideration with which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War has dealt with these cases. None of us desire to reproach him in any way. I am sure of this, that every Member of the House who has had occasion to bring before him any hard case in relation to the Army or to dependants would bear witness of the kindly and sympathetic way in which he has dealt with everything brought before him. But this particular case is of great importance because of the principle involved in it. I am not going to go into the facts as to whether this disease was contracted before the War. I think, however, we ought to have a statement from the War Office as to what value they place upon the medical examination of recruits. When a man enlists in the Army and passes the medical examination he naturally infers that he is not suffering from any disease, and consequently that should he be wounded or die of wounds or of any disease after he enlists that his widow and those dependent upon him will be entitled to pensions and have the allowances which are held out by the War
  1810
  Office as inducements to men to enlist. I think he is entitled to believe that that will be the position of his dependants.
  However, we have this further point to consider, and to my mind the War Office have not given sufficient consideration tort, and it is this. You may have a man who is suffering from disease going into the Army. He then submits himself to-training, very severe training, and the very-period of that severe training may so aggravate the disease as to produce fatal results in the case of a man who if he had been going about his normal occupation might have lived many years. This man was apparently healthy and was going about his usual occupations at the time of the outbreak of war. None of those who knew him seemed to think there was any reason why his earning capacity would be effected by any physical incapacity. There is in this case the probability that his disease was so aggravated by the training as to bring about the fatal result which occurred in his case. Surely in a case of that kind, if there be organic disease which escaped the notice of the examining officer, there is ground for the belief that the death of the soldier was accelerated by the course of training which he had to undergo, and surely that is a case for the War Office-to consider as entitling the dependants to a pension. I hope that the War Office will consider such cases. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), had a special case which had come to his notice, which he was extremely anxious to bring before the right hon. Gentleman this evening, but unfortunately he had to leave the House before this Debate could arise. I know that the special point which he desired to put was that in cases where there was reasonable ground to believe that death was accelerated in this way the War Office did not raise the question whether it was a disease contracted before the man entered the Service, but should act on the basis that death had been accelerated by the training, and that his dependants should be entitled to the pensions and allowances which the War Office grants in cases where the man dies from diseases contracted after entering the Service, I trust that my right hon. Friend, if we can bring any further evidence and information under his notice, will fairly consider the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

  GROUSE (CLOSE TIME) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Order for resuming adjourned. Debate on Second Reading [19th July] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight minutes after Twelve a.m., Friday, 23rd July.

WAR.
  WAR LOAN.
    ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
    ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
    STOCKBROKERS AS AGENTS.
    STOCKBROKERS AS AGENTS.
    POST OFFICE SUBSCRIPTIONS.
    POST OFFICE SUBSCRIPTIONS.
  MUNITIONS.
    VISITS OF BRITISH WORKMEN TO FLANDERS.
    VISITS OF BRITISH WORKMEN TO FLANDERS.
    MACHINERY FOR MUNITIONS.
    MACHINERY FOR MUNITIONS.
    "SEALED PATTERNS" (ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE).
    "SEALED PATTERNS" (ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE).
    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMERGENCY TERMS).
    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMERGENCY TERMS).
    WAR DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
    WAR DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
    ARMY VETERINARY SERVICE.
    ARMY VETERINARY SERVICE.
    TRANSPORT SERVICE.
    TRANSPORT SERVICE.
    IRISH PRODUCTS (RECEIVING DEPOT).
    IRISH PRODUCTS (RECEIVING DEPOT).
    SIGNAL DEPOT, HOUGHTON REGIS.
    SIGNAL DEPOT, HOUGHTON REGIS.
    GERMAN ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
    GERMAN ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
    STATEMENTS PREJUDICIAL TO RECRUITING.
    STATEMENTS PREJUDICIAL TO RECRUITING.
    POLICE PENSIONS (ARMY SERVICE).
    POLICE PENSIONS (ARMY SERVICE).
  CIVIL PRISONERS (COST OF INTERNMENT).
  CIVIL PRISONERS (COST OF INTERNMENT).
  Insurance Cards (Identification).
  Insurance Cards (Identification).
  Glenbeigh Estate (Tree Felling)
  Glenbeigh Estate (Tree Felling)
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Coroners' Inquests (Verdicts).
  Coroners' Inquests (Verdicts).
  Lloyd's Underwriters.
  Lloyd's Underwriters.
  Chinese Land Taxes.
  Chinese Land Taxes.
LINCOLN CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (PARKS, &c.) BILL.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 3a; agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 145.)
EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord-Chancellor). (No. 116.)
SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 147.)
DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Miscellaneous, No. 15 (1915)—Further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in Germany (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 14 (1915)" [Cd. 7959]):
Colonies (Annual)—No. 849. Bahamas (Report for 1914–1915):
Department of Agriculture and Technical instruction for Ireland—Department Committee on the Irish Pig Breeding industry. Minutes of Evidence. Appendices and Index.
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the following Councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department., affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

1. Exeter City Council (City of Exeter);

2. Hebburn Urban District Council (Hebburn Urban District);

3. Council of County Borough of Bolton (two Orders).

4. Brecon County Council (Brynmawr Urban District):

Road Board—Fifth Annual Report of the Road Board:
Assurance Companies Act, 1909—Rule made by the Board of Trade on the 7th July 1915 relating to deposits by assurance companies under Section 2 of the Act:
National Insurance Acts (Unemployment Insurance)—Unemployment Insurance (Calculation of Interest) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on the 14th July 1915, in pursuance of Section 91 of the Act of 1911:
Road Improvement Fund (Accounts, 1914–1915)—Abstract Account of the receipts into and payments, out of the Road Improvement Fund in the year ended 31st March 1915, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, there are some Amendments to be made in this Bill, and it would therefore be a great convenience if the Bill could be passed through its remaining stages to-day in order that it might go back to the House of Commons without delay.
The amendments proposed by the Committee made: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the object of this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day, is to continue for another year the additional duties on tobacco, spirits, and beer which were temporarily imposed in the year 1900, and the additional duty on tea which was temporarily imposed in 1906. So far as
582
the United Kingdom is concerned, the Manx duties on tobacco, spirits, and beer have been made permanent, and the Tynwald Court has been asked to make the ditties on those articles permanent on the island so as to avoid the necessity for a special Isle of Man (Customs) Act, but the authorities there have not been disposed to adopt this suggestion. The resolutions passed by the Court of Tynwald are operative in the present session, but it is necessary that this special Bill should be passed to give them validity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hylton).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill for the appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners for a period of five years, for grants for certain public works, and for the remission of certain arrears of principal and interest—not a large sum of money—that have accrued in respect of the Eyemouth Harbour Loan. It is stated in Clause 4 of the Bill that a sum of £10,000 was advanced a good many years back by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees on the security of the harbour revenues with the collateral security of the Fishery Board for Scotland. Owing to various circumstances it is impossible for the Harbour Trustees to repay the balance of the principal and interest, and it is proposed by this Bill that the principal sum of £200 remaining unpaid shall be extinguished together with arrears of interest amounting to £182 4s. 6d. In Clause 2 power is given for the issue by the National Debt Commissioners, for the purpose of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole £3,000,000; and for the purpose of loans by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole £400,000. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, this Bill is designed to remedy certain gaps and defects which experience has shown to exist in the Acts already on the Statute Book relating to trading with the enemy. The change proposed by this Bill is material, and I must trespass for a few minutes on your time in explaining its provisions. It is, of course, common knowledge that by the Common Law of this country trading with the enemy and the payment of money to the enemy is an offence. This was explained in certain Proclamations issued shortly after the war broke out, the most important of which was a Proclamation dated September 9. By that Proclamation "enemy" was defined, and it was defined as being any person who was resident or carrying on business in a country with which we were at war. It also specified the offences to be considered as trading with the enemy, expressly including the paying of money to the enemy. This Proclamation was followed in the same month by the first Trading with the Enemy Act. That Act provided the punishment which should be inflicted for offences of trading with the enemy, and regulated the procedure to be applicable in such cases. It also contained a provision to which sonic reference is made in the present Bill, a provision relating to a company one-third of whose shareholders or one-third of whose directorate were alien enemies, and provided that there should be certain powers of examination and control over those companies.
Later on, in November of last year, a further and most important Statute was passed, which is the one which the present Bill seeks chiefly to amend. That Act provided that the Public Trustee should be appointed custodian trustee of enemy property in this country, and that dividends, interest, and shares of profits in trade owned by alien enemies should be paid to the Public Trustee. It also provided that any person having under his control real or personal property owned by an alien enemy should make a return of it to the Public Trustee, in order that the latter might be able to compile a record of the property in this country that was owned by alien enemies. Further it provided that assignment of debts, transfer of hills of exchange,
584
transfer of securities in companies, executed after the passing of the Act should convey no title to people if the assignor or the transferor was an alien enemy. There were other provisions in that Act to which it is unnecessary that I should refer, because those which I have mentioned are the ones in respect of which amendment has been found necessary.
The amendments that are desired are these. In the first place the provision that compelled the payment of interest, income, and share of profits in these cases to the Public Trustee was the subject of a definition that excluded from the phrase moneys arising from Government or Colonial securities or municipal stocks. Clause 1 of this Bill is designed to cure this, and to provide that dividends, interest, and shares of profits should also include moneys arising from Government, Colonial, and municipal securities. The next defect found was this, that the phrase "property" in the section which related to the communication to the Public Trustee of property held on behalf of an alien enemy did not include bank balances or debts, and this Bill is designed to cure that by providing that it shall include bank balances and debts over £50 in value. Then the word "person" was believed not to include "company"; of course it is very important that "company" should be included in the phrase, as otherwise property held on behalf of an alien enemy by a company would not be the subject of this record, which it is of the greatest importance should be made as full and complete as possible.
Finally I come to a very important alteration, as I am sure your Lordships will realise. The phrase "enemy," as I have said, was defined in the first Proclamation as being a person resident or carrying on trade in a country with which we were at war. But unfortunately the enemy have occupied and have proceeded to carry on their trade in two countries with which we are in alliance—namely, Belgium and France; and it has become important that the enemy should not be at liberty through the instrumentality of banks and people in those countries to effect assignments here which would indirectly place property in their hands. Accordingly the section in the second Trading with the Enemy Act which deals with the assignment -of debts and transfer of bills of exchange and transfer of securities

585
from an enemy is now extended so that it will include also property that comes from a person resident or carrying on trading, not merely in a country with which we are at war, but in any country that is now in the occupation of the enemy. These are the whole of the material provisions in this Bill, and I trust that your Lordships will think that it is a Bill that deserves support. There is a trifling Amendment to be made in Committee owing to the fact that an obvious slip was made in drafting.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith: House in Committee accordingly: Drafting Amendment made: Amendment reported.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I recognise that this Bill is one of some little technicality, and if any noble Lord should desire further time to consider it I would not ask for the Third Reading today. But if not, as it is important that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible having regard to the period of the session as which we are, I would ask your Lordships to be good enough to give it a Third Reading now.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

MILK AND DAIRIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Fifth Schedule.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS SAVED.
  The provisions of the Public Health Acts and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, with respect to nuisances and the sale of food so far as the same relate to milk and dairies.
  The Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, so far as they relate to the sale of milk.
  The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, sections sixty-nine and seventy-one.
  The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, sections fifty-three and fifty-four.
  The infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, section four.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with regard to this schedule I wish to make a few remarks and to ask for some explanation. In the first place the form of the schedule is very unusual; I do not know whether there is any precedent for it. The Fourth Schedule contains the enactments which are repealed. To that form we are all accustomed. But this Fifth Schedule is quite novel, so far as I know. It is headed "Enactments saved," and then it proceeds to enunciate in general terms tire provisions of certain Public Acts which it is proposed to retain. That seems to introduce an element of uncertainty which is not very desirable, and to which the Central Chamber of Agriculture have objected. They say they will not know what the law is; that questions might be raised under this Fifth Schedule with regard to points on which they could not be certain what the law was.
  Quite apart from that, this Fifth Schedule was objected to by the promoters of the Bill themselves. What they said was this. I have in my hand the Memorandum which preceded this Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons and which, I am inclined to think, remained in the Bill until it left the House of Commons. That Memorandum said—
  "It is obviously impossible to produce a complete code of the law relating to milk and dairies—
  I thought that was what we were doing—
  "The law as to nuisances and the sale of food and drugs affects milk and dairies, yet must be left outstanding in the Public Health Acts and

  587
  the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. But by the Fifth Schedule an attempt has been made to collect, for the information of dairymen, the chief provisions affecting them outside the scope of the present Bill."
  Why should we put into the present Bill enactments which are outside the scope of the Bill? This Memorandum—I do not know exactly how it is—has disappeared. In any case it would not be part of the law; therefore I do not see that this Schedule will convey any intelligence to anybody. I should like to ask why this Schedule has been inserted, and whether there is any good reason for inserting it. It seems to me undesirable to introduce a novel procedure of this sort which, at all events, leaves the Central Chamber of Agriculture and others in uncertainty as to whet the law is.
  LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, as I think there is no other member of the Joint Consolidation Committee present, I venture to offer a few explanations. The Bill was referred by I he House of Commons to the Joint Consolidation Committee, who made a Report upon it, after hearing experts and the draftsman, which has not been circulated to the House but of which I have a proof copy, and as it is exceedingly short I might perhaps read out to your Lordships the pertinent passage. After stating they had considered the Bill and that in their opinion it represents simply present law, the Committee state that they have amended the Bill with respect to the date of its commencement—a merely formal amendment—and then go on to say:
  "The Committee think it right to point out that the Bill differs from other Consolidation Bills which they have approved, in that it represents a part only of the law relating to its subject-matter. They understand, however, that there are difficulties in including the whole of the law affecting milk and dairies in one Bill, and it is desired that the law should be consolidated to this limited extent."
  I might explain that the five Acts of which sections are stated in the Fifth Schedule to be saved are in themselves Consolidation Acts on certain subjects. The Public Health and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act and the Infectious Diseases Act are all of recent date, and if the particular passages mentioned in this schedule relating to milk were taken out and put into this Consolidation Bill and these enactments in the previous Acts repealed, we should be cutting in pieces Consolidation Acts quite recently passed.
  588
  It was thought not desirable to do that, but that as far as possible the rest of that law should be consolidated. This Bill was therefore produced, and these five enactments were inserted in the Fifth Schedule for the purpose of calling the attention of dairymen and others to the provisions in these particular Acts which affect them. If this Filth Schedule is struck out, the Chambers of Agriculture will certainly not be less in doubt as to the law than they would be if it remains. The only object of this schedule is to call the attention of dairymen and Chambers of Agriculture to the fact that these enactments exist. The Fifth Schedule, therefore, appears to me to be at least innocuous. But if it is desired to have the whole of the law relating to milk and dairies consolidated, then this Bill will have to be redrafted.
  LORD HYLTON: I hope, my Lords, after the very clear and exhaustive statement of Lord Sanderson, who spoke on behalf of the Consolidation Committee to whom this Bill was referred, that Lord Camperdown will be satisfied with the explanation that has been given.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I regret to say I am not.
  LORD HYLTON: The Bill represents no new legislation whatsoever. It is simply a Consolidation Bill containing the existing law in the principal measures relating to milk and dairies, and it has been before the Consolidation Committee. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, the Chairman of that Committee, is not present, but Lord Sanderson has fully explained the reasons which induced the Consolidation Committee to put in this Fifth Schedule.
  LORD SANDERSON: We did not put it in; it was put in by the framers of the Bill.
  LORD HYLTON: The reason, at all events, has been stated for the existence of this Fifth Schedule, and I hope that in the circumstances Lord Camperdown will be satisfied with the explanation given.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend Lord Camperdown may think, but I confess I do not feel at all satisfied with the explanation. I have had some experience of legislation, but I never saw such a schedule before. It is an absurd schedule on the

  589
  face of it, because it is a schedule of enactments saved. If enactments are not repealed, of course they are saved. The enactments repealed by this Bill are set out in the previous schedule. This Fifth Schedule is really absurd surplusage, from my point of view. And it is not necessarily innocuous for this simple reason, that it is just possible there may be provisions affecting this Bill besides the enactments named in this saving schedule which will still remain law, and, if so, the schedule will mislead the agricultural interest by not being complete. I should like to know what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thinks of legislation of this kind. To me it appears to be a bad specimen of the slipshod action of draftsmen in dealing with these matters. If these various provisions are part of the law relating to milk and dairies as such, they ought to have been set out in this Consolidation Bill. If they are not part of the law, then there is no question about them. But this schedule has no operative effect at all, because if these things are not repealed they remain the law. If the noble Earl divides the House against the retention of this schedule I shall vote with him.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As Lord Hylton expressed the hope that I was satisfied, I suppose I ought to tell him exactly what my state of mind is. I listened very carefully to what Lord Sanderson said, but his explanation left the thing exactly as I said it was. It is proposed, apparently, by this Fifth Schedule to call the attention of dairymen to what the law is. Well it is the business of dairymen to know what the law is without having their attention called to it. I agree with what my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said, that there may be other provisions which are the law besides those referred to in this schedule; and the dairyman's attention not being also called to them, he will have quite a reasonable ground for complaint. This schedule, as Lord St. Aldwyn said, has no operative effect whatever. It is an absurdity. Lord Sanderson has told us that it was not put in by the Committee but by the draftsman. I do not see why we should insert in this Bill a schedule the like of which has never been seen before, and it really appears to me to be much more of a disadvantage than advantage. I do not know whether the House is inclined to divide on the matter, but up to the present I think no possible case has been made out for this
  590
  schedule. I do not see that the Bill derives the slightest advantage from its retention, whereas there is great disadvantage in putting it in, as the draftsman himself, in the Memorandum which I have read, admitted that it was imperfect, and that he could not attempt to give a complete definition of what the law was. What is the good of putting into a Bill a schedule which its author confesses is imperfect?
  LORD HYLTON: I can only say that my attention was not drawn to this matter until I came into the House; otherwise I would have made inquiries about it. I am afraid a certain responsibility rests on the Consolidation Committee in this matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No. The Consolidation Committee, through Lord Sanderson, expressly deny that they had anything to do with this schedule. They say it was introduced by the draftsman of the Bill.
  LORD SANDERSON: The Committee do not say that this schedule was introduced by the draftsman of the Bill. The Bill came to them with this schedule in it as it was introduced in the House of Commons, and with an explanatory Memorandum. The Committee did not strike out the schedule. The Bill is called a Consolidation Bill when, as a matter of fact, it only consolidates a portion of the law, and this schedule calls attention to that fact.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then the Bill is not a Consolidation Bill, although it professes to be one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has appealed to me, and I think it only right to say that I agree to a great extent with what has been said by the two noble Earls. But I would ask them whether it is worth while objecting too strongly to a schedule which, after all, only intends to do this. This Bill deals with the subject of milk and dairies, on which there is already existing a large quantity of legislation. It repeals certain sections of existing Statutes, and all that this last schedule says is that you must bear in mind that unless these Acts set out in the Fifth Schedule are expressly varied by this Bill

  591
  they still remain applicable to the case. I think the criticism that has been directed against the schedule is somewhat justified as a matter of drafting, but surely there is no harm in it. I do not know what induced the draftsman to use that form, but I would ask the noble Earl whether he thinks it worth while pursuing the matter ally further, seeing that only a little more has been put into the Bill than it was necessary to introduce.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: The noble and learned Lord has admitted that my noble friend and I are absolutely right, but has appealed to our mercy to allow the Bill to pass in its present form. I hope my noble friend Lord Camperdown will allow the Bill to pass as it is, because I think the noble and learned Lord will take care that this does not happen again.
  Fifth Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I think it is unnecessary that I should add anything to what was said two days ago when it was read a second time. But I should like to state that in order to meet the useful criticisms from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, an Amendment will be proposed after the Third Reading for the purpose of providing that if the indictment does not obey the exact geometrical measurements contained in the Bill none the less it shall not fail.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Powers of rule committee.
2.—(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act a rule committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England, a judge of the High Court, a chairman of quarter sessions, a clerk of assize, a clerk of the peace, and another person having experience in criminal procedure, appointed in each case by the Lord Chief Justice.
(2) The rule committee shall have power from time to time, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to make rules varying or annulling the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act and to make further rules
592
with respect to the matters dealt with in those rules, and those rules shall have effect subject to any modifications or additions so made.
(3) Any rules made by the rule committee shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament and if within forty days on which either House has sat since the rules were so laid before the House a petition is presented to His Majesty praying that the rules or any part of them may be annulled His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the same shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.
(4) The term of office of any person who is a member of the committee by virtue of appointment shall be such as may be specified in the appointment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment is in subsection (1) of Clause 2, after "sessions," to insert "a Recorder." This is with regard to the constitution of the Committee to revise the rules. Although a Chairman of Quarter Sessions and a Clerk of Assize are included, no reference is made to a Recorder, and as the Recorder has control over the Borough Sessions I am sure you will agree that it is desirable to have a Recorder on the Committee as well as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions and a Clerk of Assize.
Amendment, moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ("sessions") insert ("a recorder"),—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is to provide, as I said just now, that an indictment shall not be open to objection by reason only of any failure to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 of these Rules. [These paragraphs required that—(2) Each sheet on which an indictment is set out shall be not more than 12 and not less than 6 inches in length, and not more than 14 and not less than 12 inches in width, and if more than one sheet is required, the sheets shall be fastened together in book form. (3) A proper margin not less than 3 inches in width shall be kept on the left-hand side of each sheet.]
Amendment moved—
First Schedule, page 5, line 18, at end insert:
(6) An indictment shall not be open to objection by reason only of any failure to comply with paragraphs (2) and (3) of this rule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE INDIAN ARMY AND GRANTS OF LAND.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India is preparing, so as to be ready to be put in operation when the war ends, a scheme for giving grants of land to officers and men of the Indian Army who have distinguished themselves in the field; and whether, to meet the case of those who are not agriculturists, Government posts will be made available.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fighting races of India have really made a fine contribution to the service of the Empire in this war. Nearly the whole of the Indian Army is now serving out of India, and has been represented in seven out of the ten distinct and separate groups of military operations in which we are or have been engaged. It has won distinction for itself in Flanders, in the Gallipoli Peninsula, in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt. The greater part of these gallant men had never even seen the sea before August last, and could not have had the smallest idea of what life on board ship was like. Therefore it is difficult for us to realise what it must have meant to them to be suddenly transported 5,000 miles across black water, and thrust into surroundings and climatic conditions which differed entirely from everything to which they had been accustomed. The experiences in the trenches during weeks of sunless days, in the mist and cold and penetrating damp, must have been a very severe trial to all the Indian troops; yet we know that they bore those trials with great endurance and cheerfulness. The fighting in which they were engaged was something also quite outside their experience and beyond anything they child have anticipated. Nevertheless they adapted themselves very quickly to it, in spite of the heavy losses they have suffered.
The people of India may be justly proud of the achievements of their fellow-countrymen, and we have reason to be grateful to them for the share they have taken in the battles of the Empire. The greater number of the Indian officers and men come, as we all know, from the land, to which they are deeply attached, and no recognition would be so appropriate or so highly valued as a grant of land from the Sirkar, which would confer honour and prestige on them and
594
on their families and descendants. In India such grants have always been the natural and traditional rewards for distinguished military service. I do not think there can be any difficulty in making grants of that kind in the great irrigated districts of India and elsewhere. There may, however, be some difficulties which would require time to get over because it is essential that if grants of land are made they should be made in or near the homes of the people who receive them. But there are sonic of tale troops drawn from the non-agricultural classes, and the best positions for them would be posts in the Government service. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that, because the number of posts at the disposal of the Government of India is very large and varied; so it seems to me that provisions can be made for them in that way. Happily in India the objections which have sometimes been raised in this country to reserving posts in the Public Services for reservists and time-expired soldiers do not exist.
I am sure the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to say that arrangements of this kind are already being made, but what I want to emphasise is this, that it is most necessary that any scheme that is provided should be ready to be put into operation directly the war ends. The effect of a quick recognition of these gallant services will be felt not only throughout the Indian Army but all over India itself. And I think we may be certain that the Princes and Chiefs of India, who have shown their heartfelt loyalty by freely giving their services and troops to the Imperial cause, will generously reward those who have done honour to their States and to India as a whole. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House will agree with the tribute that has been so eloquently, and by no means exaggeratedly, paid by my noble friend to the valour and patriotism displayed by the Indian troops in this war in so many fields of operations. But I am sure that; my noble friend will realise, and probably indeed will anticipate, that I am to-day only in a position to answer in very general terms the two Questions which he has put on the Paper

595
I may say that His Majesty's Government and the Government of India are fully alive to the importance, where possible, of affording recognition to officers and men of the Indian Army who have distinguished themselves in the various campaigns, and in this connection we are informed by the Government of India that they have already addressed Local Governments asking them to state whether they have land available, and, if so, to what extent that land may be suitably allotted to officers and men of the Indian Army. The Government of India inform us that as vet they have not received replies from all the Local Governments. To supply precise information that would be of any value will, I am sure my noble friend will realise, require most careful examination on the part of local bodies and those whom they depute to undertake the work. And even when that is done and the Government of India are furnished with reports from the various Local Governments, it will be necessary that the most careful consideration should be given by the Government of India to see that the land offered is suitable for the particular purpose. As my noble friend well knows, a large proportion of the troops that are recruited for the Indian Army come from the Northern portions of India, and it is doubtful whether any considerable number of those so recruited would either desire or be able to take up land in other, say the Southern, parts of India.
There are also many questions, both intricate and difficult, to consider before a scheme of military land grants can be adopted with any hope of its being of a practical and generally satisfactory character. It should be borne in mind that the amount of land available and suitable for this purpose throughout India is limited in character. Several of the Provinces, it may be found on examination, have but little laud available, whilst in others the land would not be suitable for the particular purpose. As regards the Punjab, I may say that prior to the war a considerable block of land is one of the newly-irrigated districts was definitely allotted to those who were with the Colours. Some of that land has already been absorbed, but there is still a proportion of it available for allotment, and I have no doubt that that will be at the disposal of Government for the purpose that my noble friend
596
has suggested. The Government of the Punjab along with the other Governments are considering whether more can be reserved for this purpose. The information on that point will in due course be available. Again, the large proportion of the troops in the field are drawn already from the agricultural classes. A very large number of them, if examination were made, would probably be found to be occupiers and owners of land and of the class known as yeomen farmers. What I have said, therefore, in answer to my noble friend will, I hope, assure him that the question of military land grants is having the most careful consideration, and that the importance of having recognition in this connection available at the date which my noble friend suggested is a matter which is well in the mind of Government.
As regards my noble friend's second Question, whether to meet the case of those who are not agriculturists Government posts will be made available, it is quite impossible for me to give any precise answer. My noble friend must realise, I think, that such a proposal is necessarily surrounded with considerable difficulty. It does not follow at all that the races and classes from which Indian soldiers are recruited are either by inclination or by education suited to fill civil posts in the Indian Administration. I must, I am afraid, in this connection confine my answer merely to saying that the Government of India are giving very close attention to the whole problem. They are considering whether there are, in the case of those who are not agriculturists, other means of offering suitable and adequate recognition to those who have distinguished themselves in the field; and I can assure my noble friend that, if such means can be found, the Government of India at the proper time will give full and sympathetic consideration to whatever proposals are put before them.

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Paymaster-General whether the number of captains in the divisional trains of the Army Service Corps serving in Flanders or France is short of establishment strength; whether lieutenants of the Army Service Corps serving therewith the ditties of captains receive pay and temporary rank as captains which is granted in similar cases in the

597
Cavalry and Infantry, and whether care is taken to prevent as far as possible the supersession of lieutenants in the Army Service Corps serving in Flanders or France by Officers coming out in divisional trains from England in eases where those officers have less service than lieutenants who have been some time abroad.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a Question was put on this subject in another place not long ago, but the answer was not so transparently clear as I am sure will be the reply of the noble Lord to-day. In the Cavalry and Infantry all lieutenants who do duty as captains for more than one month are promoted at once to temporary commissions as captains, and are entitled to draw the pay of that rank; but in the Army Service Corps the officers are all on one promotion list and that may introduce some measure of difficulty. What seems to be the position is this. Some of the divisional trains in Flanders are short of captains, and certain lieutenants in those trains do duty as captains for many months but do not get the rank of captain or the pay attached to that rank; so it may happen that when other divisional trains go out from this country they take out captains whose total service is less than that of some lieutenants who have spent all their time at the Front. If that exists, as I am told it does, it must create a strong sense of grievance on the part of divisional train lieutenants at the Front. I hope the noble, Lord who will reply will be able to say that some remedy will be found. If it is laid down that promotion in the Army Service Corps is to be by selection only and that selection is applied to officers at the Front and at home, then clearly great care must be exercised in order to keep the balance between the officers serving at the Front and those at home; and if it is the case that all lieutenants in the Army Service Corps are supposed to be under training and therefore in a sense probationary, it seems to me that the training they are receiving at the Front would be better than any training they would be likely to receive at home. What I suggest is this, that whoever makes these promotions should carefully consider the claims of the officers of the Army Service Corps as a whole, whether they are at home or abroad. If that is done, I think what at present seems to be a distinct and legitimate grievance will be completely removed.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): MY Lords, the question of temporary and permanent promotions is, as may noble friend knows better than myself, one of considerable complexity, and I am not at all confident that I am in a position to give him that clear and transparent answer which he is expecting. The establishment of a divisional train consists of one lieutenant-colonel, two majors, eight captains, and ten lieutenants; general speaking, these establishments are kept full by promotions being made as vacancies arise, but as some of the younger officers are recruited as undergoing instruction they are not considered available in every instance for promotion. As to lieutenants, in some cases they are given the temporary rank of captain with the pay and allowances of that rank, as in the case of the Cavalry and Infantry, but, as my noble friend is well aware, it is difficult to apply identically the same system of promotion, because in the Army Service Corps, as he has already pointed out, promotion must run throughout the whole of the corps or else injustice will be created.
The point referred to in the last paragraph of my noble friend's Question has been constantly borne in mind, but it is obvious that new units formed over here must be provided with a due proportion of senior officers, and if suitable officers are available at home it is hardly desirable that officers of longer service at the Front should be brought back to fill these higher ranks, as that would, of course, weaken the units at the Front. With regard to the general question of commissions, I can inform my noble friend that some 4,000 commissions have been granted in the Army Service Corps, and of these a large number have been given promotion. This promotion has not been solely on the basis of seniority, but in virtue of previous Army experience; in some cases, I believe, of commercial experience; and in others of professional knowledge. In the cases where the officers have been serving in France promotion has been given on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force, and the number of such officers who have received promotion is in proportion to the establishment of the Army Service Corps in France. The recommendations of Sir John French in this respect have always been favourably considered here.
LORD SYDENHAM: Are there two authorities? Does the Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force select the officers for promotion in France, and some one else those at home?
LORD NEWTON: I should be sorry to say off-hand, but my impression is that that is the system.
LORD SYDENHAM: If that is so, it is easy to understand that some injustice may be done.

WASTE IN ARMY CAMPS.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had the following Questions upon the Paper—
To ask the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the waste of Army property, for receiving which various persons were fined by the magistrates at Guildford on Friday last; whether it is a fact that on the removal of the 11th Division from Witley Camp, 500 loaves were thrown away and a quantity of meat, which was subsequently removed by various persons; whether the stores given away included 28 pairs of new boots, over 200 pairs of secondhand boots, a large number of khaki trousers, cord riding breeches, horse rugs, and other articles to the value of over £100; whether a large number of blankets, shirts, etc., were also given away; and whether arrangements which will secure the public against the recurrence of similar waste will be made by the Secretary for War.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Questions I have on the Paper were only put down last night, and as I ask for a good deal of information, it has occurred to me that perhaps my noble friend who replies for the War Office may want a little longer time in which to inquire into this matter. Therefore I shall be glad to postpone the Questions until Monday next if it is his desire that I should do so.
LORD NEWTON: I have at present no information on the subject raised in my noble friend's Questions, and if he will kindly put them off until next week I will use my best endeavours to obtain the necessary information by then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—THE RECESS.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I stated yesterday that it was desirable, if the House agreed, that we should sit to-morrow to consider the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. I therefore move that we adjourn until half-past three to-morrow.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until half-past three o'clock to-morrow.—(The Marquess of Crewe).
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment I should like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Marquess who leads the House whether he can tell us anything as to when the House is likely to adjourn for a longer period, and for how long a period. It was the intention of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn to ask this Question, but he has been obliged to leave the House and has asked me to put it in his place. I do so because I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the House should not be adjourned for a long time. I understand that it has been announced in the newspapers that the other House will adjourn for six weeks. My noble friend thinks, and I agree with him, that that is too long a period; and although there is no definite business before us we consider that in the present circumstances it is desirable for the House to keep in touch with the Government so that any events which may occur can be discussed with deliberation.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am unfortunately not in a position to give the noble Earl the information for which he asks either as to the precise date of the longer adjournment or as to the period for which we propose to adjourn, but I can assure him that the views which he has expressed as not only being his own but shared by so experienced a noble friend of ours as Lord St. Aldwyn and by other members of the House, that the adjournment should not be for too long a period, will have the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I hope by an early date to be able to give my noble friend the information which he desires.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past ten o'clock.