Sitting of 14 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill, Workington Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to the read the third time.
Stoney's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Birmingham Corporation Bill (by Order), Bead the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill, Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (SLEEPING BERTHS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Glas-
    2
    gow and South-Western Railway Company still refuse to issue sleeping berth tickets to ladies; and, if so, what necessity exists for confining sleeping accommodation to men now that sick officers no longer need preferential treatment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a letter received from the railway company, in which they explain that it is not their practice to refuse sleeping accommodation to ladies when there are vacant sleeping berths at the time the application is made.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is my hon. Friend aware that tickets are refused to women, or that preference is still given to men, and that the results are serious to delicate women who travel to Scotland by the Midland route?
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was refused a sleeping berth ticket for my wife by this company?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I think it is not the practice of the company to refuse if there is accommodation; at any rate, that is my information.

    JUVENILE ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. SEDDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the conces-

    3
    sion to members of cadet organisations to travel at single fare for a double journey can be extended to boy scouts and similar organisations, representing over 500,000 boys, attending camps for physical training?
    Lieut. Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether lie is in a position to announce what facilities can be given for the conveyance by railways of approved organisations of boys and girls to camps'?
    Mr. BRIDEGEMAN: I will reply to these questions together. I have arranged with the Railway Executive Committee to extend the concession of the single present day fare for the double journey to parties of boys and girls travelling to and from camps under the auspices of the Home Office Juvenile Organisations Committee. This extended concession will apply to the Boy Scouts Associations and the Girl Guides and similar bodies recognised by that Committee, and it is granted on the understanding that the parties will travel by such trains and on such days as the railway companies decide, that journeys in both directions will take place as far as possible in the middle of the week, and that journeys during the weeks preceding and following the August Bank Holiday will have to be excluded altogether.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is there any limitation of age? There is no age limit in the communication from the Railway Executive Committee. Will the concession also apply in the case of camps for Poor Law children?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been in communication with him, and I thought that the Railway Executive Committee had agreed to that for which he asked. I should like notice of the hon. Gentleman's question with regard to the age limit. I do not Chink that it has been answered by the Railway Executive Committee.
    Mr. BRIANT: Am I to take it that my request has not been granted?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: About the Poor Law institutions? No, not without further inquiry.

    CONFERENCE OF SUPERINTENDENTS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. HOLMESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a conference of superintendents of railways was recently held in Scotland, to which the superintendents and their wives travelled in special saloons; that the programme of the conference included a tour of Scotland by the whole party, and that several dinners were held, one of which alone cost £258; and whether the taxpayers of the country are paying for these festivities?
    Mr. BRIDGEMEN: I had not previously heard of this matter, but I am making inquiries.

    FISH TRADE (TRAFFIC DELAY).
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at Fraserburgh, on the 4th July, 1919, and other days, herrings could not be accepted by the railway authorities for dispatch to the home markets because there were no wagons in which to convey the fish; whether he is aware that great loss is being caused to the fishing industry in the North of Scotland, and elsewhere, by the dearth of railway wagons and by delays in transit of fish over the railways; and what steps he proposes to take, in view of the perishable nature of fish, to ensure that adequate railway facilities will be available for the fish trade and to prevent the continued destruction of food?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of the facts mentioned in this question, but I will have inquiries made. I may add that very large quantities of fish have recently been conveyed by the railway companies to the markets. The railway companies are making every effort to deal with this traffic.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the losses being suffered by the fishing and fish-trading industries owing to delays on the railways; and whether any steps can be taken in the public interest to provide extra cold storage for fish and to otherwise prevent this waste of valuable food?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The Railway Executive are making every effort to meet the requirements of the fishing industry, and I understand that special provisions have been made to meet the present ab-

    5
    normal fish traffic. With regard to the second part of the question the provision of cold storage for fish caught in home waters is at present the subject of an inquiry instituted by the Food Investigation Board.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps being taken to provide sufficient trucks for the conveyance of fish?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, special arrangements are being made, and I understand considerable improvement has already ensued.
    Mr. TICKLER(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been called to the condition of the quay at Grimsby, where on last Thursday the railway company were not able to supply the necessary trucks to carry the fish to the inland market until 5 p.m., which is the time fixed for the loaded trains to leave the fish docks; is he aware that this occasioned much delay, and that the fish did not get away until 10 p. m. and in consequence arrived too late for the inland market, and that the feeling of uncertainty about being able to secure transport facilities has caused much disorganisation in the fish market, and has rendered it difficult to dispose of fish even at the most unremunerative prices, and will he cause the facts to be placed before the Railway Executive to have the necessary arrangements" made to deal more effectively with the distribution of this most important article of food?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): My attention has been directed on more than one occasion to this question of fish traffic in general, and to Grimsby in particular, though I cannot say that I have heard the precise hour of departure of the fish train last Thursday, but I shall have full inquiries made and see if something cannot be done in connection with the matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption]—that delays are also caused Interruption]—by shortage of labour on the railways, and will he consider the question of making arrangements for the employment of extra labour as soon as possible? [Interruption.] I will repeat my question if the right hon. Gentleman desires.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I heard it all. The point to which my attention has now been
    6
    directed is one which I have examined very fully in that connection, and I will see that attention is given to it.

    GOODS TRAFFIC EECEIPTS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total receipts of the railways of Great Britain, other than the sum received for passenger fares, and including all goods, minerals, and other freight charges, and excluding rents and other like receipts, during the years 1913 and 1918?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the information given in the statement of the receipts and expenditure of the British controlled railways up to the end of 1918 which has been laid before Parliament (Command Paper 147).

    LONDON-CHESTER TRAFFIC DELAYS.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to Chester traders by the delays which occur in the delivery of their goods, two to three weeks sometimes elapsing between the date of consignment to the time of delivery between London and Chester; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to bring about an improvement in the facilities for delivering goods by rail to the traders in the city of Chester?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of any cases in which two to three weeks have elapsed between the date of consignment and the date of delivery of goods sent between London and Chester, though I believe there have been difficulties in dealing with this as with other traffic. Steps are being taken to improve the position generally as far as possible.

    CONTINENTAL TRAFFIC.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Executive Committee intend to pro vide any regular facilities this summer for the Continental traffic, and is it proposed to maintain the pre-war services or any of them from Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven, and Southampton; and can he make any general statement on the subject?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Regular facilities are being provided by the Railway Executive Committee this summer for Continental traffic via the ports in question,

    7
    but whether these services will be up to the pre-war standard or not will depend upon the return of the railway company's vessels on Admiralty service and the requirements of the military authorities in the matter of the conveyance of soldiers on leave and demobilised men.

    SCHOOL TREATS (SPECIAL FARES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Executive Committee has made any special arrangements as regards granting special fares to one-day school-treat parties; if they grant return tickets at single fares to such parties; is there any limit as regards the numbers; is it limited to places within a special mileage limit; and are they prepared to grant the same facilities to parties composed of adults?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Reduced fares have been granted to recognised school excursions to the extent explained in the reply given on the 21st May to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. The number of adults allowed to travel under these arrangements is one to every ten children, and, while no other conditions have been made by the Railway Executive Committes, it may not, of course, in all cases be practicable for a railway company to convey a particular number of persons to a particular place. I am not prepared to recommend that similar concessions should be granted to parties composed of adults.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORT TRADE.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if British export trade to South America is endangered by the reluctance on the part of British traders to trade with firms who were on the black list during the War, thus creating a favourable opening for foreign competitors; and can he make a statement for the guidance of British traders in such cases?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth):I am not aware of the extent to which British trade has been hampered, as the hon. Member suggests, by reluc-
    8
    tance on the part of British traders to-entering into business negotiations with firms formerly included in the published black list. The notice published in the-Press on 28th April stating that after that date all black lists would be withdrawn and that all disabilities attaching to trade with persons and firms on such lists would cease to operate, is, I think, with this answer a sufficient statement for the guidance of British traders.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will the hon. Gentle man be good enough to look into the White Paper issued on the 1st July by the Embassy in Paris, which clearly states the great danger to British trade owing to Americans and neutrals expressly using firms in the black list?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will look into it.

    BRUSH TRADE (UNEMPLOYMENT).
    Major PRESCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there-is considerable unemployment in the brush trade due to Italy, Japan, and many other countries being allowed to send in brushes up to the total number imported in 1916; and whether he will give effect to the representations of the Interim Reconstruction Committee to fix the limit on the 1913 importations, with a view to relieving the necessities of unemployed workmen?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which was returned to the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) on the 9th July.

    SILICA GROUND AND SILICA SAND.
    Mr. SEDDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the decision to allow unrestricted importation of silica ground and silica sand is permanent; and whether he is aware that many members of the Flint and Silica Flour Manufacturers' Association laid down expensive plant to make the country self-producing during the War?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These commodities are important materials, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to prohibit their importation.

    CHINAWARE, EARTHENWARE, AND POTTERY.
    Mr. SEDDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Regulation for the importation of chinaware, earthenware, and pottery from

    9
    any country with which trading is permitted will allow trading with the enemy through countries now separated from Austria; and whether the decision is in contradiction to the recommendation made by the Committee to the Department of Import Restrictions?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These goods are at present on the restricted list, and, in accordance with the terms of the general licence issued on Saturday, are not allowed to be imported from Germany or German-Austria.
    Mr. FRANCE: Are any materials required for housing schemes also on the restricted list?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The list has been published in the "Board of Trade Journal," and I would rather that my hon. Friend consulted it.

    UMBRELLA FRAMES.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE:asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that prior to the War large quantities of umbrella frames and ribs were imported from Germany; that since the War these goods were largely imported from America; that the importation from America is not now permitted except where evidence is furnished to the Board of Trade that they cannot be procured in this country; whether he is aware that the manufacture of umbrella frames and ribs in Great Britain is practically confined to two firms, and that the price charged in this country is 22s. 2d. per dozen, whereas these firms are offering to sell in Spain frames and ribs at 17s. per dozen c.i.f. Barcelona; and whether, in view of the effect upon British trade of the dumping of these goods in Spain at 5s. 2d. less than the price charged to umbrella manufacturers in this country, he will consider the removal of the restriction of these goods from America so that British manufacturers and exporters may no longer be penalised?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of the facts as to prices as given in the question, but if it can be shown that umbrella manufacturers are being hampered either in their home or their export trade by any manipulation of the prices of their materials, my right hon. Friend will see that the position is met by the issue of licences in suitable cases.

    PORT OF LONDON (TOBACCO).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a considerable quantity of tobacco arriving from Nyasaland by steamers for the Port of London, for which there is no accommodation in tobacco warehouses; that the Port authorities hold out no hope of improvement in the near future; that the tobacco will be lying about the docks or in barges, and will deteriorate by exposure; and whether, seeing that the docks and warehouses are congested with a considerable quantity of wool and other products which are not subject to duty, and therefore need not be stored in bonded warehouses, he will arrange that such products shall be removed to make room for tobacco?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am replying on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping. I am aware that there is a considerable quantity of tobacco in the Port of London. The Port and Transit Executive Committee is making every effort to assist the Port of London Authority to arrange for accommodating the tobacco, and, at the same time, is doing its utmost to secure the free flow of the large quantities of wool and other goods now arriving in all the great ports. I am informed that it is not the case that there is much, if any, cargo stored in bonded warehouses which is not subject to duty.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is my hon. Friend aware that the question connotes no complaint against the Port Authorities, who are, it is believed, doing their utmost to deal with the situation?

  COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. FOREMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any import restrictions exist to influence prices of manufactured articles of personal attire and of household use?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Certain articles of personal attire and of household use do figure on the list of restricted imports. In these and other cases, however, the decisions reached were designed to avoid on the one side a flood of imports which would have been damaging to producers in this country, and, on the other, shortage of available supplies, accompanied by un-

  11
  reasonable prices. In considering whether any licences should be granted exceptionally in any particular case, the question of whether prices were reasonable would certainly be taken into account.
  Mr. FRANCE: Will the Government take into consideration the effect that these restrictions on imports have upon the cost of living and the encouragement they give to profiteering in this country?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are taking the whole circumstances into consideration very carefully.
  Mr. FOREMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the existing high prices, he will state whether there is any shortage of raw material in respect of manufactured articles of personal attire and of household use?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The present high level of prices is due to a number of causes which may vary in the case of different articles. Shortage of raw materials is, no doubt, a contributory cause in many cases.
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the high prices charged to the public of manufactured articles in every-day personal use, he will select a certain number of these articles and analyse the profit derived by those who handle them at the various stages, so that the consumer may understand the reasons for the outlay he has to make?
  Mr. J. JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state if it is intended to set up a Committee to inquire into the price of clothing, drapery, etc.?
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the anxiety of the general public at the continued high level of prices for the necessaries of life, other than articles of food, he will expedite and publish at the earliest moment the findings of an expert inquiry that is being conducted by the Board of Trade as to the proportion in the present cost of such articles as clothing and boots which can be attributed to the rise in wool, leather, and other raw material, to profits, and to the advance in wages, respectively?
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department
  12
  have decided whether the present prices demanded for boots and clothes is justified by the cost of production; and, if the prices are not justified, what steps are proposed to be taken to check profiteering in these articles of necessity?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: An announcement is to be made on this subject to-day by the Leader of the House.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    RETAIL PRICES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statement that the deficit falling on the public Exchequer for the coming year will be £46,000,000 sterling in respect of coal prices, he will state if the prices to the public will be increased, or in what other way this extra charge will be met so as to avoid the payment by the State of such a subsidy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 9th July to a question asked by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock).

    TREASURY CONTRIBUTIONS TO COAL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the cost to the Treasury in contribution to the coal industry up to the 16th July of the cur rent financial year; and if the proposed increase of 6s. per ton on the price of coal will relieve the Treasury of any further contribution after that date?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The cost to the Treasury for the current financial year, up to the 16th July, will be approximately £7,250,000. An increase of 6s. per ton on the price of coal will relieve the Treasury of any further contribution after that date, provided the estimated output of coal is maintained.

    WAGE AVERAGES.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average wage now payable to various classes of men employed in the coal-mining industry when working full time; how such wages compare with the wages paid in other industries; whether miners receive any free allowance of coal in addition to their wages; if, not, what is the

    13
    average price paid by them for their coal; and whether they are rationed in the amount of coal which they can obtain?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am having a statement prepared as to the average wage payable to the various classes of colliery workers and I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as possible. I regret that I have no information available which would provide an effective comparison with the wages paid in other industries. It is not possible to give definite details of the price at which persons employed in or about the coal mines in the United Kingdom are supplied with coal, as the price varies considerably in different districts. The average price of such coal for the whole country, however, is approximately 4s. per ton. In some districts—such, for instance, as Northumberland and Durham—the workmen receive free coal, paying only an agreed sum for the cost of cartage. Colliery employés are especially exempted from rationing in respect of coal for their own use, under Clause 11 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Cannot the statement be circulated for the benefit of all Members?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will see what can be done.

    AVERAGE PRICES AT PITHEAD.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is now the average price per ton of coal at the pithead in England and Scotland as compared with similar prices in the Colonies, America, and Europe; and what was the average price of coal at the pithead in 1913?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The average prices per ton at the pithead for the latest periods for which particulars are available are as follows:

    s.

    d.

    Scotland (including 6s. increase)

    28

    11

    Rest of Great Britain

    29

    4

    Transvaal, 1918

    5

    6

    Natal, 1918

    10

    7

    India, 1918

    5

    10

    U.S.A., June, 1919

    11

    2

    France, June, 1919

    36

    0

    Belgium, 1917

    18

    0

    Spain, 1917

    39

    0

    The average pit price of coal in United Kingdom in 1913 was 10s. l£d. per ton.

    MINEES' COAL ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the new regulations by which the price of coal is to be increased 6s. a ton, the miners will still enjoy the privilege of obtaining coal for their own use at 3s. or 3s. 6d. a ton as heretofore in certain districts?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No alteration is proposed in the arrangements affecting the supply of allowance coal to miners.

    COST OF COAL PRODUCTION (DISTRIBUTION)
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state as nearly as can be the cost to the consumer of coal for industrial and for household purposes, for the year 1913 and the year commencing 16th July, 1919, showing how the cost to the consumer in each year was, and will be, distributed between the royalty owner, the coal owner, the miner, the railway company, and the final distribution?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will circulate to-day a statement giving this information.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    There have always been wide variations in the prices of the various grades and sizes of coal sold both for industrial and for household purposes.
    In 1913 pithead prices of industrial fuel ranged from about 1s. per ton for anthracite duff (used by cement works, spelter works, etc.) to 17s., or even more, for the best large steam coal, while prices of domestic coal ranged from about 8s. per ton for inferior kitchen nuts to over 20s. per ton for some of the best drawing room coals.
    The average pithead price of all coals in 1913 was 11s. per ton sold.
    The above prices will now be increased in all cases by 16s. 6d. per ton, except for coals produced in South Wales and Mob-mouth, the Forest of Dean and South Staffordshire, the prices of which will be increased by 19s. per ton.
    Railway rates naturally varied according to distance, and ranged from a few pence to 13s. or more per ton. The average rate would be nearer the lower than the higher of these limits.
    Railway rates have not so far been increased, but there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in the rates chargeable for

    15
    the hire of private-owners' wagons, this increase varying from 2 ¼d. to 7 ½d. per ton according to the length of the journey.
    On seaborne coal freight ranged up to about 4s. per ton, the average freight from Tyne to London (including discharge) being 3s. 5d. per ton as compared with

    1913.

    After 16th July, 1919.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    London retail price of best Derby coal

    27

    0

    49

    6

    The retail price is made up of—

    (a)Pit price—

    s.

    d

    s.

    d.

    * Labour

    8

    2

    22

    0 ¾

    *Timber and stores

    1

    3 ¼

    3

    7¼

    *Other costs

    1

    2 ¼

    1

    8

    *Royalties

    0

    7

    0

    7½

    *Owners' profit

    1

    9½

    1

    3½

    13

    0

    29

    3

    (b) Railway rate

    6

    4

    6

    4

    (c) Wagon hire

    1

    0

    1

    6

    (d) Distribution charges—

    Loaders' wages

    0

    11½

    1

    9

    Carmen's wages

    0

    10½

    1

    10

    Other cartage charges

    1

    0 ¼

    2

    7

    Loss on small coal, etc.

    0

    4

    0

    7

    Sacks

    0

    1½

    0

    5

    Railway siding rents, demurrage, etc.

    0

    l

    0

    1

    Salaries and establishment charges

    2

    4½

    3

    6

    †Profits

    0

    10 ¾

    1

    8

    6

    8

    12

    5

    * The amounts of these items, calculated on the average price of 10s. 1½d. per ton of coal of all grades raised in 1913 are: labour, 6s. 4d.; timber, etc., 1s.; other costs, 11d.; royalties, 5½d; owners' profit. Is. 6d.; and the price of 13s. for best Derby has been divided in the same proportions among the different items. The same applies to the corresponding pit prices of 29s. 3d. after 10th July, 1919, which 1ms been adjusted 'from an average selling price of coal of all grades (including export coal) of 29s. 3¼d per ton: sold.

    †This profit is reduced by the amount of factors' charges so far as coal is bought through factors and not direct from the colliery, say, an average of 4d. per ton on all house coal sold in London. The corresponding amount for the country us a whole is probably less than 2d. per ton.

    In the case of coal other than house coal, item (d), comprising the retail merchant's charges, is not incurred as a general rule. The following is a typical example of slack or small coal delivered to a works about 3'miles from a colliery—

    1913–14.

    After 16th July, 1919.

    (a) Pit price—

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Labour

    …

    …

    4

    8

    18

    1

    (19

    11½)

    Timber and stores

    …

    …

    0

    9

    2

    11½

    (3

    3¼

    Other costs

    …

    …

    0

    8¼

    1

    11½

    (1

    6 ¼)

    Royalties

    …

    …

    0

    4

    0

    6¼

    (0

    7)

    Owners' profit

    …

    …

    1

    0¾

    1

    0¾

    (1

    2)

    7

    6

    24

    0

    (26

    6)

    (b)Railway rate

    …

    …

    2

    6

    2

    6

    (c)Wagon hire

    …

    …

    0

    6

    0

    9

    Delivered price

    …

    …

    10

    6

    27

    3

    (29

    9)

    Notes.—(1) The figures in brackets indicate the position in a district. such as South Wales and South Staffordshire, where the statutory increase in prices over 1913–14.prices will now be 19s. as compared with 16s. 6d. in other districts.

    (2) In cases in which the fuel is bought through a factor, the above prices will be: increased by the

    amount of his commission, the maximum amount of which may vary from 3d. per ton to Is. 3d. per ton. according to the class of business

    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the information be ready before the Debate takes place?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am trying to get it in the Vote Office as soon as possible.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the information show what become of the difference between the 28s. l1d. and the price paid by the consumer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question had better be reserved for the Debate.
    16
    the present maximum freight of 12s. 9d. per ton plus about 2s. discharging, or 14s. 9d. in all.
    The following table gives a comparison of the retail price of a standard house coal (best Derby) in London in 1913 and after the 16th July, 1919:

    GAS AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, before definitely raising the price of coal by 6s. per ton, he will take evidence from the East End as to its serious effects on the poor, and on the local gas and electricity charges which also weigh heavily on the consumer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend has already indicated that the

    17
    Government are gravely concerned with the seriousness of the effects of the proposed increase in the price of coal, but cannot hold out hope of an amendment of the Order which has been made until a reduction in the cost of production has rendered it possible to reduce the price of coal.
    Mr. FOREMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in increasing the price of coal, he has taken into consideration the effect this step will have on the supply of cheap gas and light to the community?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

    SMALL PURCHASERS.
    Mr. FOREMANasked the Prime Minister whether, if the 6s. increase on the price of coal actually comes into force, he will consider the advisability of taking special measures through the municipalities or bodies formed ad hoc to supply coal to the very poor at the cheapest possible rates, since through buying in small quantities at a time they always pay higher prices than the rest of the community?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I have been asked to answer this question. Local authorities have already been encouraged to lay in stocks of coal to meet possible emergencies in the winter, particularly in the interests of small consumers without stocking accommodation, and every assistance is being rendered to them in the matter of the supply of the coal. My right hon. Friend ventures to' express the hope that hon. Members will do all in their power to encourage the local authorities of their constituencies to take vigorous action in this matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the declaration last week a lot of merchants are refusing to supply small traders with coal?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to be furnished with instances of that.
    Mr. WATERSON: Can householders exceed the amount which is allowed them by the Order in districts where they are working short time?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I had better have notice of that question.
    Mr. RAPER: Are people who placed orders two months ago liable to the increase of price?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

  COMMITTEE ON TRUSTS (REPORT).
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade why, in the recently issued Report of the Committee on Trusts, the names of the firms and associations mentioned are not given; and whether, in view of the fact that this information is of the greatest public interest, he will take steps to secure that in any future Report of this nature all names will be published?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The publication or omission of names in a Report of the kind in question must necessarily be left to the discretion of the Committee itself, having regard to the particular circumstances of the inquiry, and I am informed that the course taken by the Committee in this particular instance was due to the fact that much of the information before them was obtained confidentially. The desirability of giving the names in future investigations into the operations of trade combinations will be borne in mind.

  RATING (MACHINERY).
  Mr. MANVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation (1901), any steps are being taken to amend the law with regard to the rating of machinery, so as to avoid undue impositions upon the productive industries of the country; (2) whether he has knowledge of the Bill prepared by the Machinery Users' Association for the purpose of amending the law relating to the rating of machinery, which was approved by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation; and whether the Government are prepared to adopt this Bill and pass it into law at an early date?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor):I have been asked to answer these questions. I have seen the Bill referred to which would prevent certain classes of machinery from being taken into account in arriving at the rateable value of factories, etc. The effect of the Bill would, of course, be to impose additional burdens

  19
  on other classes of property. The Government are unable to promise legislation on this subject at present.

  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES (ALIENS).
  Sir R. NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of aliens registered under the Registration of Business Names Act up to the end of April last?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of business names registered to the end of April, 1919, in respect of businesses in which an unnaturalised alien is sole proprietor or in which such an alien is a partner is 8,312. The number is in excess of the actual number of aliens upon the register as the same alien is in some cases the proprietor of or a partner in more than one business in respect of which registration has been affected.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PENSIONS FOR DEPENDANTS OF "LEINSTER" VICTIMS.
    Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the list of pensions which have been conceded to the dependants of the merchant seamen lost in the Royal Mail steamer "Leinster"; and whether he has observed that the average weekly rate paid to the widows of seamen and firemen is only about 5s.; and whether the Government will so augment the pensions that the widows of these men do not suffer want as well as grief?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The widow of a sailor or fireman lost in the "Leinster" would be awarded a lump sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The pension payable under the Government War Risks Compensation Scheme is so calculated that when added to the amount of the annuity which could be purchased with this lump sum it will make up a total not less than £35 15s. a year. In addition, an allowance of not less than £13 a year is made in respect of each child under sixteen years of age. The average amount of pension and allowances paid to widows in the cases in question exceeds £1 a week.
    20
    This is in addition to the sums paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The compensation paid in the case of the "Leinster" was in accordance with the general Government insurance scheme.

    WEST SUSSEX COMMITTEE (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Pensions Minister for what reason the letters and telegrams sent by the county of West Sussex War Pensions Local Committee (Horsham branch) in the case of the late W. T. Garner, 10, Cross Keys, Crawley, Sussex, late No. 357,879, private, Royal Army Service Corps, were not answered; is he aware that the committee in question informed his Department on 27th March that the man was slowly sinking and that the delay in his case was preying on his mind; and is he aware that nothing was done by the Ministry of Pensions and that Mr. Garner died on 3rd July?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): I regret that there has been mishandling of the correspondence in the case. My right hon. Friend will personally investigate it. But having regard to the nature of Mr. Garner's illness and the fact that he was drawing weekly advances of 25s. in anticipation of the award of pension, I cannot believe that the postponement of the decision hastened his death. Every effort is being made to overtake the accumulated arrears of appeals; at present twelve tribunals are sitting and decisions are being given in approximately 500 appeal cases per week.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement that this man's death was hastened by postponement of his case was made by the local war pensions committee and is based on the signed statement of the doctor? In view of the serious allegation will he have an immediate investigation into the case, and will he deal with the points in a private letter making certain accusations by the local war pensions committee against his own Department?
    Sir J. CRAIG: My right hon. Friend himself has personally investigated the whole of this case, and he has taken and is taking drastic action.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (MAJOR F. C. H. SINCLAIR).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Pensions Minister why it is that no de-

    21
    cision has been arrived at with regard to the application for a pension of Major F. C. H. Sinclair, Royal Air Force, who was invalided out of the Royal Air Force on 24th June, 1918; and when that officer is likely to have his application dealt with?
    Sir J. CRAIG: This officer relinquished his commission on the 24th July, 1918, but his papers were not received in the Ministry of Pensions until 13th April, 1919. No application was made by the officer to the Ministry in the meantime. The result of the medical board which has now beheld is to find the disability not due to nor aggravated by service, and a gratuity of £225 has been awarded and will be paid immediately. The amount may be increased as the result of further inquiry which is being made of the officer.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delays in this and similar cases are causing widespread and intense dissatisfaction?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say if questions of this kind are not dealt with automatically on an officer being invalided out?
    Sir J. CRAIG: With respect to the first question, every possible effort is being made to prevent anything of the kind occurring. We are working very hard to overtake the work. The answer to the second question is that the arrangement works automatically, but it has required considerable adjustment between the War Office, the Air Force, and ourselves. We hope, very shortly, to have perfect machinery.

  FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (UNIFICATION).
  Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to carry out the complete unification of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service outlined in the speech of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 31st July last?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: A scheme on the lines of the proposals referred to by the hon. Member was completed some time ago, and is now in operation.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman state the object of putting the Oversea Trade Department under the Board of Trade?

  PROMOTION BOARD.
  Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet established a Promotion Board or any similar body in the Foreign Office, as outlined in the speech of the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 31st July last?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. A Promotion Board was-formed at the beginning of this year, and has held several sittings.

  GREEK RULE (ALLEGED MASSACRES).
  Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that massacres of unarmed people by the Greeks took place in 1913–14, and that these massacres, similar to those in Smyrna, were admitted and regretted by Sir Edward Grey, it is proposed to put other populations under Greek rule?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The future of the populations now under Turkish rule is in the bands of the Peace Conference at Paris, who have not yet arrived at any final decision on the subject.
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: Will you take into consideration the past Government of the Greeks?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has not M. Venezuelos, the Prime Minister of Greece, offered to place the investigation of the alleged massacres in the hands of a mixed Commission of English and Greek Commissioners?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think I may safely answer that in the affirmative.

  ALIENS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister (1) what, if any, action has been taken to clear out of Government offices the officials of enemy origin who are not mentioned in the second schedule to the Report of Lord Justice Bankes' Committee;
  (2) What action he proposes to take after Peace is declared regarding Gov-

  23
  ernment officials of enemy origin who may have been suspended from duty during the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): A Committee of the Cabinet have submitted a recommendation on this subject, but it has not yet been possible to consider it in the Cabinet, and, owing to pressure of work, I am afraid that it cannot be considered this week. I shall be obliged, therefore, if my hon. Friend will put down his questions on Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Next week.
  Sir R. COOPER: Has not the Government already pledged itself—in July last year—to remove these people? Is it not the case that they have not done so?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; we were then dealing with the Report of Mr. Justice Bankes, which related to conditions during the War.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it not be a good plan to follow the Prime Minister's policy last year in regard to aliens, and appoint a small Committee of Members of this House to help the Government make up its mind?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that,

  PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS ACT (AMENDING BILL).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister when the Bill to amend the Patents and Trade Marks Act will be introduced?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce both these Bills this week.

  GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS.
  Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister how many Government motor cars are allotted to the use of His Majesty's Ministers; and what is the annual cost to the public?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is seventeen. As regards the last part of the question, it is
  24
  not possible to analyse the accounts in such a way as to give the information asked for. As I stated in answer to a question last week, there has already been a considerable reduction in the number of cars in use in Government Departments, and I hope to be able shortly—probably next week—to inform the House of the way in which this matter will be dealt with.

  FOREIGN AND STRATEGIC AFFAIRS (QUESTIONS).
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the manner in which questions relating to important strategic and foreign affairs are occasionally evaded is giving rise to considerable public anxiety; and whether, in all cases save where definite public interests are concerned, he will cause such inquiries to be answered?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have every desire to furnish to the House such information as can be given in the public interest.

  SUPREME ECONOMIC COUNCIL.
  Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme Economic Council is still in being; if not, what council or organisation will take its place, and who will be the British representatives thereon; is it intended to contine control of the world supplies of food and raw material; what countries, if any, are still blockaded and what is the object of such blockade; and will the House of Commons be given an early opportunity of discussing the policy of economic control?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that control sufficiently effective to secure reasonable prices of the necessaries of life can be secured only by international action, the Government will take steps to approach the Governments of America, Europe, and Asia for the purpose of securing such action?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second part, therefore, does not arise. As regards the third part, it is

  25
  considered desirable to continue in some form international co-operation in regard to economic matters, but the precise method has not yet been decided upon. Owing to the continuance of hostilities in Hungary the blockade of that country is still being maintained. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think such a discussion would be useful at present.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are the British representatives on the present council?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not give them without notice.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DANGER BUILDINGS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether it is the custom to exempt. State undertakings from the Regulations made for public safety which are enforced with fines in the case of private undertakings; whether a Committee has reported that only 15 out of 172 buildings in Woolwich Arsenal comply with the Home Office Regulations as to the distance between magazines and other danger buildings, and between these buildings and private dwellings; and what action is proposed in view of the warnings of the Committee?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway):The answer to the first and second parts of the question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the third part, immediately on receipt of the Report the Minister appointed a Committee of Experts to consider the action to be taken on it, and the recommendations of that Committee are now being carried out. Very substantial reductions in the quantity of the explosives stored in the Arsenal have already been made and are continuing. Most of the dangerous buildings have been or are being cleared.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at with reference to liquor control and the withdrawal of war time liquor Regulations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have said in reply to similar questions on this subject.
  Sir S. HOARE: Now that Peace has been ratified, could not the right hon. Gentleman say when he can make a statement on a subject which is really causing. great deal of criticism and anxiety?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that. The Government, I think, have gone some way to remove the dissatisfaction with regard to beer. It is a very difficult question. A Bill is being drafted, and I hope a decision will be arrived at shortly.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the Bill be introduced before the rising of the House for the holidays?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Regulations have been relaxed the convictions for drunkenness have steadily gone up; and, in any decision that is arrived at, will he keep in view the desirability of maintaining national sobriety?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; the Government would like to maintain national sobriety, but I do not think we can do it precisely in the method my hon. Friend has in view.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Will the Bin-apply to Scotland as well as to England?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

  MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  Mr. ACLANDasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the report on the Slough depot; what action he proposes to take; and whether he proposes to give the House the opportunity of discussing the Select Committee's Report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would only be possible to deal with this matter on a Supply Day, and I doubt whether there would be a general desire that one of the days should be allotted to this Department.
  Mr. ACLAND: That does not cover the question of the action proposed to be taken by the Government, if any?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government does not take the view that any action is called for.

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.
  Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Scottish Estimates?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This will no doubt be arranged through the usual channels.

  EX-KAISEK (TRIAL IN LONDON).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing feeling in the country against holding the trial of the ex-Kaiser in London, he will consider reopening the discussion on this matter with the Allied and Associated Powers'?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I can add nothing to what the Prime Minister said on 3rd July last.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the fact that Ireland is excluded from the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Agriculture will in any way prejudice that country in respect of such legislation or executive action which may follow as a result of the Commission's Report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS REGULATIONS (REPEAL).
  Lieut. - Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed, as soon as the Treaty of Peace has been ratified, to make an Order in Council repealing the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dora is the Most unpopular young person in this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I saw a report in the newspapers in which that view was expressed. The previous answer to which I referred dealt with that.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY:Is there any doubt that the Regulations will be repealed as soon as possible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: By law they are bound to be repealed at a given date.

  IRELAND.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Lieut.-Colonel HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present unsatisfactory state of Ireland, the Government have agreed upon an immediate policy
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement in the Coalition Manifesto of 21st November, 1918, that so long as the Irish question remained unsettled there could be no political peace either in the United Kingdom or in the Empire, and that it was one of the first obligations of British statesmanship to explore all practical paths towards the settlement of this grave and difficult question on the basis of self-government, he will say what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to explore all practical paths leading to a settlement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil on Thursday last.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to answer this question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then they are not going to carry out the promise given in the Coalition manifesto?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As very often happens, my hon. Friend did not refer to the whole of that manifesto. It mentioned, among other things, that at that time the condition of Ireland was more inflamed and less open to compromise than it had been for a very long time, and that at that time it was not possible to take immediate action.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to wait until things become

    29
    worse and worse before he proclaims the Government's policy in regard to Ireland; and has he read the speech made by the right lion, and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) on Saturday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that I cannot say when we will state our policy. I cannot go beyond that. We do not wish to postpone any part of our policy, but we do not wish to attempt anything without some chance of success.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give a definite answer to that effect.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do some-tiling to allay the present situation in Ireland by some declaration of Government policy
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is my hon. Friend sure that any declaration we make will allay the existing situation?
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am not sure that anything the Government say will do it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is he doing to restrain the orators who make such utterances as were made yesterday and on Friday and Saturday in Belfast; does he encourage the policy of provoking even the remnant of the country that still clings to constitutionalism to join the extreme forces in Ireland? Is that the policy of the Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May we assume that the present policy of drift is going to continue indefinitely?
    Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will administer impartially the law and endeavour to take steps to restrain anyone, no matter how powerful, from inciting certain sections of the community?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can promise that the Government will administer the law impartially.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of that declaration, what policy does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adopt, in the maintenance of the principle of law and order which he has laid down, in regard to the speech that was delivered last Saturday in Belfast?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman define Bolshevism

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    NAVAL MEN'S VISIT TO LONDON.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, on the occasion of the coming visit of naval men to London from the warships at Southend, he will arrange for a party of them to receive an East End welcome?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. In the name of the officers and men of the Fleet, I beg to thank my hon. Friend for the kindly spirit which has inspired his invitation. I may say that the City of London and various guilds and companies, and other bodies, are organising various entertainments for the Fleet on Monday, 21st inst. I do not know whether what my hon. Friend has in mind would conflict with any of the arrangements already made; but I should be very glad if he would discuss the matter with those responsible for the programme at the Admiralty.

    EAST AND NORTH LONDON.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government is arranging any special Peace Day celebrations for the East End of London, particularly in view of its patriotic contributions to the prosecution of: the War; and (2) whether, in view of the small number of the Allied troops marching in the Peace procession through West and South London, he will consult his advisers as to the possibility of a somewhat similar march by another body of troops through East and North London?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The original intention of His Majesty's Government was that there should be two processions on the 19th instant, identical, as far as possible, in their composition, but confined to the Imperial Forces. One procession was to pass through portions of the West and South London, and the other was to march through the City and a part of the East End. Later, it was decided, in deference to appeals which reached the Government from many quarters, to include in the processions representatives of as many of the Allied Armies as could be assembled in the time. We were then advised that, in. view of the fact that the majority of the

    31
    Allied contingents must necessarily be strictly limited in their numbers and that the arrangements for their accommodation and provision would, if they were divided, present insuperable difficulties, it was not possible to have two representative processions. In the circumstances, the Government were compelled very reluctantly to abandon the idea of a second procession.

  PLUMBAGO (CONTROLLED IMPORT).
  Sir HARRY BRITTA1Nasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will state the conditions under which the imports of plumbago to this country were controlled during the War?
  Mr. KELLAWAYI have been asked to reply to this question. The importation of graphite into this country was not controlled by the Government, except that in the later stages of the War the Shipping Controller granted tonnage on the recommendations of the Ministry of Munitions based on the Ministry's knowledge of the quantities required to maintain the output of munitions.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the import now restricted?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir.

  HOUSING.

    GEORGETOWN.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the shortage of houses in the Clyde vicinity, the Government will consider making immediate use of the houses, estimated at 3,000, included in the Georgetown filling factory area?
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the factories at Georgetown are shut and whether they are to be reopened; whether there are houses, several thousands in number, with all modern conveniences, which people will gladly rent and the letting of which will mitigate the present housing shortage; and whether he will take steps to have these houses made immediately available?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked
    32
    to reply. The National Filling Factory at Georgetown has been taken over by the War Department for use as an Army Ordnance Depot for North Britain. The number of houses in the area is about 120, and these will be required for occupation by the personnel to be employed by the War Department at the depot.
    Dr. D. MURRAY: How long will the factory be required for Army purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think for a long time.

    FUEZEDOWN ESTATE, WANDSWOETH
    Mr. DENISON-PENDERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Wandsworth Borough Council to erect houses on the Furzedown Estate, Wandsworth; and, if so, what arrangements have been made with the allotment-holders on that estate?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposal of the Wandsworth Borough Council to acquire the Furzedown Estate, Wandsworth, for the erection of working-class houses, but understands that the negotiations for the purchase are not yet completed. I am informed that the borough council have under conideration the position of the allotment-holders.

  SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Scottish Board of Health is to be constituted in terms of the Act; whether, though unconstituted, it has been acting since 1st July; and whether ho will give an assurance that nothing shall be done by the Board as at present constituted except routine administration work and delay all questions of appointments and arrangements for administrative duties until the Board is properly constituted?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro):I am advised that the Board was duly constituted under Section 1 of the Statute, with powers duly exercisable as from 1st July. Its personnel is now complete. Meanwhile only duties of the routine kind referred to by my hon. and learned Friend have been discharged.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Minister of Health, in view of the high cost of living and the obvious inability of the old age pensioners to help themselves, if the Government wall consider the advisability of anticipating the Report of the Select Committee now sitting by making an immediate pronouncement of some permanent increase in the old age pension to commence on Peace Day, 19th July, 1919?
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am afraid that I cannot accept this suggestion.

  REGISTER OF ELECTORS (PRINTING CONTRACTS).
  Colonel BURNasked the Minister for Health if he will consider the revision of the printing contracts entered into by the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office for printing and supplying the lists of electors, etc., and the register of electors, with a view to avoiding the un necessary and wasteful expenditure of public funds, without any detrimental effect on the registers, and to enabling various other improvements to be made in the compiling and form of production of the register of electors?
  Major ASTOR: The contracts referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are dealt with by the Stationery Office under the direction of the Treasury, and on this point I would refer him to the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury to the Member for Caithness and Sutherland on 7th July. Certain schemes dealing with the form of the electors' lists and register are under examination, which if adopted would probably considerably reduce the cost of printing.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS.
  Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to secure a general election of members of local authorities in November next, in view of the fact that a general election will have a greater stimulating effect on the local authorities than the election of only a third of each authority?
  Major ASTOR: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 26th June to the question put by the right hon.' Member for Deptford on the subject.

  ADMIRALTY ADMINISTRATION (OFFICERS' CHARGES).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the charges made by Admiral Sir Percy Scott in the current "North American Review" for July against the Admiralty; whether he is aware that these charges follow on the serious indictment against the Admiralty in Lord Jellicoe's book, "The Grand Fleet, 1914–16"; and whether he proposes to set up any inquiry into the system of Admiralty administration which has led to the inefficiency and lack of preparation revealed by these officers who have both served at the Admiralty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen the article referred to, hut I have called the attention of the Admiralty to it. Until it has been examined no comment can be made upon it.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (STATUS).
  Mr. BARRANDasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to raise the status of the Board of Education in all respects to that of other first-class Government Departments; and, if so, when it is proposed to give effect to this intention?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:It is hoped that this question will be dealt with before the Recess.

  PRICES OF COMMODITIES.

    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued high prices of many commodities and the grave unrest caused thereby, the Government will appoint a small expert and impartial Committee to investigate the matter and report as to the measures desirable to ameliorate the present state of things?
    Mr. H1GHAMasked the Prime Minister if the Government have formulated their proposals in regard to dealing with

    35
    the question of profiteering in every direction; and, if so, would he give a day for Debate at an early date, particularly in view of the unrest now prevalent among all classes of the community?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are fully alive to the seriousness of this question, and propose to set up immediately a Select Committee to examine it. In the meantime the Government are carefully considering what steps can be usefully taken by them without delay.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the same Committee deal with the questions of food and clothing?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is our intention that it shall deal with all these matters.
    Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to the effect that this change from a Free Trade policy is having upon profiteering and the cost of living?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have given some attention to it.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend think a Select Committee would be the best form of inquiry into matters as technical as some of the subjects which will be raised?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise the difficulty, but we spent some hours in discussing it, and we came to the conclusion that on the whole a Select Committee, in view of the interests which it would affect, would be the best.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Select Committee inquire into the restrictions on imports? Will that be one of the terms of reference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not suggest putting that personally as a term of reference, but obviously they will have a right to consider anything which is causing unrest.
    Mr. RAFFAN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to state the terms of reference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have spoken to my Noble Friend about getting the Committee going quickly, and I hope to give the terms of reference not later than a day or two.
    Dr. D. MURRAY: Will the box be opened by the Committee?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the terms of reference include power to examine, and, if necessary, call witnesses on oath as to-the profits made in the course of the production of the various articles?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The view of the Government was that the powers which are inherent in a Select Committee of the House of Commons would be sufficient to gain all necessary information.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime-Minister whether, in view of the reluctance of the Government to either defray the cost of postage of Members to their constituents or the railway expenses of Members travelling to and from their constituencies, of the inequality of the incidence of travelling expenses as between Members residing at long and short distances from London, respectively, of the increase of such expenses owing to increased railway charges, and the ever-accumulating volume of correspondence, he can see his way to grant relief to the majority of Members by withdrawing their salaries and substituting free postage and railway passes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I promised that the question of railway travelling would be considered, and I hope that the decision of the Government may be announced next week.

  CABINET (MEMBERS).
  Lieut-Colonel HERBERTasked the Prime Minister what right hon. Gentlemen are in the Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister, Lord Cur/on, my right, hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself.

  CABLE DELAYS.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDERasked the Prime Minister whether he will afford this House an early opportunity to discuss the

  37
  question of cable delays, in view of its importance to this country in its trade competition with foreign countries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: An opportunity for this discussion will be afforded on Thursday next, when the Post Office Vote is taken.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: Will it be possible to discuss cable delays in all parts of the world on the Post Office Vote?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think, with a little ingenuity, that would be possible.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  Mr. FOREMANasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in the County of London suffering from tuberculosis known to the authorities to require sanatorium treatment and for whom no accommodation is available, and to see whether steps can be taken to utilise as sanatoria auxiliary or other war hospitals no longer required for war casualties?
  Major ASTOR: The figures necessarily vary from week to week. There are, approximately, as far as the County of London is concerned, some 1,700 persons, including children, in residential sanatoria. 500, of whom more than half are children, awaiting entrance. All possible steps are being taken since the diminution of the difficulties occasioned by. war conditions to increase the accommodation, including the adaptation of buildings that were provided for war purposes, as far as these can be made suitable.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the treatment of discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, whether he is aware that these men are unable to procure employment because of the disease they suffer from, as no employer wants consumptive workmen; and whether he will arrange that these men are therefore allowed the full 100 per cent. disablement pensions to help them to exist during the few years they may expect to live?
  Sir J. CRAIG: The question of tuberculosis as affecting discharged soldiers has recently been considered in all its aspects by an Inter-Departmental Committee. Their Report is expected within the next fortnight and will be immediately taken into consideration.
  Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the case of men invalided out before the War on account of tuberculosis, who are now suffering very great hardships, without any pension whatever?
  Sir J. CRAIG: I am speaking from memory, but I think the Departmental Committee investigated all cases of tuberculosis.
  Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that this is well considered, as great hardship is being suffered?
  Sir J. CRAIG: The Committee has just completed its labours and will report shortly.

  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  Sir DONALD MACLEANasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of publishing from time to time in the daily Press photographs or sketches of the latest improvements in artificial limbs, so that men disabled in the War may have the latest information for the purpose of enabling them to minimise, as far as possible, the effects of their disability?
  Sir J. CRAIG: My right hon. Friend is obliged to the right hon. Member for his suggestion, and will consider how far it is practicable. Arrangements are being made to exhibit at repair depots the various artificial limbs available, so as to give a choice of limbs within limits approved by the surgeons to the disabled men.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman let me have a letter, or will he publish a list of these repair depots, so that the disabled men can have an opportunity of knowing where they can go for their information?
  Sir J. CRAIG: My right hon. Friend is very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which is quite valuable. In connection with this and other schemes I am sure he will only be too glad to give the information.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing a man to have a better limb supplied if he is willing to pay the difference? I am told that the men are not allowed to have a better limb at their own cost.
  Sir J. CRAIG: I should like notice of that question.

  POST OFFICE PENSIONERS.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a number of retired Post Office pensioners are at the present time suffering because all pensioners who retired from their ser vices before 1st March, 1915, have had no increase in their pensions; whether he will consider the possibility of such men being placed on the same footing as the retired Post Office pensioners who retired since 1st March, 1915; and if he will take action in the matter]
  Mr. BALDWIN: As I have previously explained, the principle of the arrangement agreed to in April last is that, within certain limits, war bonus shall reckon for pension, and I am not prepared to extend it to pensioners who were not in receipt of war bonus at the time of their retirement.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  Major NEWTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many appointments to higher posts in old and new Departments of the Civil Service have been made since the Armistice; and how many have been filled by men who have served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Such appointments as have been made to the higher permanent classes common to the service since the Armistice have, as the result of the reconstruction Regulations, been practically confined to ex-soldiers, subject to a few appointments of men who were unfit for general service. No particulars are available of the persons appointed to higher temporary posts, but I understand that over 1,100 ex-officers and men of similar standing have obtained such posts through the Appointments Department.
  Major NEWTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what action he pro poses to take to safeguard the interests of Civil servants who served with the Colours, in view of the fact that Civil servants junior to them who did not join up have been specially promoted or given additional allowances for services at home during the War?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The settlement of promotions and allocation of allowances rests with the heads of Departments in each case, and I have no reason to believe
  40
  that they do not already give the fullest possible consideration to the claims" of the Civil servants who have been serving with the forces.
  Major NEWTON: Will the hon. Gentleman issue instructions that the case of Civil servants who have served in the forces should be considered as more deserving of these appointments?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is the view-taken throughout the Service.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PERSONS EMPLOYED).
  Major COLFOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury the total number of persons at present employed in the administrative Departments of the Government, exclusive of the Post Office; and what is the aggregate amount provided for their salaries in the Estimates of the current financial year?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Figures showing the staffs of Government Departments on 1st July and the amount of salaries and wages paid during June are being obtained. When the Returns are complete I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

  COUNTY COURTS (REGISTRARS AND CLERKS).
  Lieut. - Colonel DALYRYMPLE WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now give consideration to the claims of registrars of County Courts and their clerks, appointed in war-time, to be awarded the war bonus; and whether he is aware that some registrars are now without any emolument in return for their services'!
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware of any instance in which a registrar of County Courts is without any emolument in return for his services. The registrars referred to are practising solicitors who sought the office with the knowledge of a present and temporarily prospective diminution of remuneration, and the payments they make to their clerks in order to retain their cervices form an element in the bargain they entered into in accepting the office. The bonus given to registrars appointed before the War is in respect of loss of income, but the registrars referred to in the

  41
  question increased their incomes by obtaining a registrarship, and are therefore not eligible for such war bonus.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated yield of Schedule A and of Schedule B, respectively, of the Income Tax for the present financial year?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The estimated net receipt of Income Tax in the current financial year under the Schedules mentioned is approximately as follows:

  Schedule A.

  …

  …

  £46,000,000

  Schedule B

  …

  …

  £8,500,000

  Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to assess for Income Tax under Schedule D, all the quarries and mines specified in the Income Tax Act, 1918, Schedule A, No. III., Rules 1 and 2; if not, which of them are assessed under Schedule D, and which under Schedule A; (2) whether it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to assess for Income Tax all the properties specified in the Income Tax Act, 1918, No. HI, Rule 3, under Schedule A or under Schedule D, or, if some of them are assessed under the one and some under the other, which are assessed under each of these schedules, respectively?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The annual values of all the properties falling within Rules 1, 2, and 3 of No. III. of Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, are measured by the profits of the respective concerns, and, under Rule 8, the computation of the profits is based upon the rules applicable to Schedule D. The assessments in these cases are made not by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but by the various bodies of Income Tax Commissioners—the assessing authority.
  Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men who are employed casually have been assessed not only on the current quarter but on the previous quarter, and not having any money with which to pay up the arrears are not able to pay? Has he considered that aspect of the question and made inquiries, because they will not pay?
  Mr. BALDWIN: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

  POST OFFICE.

    TIPTON SUB-POST OFFICE.
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of reopening the sub-post office at Prince's End, Tipton?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The post office at Prince's End, Tipton, has not been closed, but ray right hon. Friend assumes that the hon. Member refers to the neighbouring office at Bloom-field, which was closed in June, 1916. The amount of business transacted at the Bloomfield office was very small, and as the Tipton Green Post Office is only about 660 yards distant, he regrets that he would not feel justified in reopening it.

    SUB-POST OFFICES (INSPECTION).
    Mr. SUGDENasked why sub-post offices are not subject to inspection and report by inspectors as to light, air, sanitation, and cleanliness; and when he pro poses to appoint such inspectors, having in mind the serious effect upon the health of the general public and also of the per sons employed therein by reason of the present condition of many such sub-post offices?
    Mr. PARKER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave him on the 3rd July.
    Mr. SUGDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman not regard the employes as worthy of consideration in regard to the conditions in which they work? Will he not reconsider the matter in consultation with the Minister of Health?
    Mr. PARKER: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the remarks of the hon. Member.

    ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Post master-General whether a decision has been arrived at in regard to the memorial which was sent to him from the Post Office engineering draughtsmen asking for a reconsideration of the scale of pay and which has been under consideration
    Mr. PARKER: No decision has been. arrived at in this matter, inquiries are being made regarding the pay and conditions of service of draughtsmen in corresponding employment outside the Post Office.

    WOLFERTON (NORFOLK) POST OFFICE.
    Mr. JODRELLasked the Post master-General if he is aware that there has been no post office open in the village of Wolferton, Norfolk, for several months past; whether the constant complaints and petitions of the inhabitants for the immediate redress of this grievance have reached him; if he is aware of the serious inconvenience and disturbance of business existing there from; and how soon this will be remedied by the opening of a new office?
    Mr. PARKER: As stated in a letter sent to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend on the 11th July, arrangements are now being made to reopen the Post Office at Wolferton

  CABLE COMMUNICATION, AUSTRALIA.
  Sir F. YOUNGasked the Post master-General whether he can report any improvement in cable communication with Australia; whether two more Eastern cables have broken down; and whether, in the interests of Empire communications and trade, the Government will make a special effort to assist the companies concerned by using all its resources to increase the manufacture of new cables'!
  Mr. PARKER: At present the average delay on telegrams to Australia via the Pacific route is three days. In the homeward direction the delay is a/bout twenty-four hours.- These figures represent a reduction, as compared with the delay in the early part of last month, of eight and ten days, respectively. I understand that the delay is somewhat greater by the route of the Eastern Telegraph Company. Two of the company's cables between this country and Gibraltar have recently been interrupted, but one of them has just been repaired, and a cable ship is engaged on the repair of the other. Any assistance which it is possible for the Government to afford to accelerate the manufacture of new cables required by the company will, of course, be given.
  Mr. HURD: In view of the serious discrepancies between the statement of the Postmaster-General in this House as to cable delays and the facts, as known to the business community, can the hon. Gentleman make any independent inquiry on the subject?
  Mr. PARKER: I believe that the Post Office Estimates are going to be taken on Thursday, and my hon. Friend can make his point on that occasion.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CATTLE.
    Mr. JESSONasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that there are actually more cattle in this country now than when war was declared, and that if a free market were made for cattle and meat by the end of August prices would fall rapidly between then and Christmas; whether he is aware that in the last two months dressed beef has fallen 20 to 25 per cent. in the markets of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia; that the available beef cattle in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay is larger than in 1914; that meat prices are only kept up in this country by our system of control; that last autumn thousands of cattle after being fattened were driven back from the market and starved back into the condition of store cattle, while special arrangements had to be made to send beef to the Army to prevent its wastage; and will he state whether it is intended to continue next autumn the system which produced these conditions last year?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The estimated number of cattle in this country is slightly greater now than at the date of the declaration of war, but owing to the shortage of concentrated feeding stuffs the condition of the animals has suffered, and the yield of meat has been considerably reduced. I am informed that the temporary fall in North American prices referred to was caused by a period of extremely hot weather, and that there has already been a sharp rise in the market. The information at my disposal does not indicate that the available number of beef cattle in the Argentine, Brazil, and Uruguay is larger than in 1914, and owing to the uncertainty as to supplies and the danger of a considerable increase in prices on a free market, it has been decided to maintain over the winter a system of control on the lines of that in force last winter, when supplies of home grown and imported meat were equitably distributed on a reasonable scale of prices.

    CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
    Major NEWMANasked the Food Controller whether he will give the names

    45
    of the members constituting the Consumers' Council, an advisory body attached to his Ministry; were only trade unions, wholesale co-operative societies, and similar interests consulted in the constitution of the council; and is it intended to reconstitute the council and make it representative of all classes of the consuming public?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The constitution of the Consumers' Council and the names of its members were stated in the answer of the 25th February, to which the hon. and gallant Member was referred last Wednesday. I am consulting the council as to whether any change in its constitution could usefully be made at the present time.

  ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR (DISTRIBUTION).
  Lieut.-Col. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Food Controller whether, seeing that the Regulations of the Liquor Control Board under which the distribution of alcoholic liquor amongst clubs and individuals depends on the consumption in 1916 tells with peculiar hardship upon soldiers and sailors who have served abroad during the War, and that these men are placed at a disadvantage with the men who remained at Home and bought alcoholic liquors during 1916, he will take steps to rectify this?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am considering what action can usefully be taken to remedy this admitted hardship, which does not, however, arise from any action of the Liquor Control Board.
  Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is a fitting return for the services rendered by soldiers and sailors during the War and will he take steps to put them on a favourable and not an unfavourable standard?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think that my reply indicates that I acknowledge that there is a hardship.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Tickler.
  Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I have another question on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would have had time to put it if he had not put his supplementary to the question which has just been answered.

TREATY OF PEACE.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the ratification of the Treaty of Peace by Germany;
(Translation.)
"Luxemburg,
12th July, 1919.
To the Speaker of the House of Commons,
The Chamber of Deputies of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has received the news of the ratification of the Treaty of Peace by Germany with lively satisfaction and intense gratification, and requests that you will kindly inform the Members of the British House of Commons that the Chamber of Deputies decided, at their Sitting yesterday, to set apart the 14th July as a day for the celebration of victory and of the country's gratitude to the Allied and Associated Powers.
ALTWIES,
President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings of the Coal Mines Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Ordered,
"That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business, other than the Business of Supply, may be considered before Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law].

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Clement Edwards, Sir Park Goff, and Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Macpherson, and Mr. McCurdy.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E (added in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Bridgeman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Wardle.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [15th ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,113,254, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray in Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War." [NOTE.—£1,300,000 has been voted on account.]

  COAL OUTPUT.

    STATEMENT BY SIR A. GEDDES'.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: For the convenience of the Committee, and the procedure of the Debate, may I ask a question on a point of Order In view of the fact that the question of nationalisation would, of course, involve legislation, within what limits would you suggest that the Debate should operate to-day?
    The CHAIRMAN: In Committee of Supply we discuss, according to the Rules, the administrative acts of the Government, and not legislation either past or future. That is our general rule. 1 recognise that on the matter we have to consider to-day the two subjects of administration and legislation are very closely connected, and it will not be possible to debar some slight reference to legislation. It will not be my duty to permit anything like set speeches on the question of nationalisation, either for or against, but, as I understand it, the proposed increase in the price of coal is closely connected with the reduction of the hours of labour. That can be done for the moment by administrative act, but the next Order on the Paper shows us that legislation will be clearly required. I will do my best to give reasonable elasticity, and, at the same time, to conform as closely as may be to the ancient Rule of the Committee.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The subject -which we have to debate to-day
    78
    raises issues as grave, I think, as any which have been raised even during the period of the War. Last week the Government announced that it was necessary to increase the price of coal by no less a sum than 6s. a ton, and it is to discuss that increase that the Board of Trade Vote is specially taken to-day. I would like to say, first of all, that I know of no ground whatever for the suggestion which has been freely made that this increase in the price of coal was based upon political considerations. It was based upon nothing but a realisation by the Government of the very serious position by which the country is faced at the present time, in connection with the supply of the main source of power. We are faced by a serious reduction in the amount of coal which is available for use. It may, perhaps, be most convenient if, before I proceed to the question of price, I look in some detail, and discuss in some detail, the question of the reduction of output. The causes that have been assigned for the reduction of output are numerous; the causes which are operating are certain. It is quite wrong to suggest, as has been suggested, that all these causes are to be found inside the coal industry itself. There are many outside causes. I propose to look at those causes which are making for a reduction of output under two heads. Under the first head I will deal with the external causes, and then causes internal to the coal industry. Among the most important of the causes external to the coal industry is the present transport position in the country. There is not the slightest doubt that output is being checked at many mines because wagons are not forthcoming as required, and that failure to get wagons to the pits is in some cases extraordinarily serious. I have examined the records of the arrival of general user wagons at some forty pits which were specially affected by this difficulty, and I found that at those forty pits in pre-war time there were used, loaded, some 10,000 general user wagons in the course of a week, in addition to privately-owned wagons. At these same pits during a recent week it was possible to have present waiting for loading only some 700 wagons. That is, of course, not an average of the whole country; it is taking the worst group of cases where this factor tending towards reduction of output is operative. It may well be said, "Why are not the wagons there?" There is not any one reason that can give full explanation of

    79
    that fact. There are many reasons operating to strangle the flow from the collieries, and one of these reasons is this: The coal after it has been loaded on the wagons is longer on them than it used to be, because they cannot be cleared at their destination, and the reason for the difficulty of clearing these wagons, of emptying them at their destination, arises in this way: We have now got an eight hours' day in force on the railways, and as a result of that there are difficulties precisely the same as those in connection with the fish traffic, of which we heard a moment ago. As a result of the institution of the eight-hours' day on the railways we are having delay in clearing away, because there is loss work being done and the new men who are being taken on are not well trained or so expert. That is one reason. We have also associated with the eight-hours' day another factor—that the work is over sooner, not so many wagons have to be cleared in a day, and there is a delay in getting the wagons back because the work is not going on so many hours.
    4.0 p.m.
    Then a great difficulty arises in connection with the whole of the railway system through the enormous freights which now have to be charged for coastwise service, and those in turn arise from changes which are being made in general conditions of employment. We have got much higher wages being paid, and we have got, in some cases, less work being done. I rather lay stress on these points because I want "to emphasise one fact, the recognition of which is vital to the country at the present time, namely, that less work being done in one industry reacts through that industry on to others, and we really cannot go on with anything like our old pre-war state if the work of the country is not done. The work of the country at the present moment is, for one reason or another, not being done. There is a most pernicious doctrine being preached, and that is that if a man does less work it leaves more work for others to do. The real thing is, that if a man does less work there is less work for other people. That is one of the things we see at the present moment in the mines.
    Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are "mitching." [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it all of them?"]
    Sir A. GEDDES: We have got here an example of less work being done in indus-
    80
    tries outside coal altogether, and the fact is beyond dispute that less work is being done. [An HON. MEMBER: "In all industries."] In these industries of which I have been speaking, industries out side mining. I will come to the factors inside the mining industry in a moment. We have got here the fact that less work is being done outside mining making it impossible for another industry to get the flow of its products away, and, therefore, checking back the work in that industry. It is right that that fact should be clearly recognised. This question of the inter-dependence of industries is complicated by other factors, and it may not, perhaps, bore the Committee if, for one moment, I just explain how it is that the drought we had in the early summer is also a contributing cause to blocking back coal. As the result of the drought there is obviously going to be a shortage of hay, and high prices, and people who used to do carting and, therefore, helped to clear the railways are no longer doing that carting because it does not pay. That fact has added to the difficulty of coal output. Not only is the flow from the coal industry checked by conditions of labour and employment in industries outside itself, but the actual production within the industry is cheeked by conditions arising in industries outside itself. There is at present the greatest possible difficulty in getting forward to the mines the steel rails they require, the machinery they require, the tubs they require, and we have got those difficulties accentuated by a change in the hours of labour and the amount of work done per day in the steel industry, for example, and other industries. There again we have another example.
    An HON. MEMBER: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the output is reduced in the steel trade where they are paid at a piece rate?
    Sir. A. GEDDES: As a result of all the factors operating on the steel trade, and more especially as the result of less work which is being done, it is not possible at the present moment to get the supplies of manufactured steel which are required for other industries. The fact is quite clear and quite beyond any dispute that there is the greatest possible difficulty in getting deliveries of machines, such as rails and so on, that are required. We have got that also operating as a factor from outside the coal industry which is affecting

    81
    output inside the coal- industry. There are some of the outside factors. In short, one may say you cannot take an old country such as this and suddenly profoundly change the conditions under which the majority of its people live and work without causing widespread disturbances outside the area of those changes themselves, and we are suffering at the present moment from changes not only in the industries themselves but changes in other industries.
    Inside the coal industry there is no doubt that there are factors at work tending to reduce output. Taking the side of the coal owners first we know that as the result of the Government adoption of the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Sankey Commission their profit is now fixed at 1s. 2d. per ton. It does not matter to them, therefore, how much the ton costs to raise, although it does matter the number of tons that are raised. Taking the side of the men themselves we know that wages are very much up. It is freely alleged that there are men working in the industry who find they made enough in the course of the week and do not go on to make more. I think that is probably true. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] The figures of absenteeism in the mines suggests that something of that sort is happening. In the White Paper which has been publised on page 3, the following sentence occurs:
    "The percentage of absenteeism due to sickness, injury and voluntary absence, shown as a percentage of the possible number of shifts which could have been worked, increased from an average of 10.7 per cent, in 1913 to an average of 12.5 per cent, in the first twenty weeks of 1919 and to an average of 13 'per cent, in the four weeks ending the 24th May."
    There we have apparently another factor at work tending to reduce output. I understand from the Coal Control Department, that that absenteeism is now in the last week less, but the figures show that during the time covered by this Report that there was an increase in that absenteeism. There was also during the same time, and published in the Report, a reduction in the output of mines for a period of four weeks, decreasing from 19.8 tons in 1913 to 16.8 in the first twenty weeks of 1919 and increasing to 17.1 tons in the four weeks ending the 24th of May, during which period there were no holidays and few stoppages. For the last four completed weeks, excluding Whitsuntide, the output was 16.7. Those last figures by themselves of course prove nothing,
    82
    because, as I have already said, there are factors operating from outside. But as a result of those figures there is no reason to doubt that there is still an unused capacity for output existing within the coal mines themselves, and that point was, I think, fully conceded by one of my hon. Friends who was himself a miner when he said the other day that if there was a campaign to get an increase in the mines he was quite sure something would be done. That means there is an unused capacity, and I am sure my right hon. Friend thinks that it exists. So that we have got a very wide range of causes in connection with the reduction of output, and therefore something which cannot be put right at once, and something which no single man find no single body of men representing any one industry can put right by their own efforts. It has got to be a national effort to get this vital question of coal output put right.
    I now turn to the increase of price. We have seen that there is reduced output; we have seen that there are many and complex causes operating to cause that reduction of output. We know that as one result of the reduction of output there must be some increase in price. It may not be without interest if I take a series of figures showing where the money which is, being paid for coal at the pit mouth is going. I have had this worked out most carefully to show the prices at the pit and where the money went in 1913, and what you will have to pay after the 16th of July. First of all, per ton of coal raised, and, secondly, per ton of coal available for sale. The average pit price of coal per ton raised in 1913 at the pit's head was 10s. 1½d., and the same figure to-day is 26s. 0½. For tons sold the corresponding figures are: 11s. and 29s. 3½d Those figures are made up as follows: I take first the 10s. 1½ That was made up of the following items: Labour, 6s. 4d.—that was labour in and about the mine, timber and stores, Is.; other costs, l1d.; royalties, 5½d.; owner's profits,1s. 5d. That was for 1913. The corresponding figures to-day are: Labour, 19s. 5½d. as against 6s. 4d.; timber and stores, 3s. 2¼d.; other costs, Is. 2½d.; royalties, 6¾d.; owner's profits, Is. 2d.; compensation to owners for working under the instructions of the Controller of Mines, mines which would not otherwise be worked, 3¼d.; and there is another penny required for administrative purposes in connection with coal

    83
    control, and the 1¾d. which we have as a surplus on the price. Now, taking the same things correspondingly per ton sold, because it is rather instructive to get these figures, the price in 1913. I said, was 11s. Labour in that year was 6s. 10½d., timber and stores 1s. 1d., other costs 1s., royalties 6d., owner's profit Is. 6½d. After 16th July the following will be the state of affairs: Labour per ton 21s. 10½d., timber and stores 3s. 7d., other costs Is. 4 ¼d., royalties 7 ½d., owner's profits Is. 3 ½d., compensation as before. It will be observed then, that as a result of the increase of wages and the reduction of output, labour costs have increased by 13s. 1 ½d. per ton raised, or 15s. per ton sold, out of the total increase of 15s. l1d. per ton raised or 18s. 3d. per ton sold.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the labour includes—whether it includes construction of ovens, etc.?
    Sir A. GEDDES: No; this is labour in and about the mines, actual labour associated with getting the coal.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will he tell us where he gets his figures from?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, with pleasure; they are figures taken from the evidence given to the Sankey Commission by the Coal Mines Department. They were sifted by the Commission, and the actual figures were those for the September quarter of last year. I am sure the hon. Member will remember that evidence being given. To those figures have been added the necessary amounts to cover such increases as those resulting from the application of the Sankey wage, and the increased cost resulting from the return of men to the mines who, although back, are not sharing to the same extent as those who were there before in output. The other costs, timber and stores, and so on, are adjusted to the actual cost at the present time.
    Perhaps it would not be without interest, though, it is a little bit outside the immediate point of the 6s., if I traced the cost of coal through actually to the coal seller and consumer in London. Taking 29s. 3d. as the cost actually paid for the coal at the pit-mouth, I find that that coal should be sold in London and is sold in London for 49s. 6d.; £l 0s. 3d. marks the increase on the cost, and that is distributed as follows: First of all, the pit price,
    84
    29s. 3d. The average railway rate in London is 6s. 4d.; wagon hire, 1s. 6d.: loaders' wages, 1s. 9d. per ton; carmen's wages, 1s. 10d. per ton; other cartage charges, 2s. 7d. per ton; loss on smalls, 7d.; sacks, replacement, £d. per ton; railway siding rents, demurrage, etc., 1d. per ton; salaries, establishment charges, and the various administrative costs in connection with the offices of the factors and retailers, 3s. 6d. per ton; and the profit distributed between the factor, which amounts to 4d. per ton, and the actual small retailer, or between two factors or three factors and the last man, 1s. 8d. per ton on the average. Those figures are rather interesting contrasted with what was the case in 1913. Then, for this particular coal of which I am speaking, best Derbys, the pit price was 13s. and the London price 27s. The railway rate was exactly the same as it is to-day, 6s. 4d. per ton; wagon hire was 1s., against 1s. 6d. at present; loaders' wages, 11 ½d., against 1s. 9d.; carmen's wages, 10 ½d., against 1s. l0d.; other cartage charges, 1s. 0 ¼d., against 2s. 7d.; loss on smalls, 4d., as against 7d.; sacks, only l ½d., against 5d.; railway siding rents, demurrage, etc., exactly the same, 1d.; salaries, establishment charges, etc.. 2s. 4½d., against 3s. 6d; and the profit l0fd., against 1s. 8d. That profit, of course, excludes the 1s. 2d. fixed profit allowed to the coal-owner, so that the Committee will see that we have been able to account for each item in the cost of coal that has to be met, and these figures are, I feel quite satisfied in my own mind, after the most careful checking of them, reliable. I would like to point out that in this last group of figures, the price delivered to the consumer, there is as yet no allowance for any increase in carriage resulting from the various increases of costs by which the railways arc faced, of which one. of course, is the increased price of coal; and the present price of delivery of coal in London or in any town in Great Britain, or in any port of Great Britain is a subsidised price—the Government is subsidising the delivery. These figures that I have given to the Committee are the actual effective figures of what we in this country have to pay.
    There is something else to be taken into consideration. Not only is delivery subsidised, but the actual coal getting is subsidised still, and will be after this is done, not by the State, not by anyone here, but

    85
    by the foreigner, because we are carrying into these figures still the subsidy derived from the export profits, and that subsidy is falling in amount day by day.
    Mr. HOUSTON: It will disappear altogether shortly.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is falling in amount very rapidly, and my hon. Friend says it will disappear altogether shortly. I trust it will not; if it does, the price of coal will be up another 1s. 4d. at once, then the price will be 7s. 4d. instead of 6s. There is at the present moment an effective subsidy of rather more than that, but as a result of the various factors which I have put before the Committee, Is. 4d. is the subsidy which we are counting on to keep the price at 6s. This is the cost of coal, and I would like for one moment to trace the most serious things which are following from it. We have got at the present moment to face a rise in the price of our pig iron of anything from 15s. to 20s. a ton, perhaps more. In steel and finished iron we have got to face an increase of 25s. to 30s., and perhaps a bit more;coke will be up about 10s. a ton; spelter will go up £2 a ton; gas, 6d. to 9d. per 1,000 feet; electric power, one-fifth of a penny per unit; paper, up to 10s. a ton; glass, 5 per cent, to 10 per cent.; textiles, about 4 per cent; bricks, about 5 per cent.; machinery, about 12 per cent.; chemicals generally, about 10 per cent.; some of them, such as caustic soda, sodium sulphide, and bleaching powder, from 20s. to 30s. and up to 50s. a ton. So that this question of the increase of price in coal is a question of the most grave and serious nature for the whole nation, and not only are we losing our subsidy from export coal, but we are going to lose our national earnings from exports. Listen to these figures.
    Rails in Britain before the rise in coal, £16 a ton; after the rise £17 10s. a ton; and in the United States to-day, £10 a ton. Ship plates, £17 15s. a ton before the rise in coal; £19 5s. probable new price; American price, £14. Crown bars, £21 a ton before the rise of coal; £22 10s. probable new price; American price, £11 15s. Pig iron, Cleveland No. 3 Foundry before the rise, £8; after it, £9; and No. 2 Pittsburg, £6. Those figures must, I think, make everyone in this House and everyone in the country realise how grave is the crisis with which we are faced, because we live by our exports. We live
    86
    by nothing else, and our export trade is gravely threatened by this position which has arisen. So the Committee may judge that it is with no light heart, no thought, of temporary political advantage, but because they were compelled to, that the Government decided to raise the price of coal by 6s. The position is one of great gravity and great seriousness.
    The Committee has had presented to it a White Paper, which shows some of the figures on which the decision to raise the price of coal was based, and, obviously, the figure of the whole lot is this: What will be the output of coal during the coming twelve months? That is the key figure. It you once can determine what that figure will be, the rest is comparatively easy. How are we to determine what the output of coal is going to be? You can only base the estimate on experience of actual output. It is no good basing a figure upon a pious hope, and it is no good pretending that things are otherwise than they are; and we have got figures upon which to base the estimate. We can either take twenty weeks of this year—as is actually done in the White Paper—or twenty-six weeks of this year—the figures of which we now have—or we can take a selected recent period. There is a good deal to be said for each of those bases. If factors determining the possible output of coal were all confined to the coal industry, and strictly limited to it, it might be possible to say, "Well, by good will, by the same sort of patriotic leadership of the miners which they got from their leaders during the War, they could get the output up at once." No amount of work on the part of the miners can get the output of coal up to the figures which we want, although they can get it up a long way until we-have got all the other things right.
    So that we are absolutely bound to look at the factors which surround the coal industry in deciding what estimate we are to take; and if we work it out on the basis of the twenty weeks of the early part of the year, and make the deduction necessary because of the coming reduction of working hours, we arrive at an estimate of 217,000,000, odd, tons. If we take the first twenty-six weeks of the year, we arrive at an estimate—and this is a figure which is not in the White Paper, because the figures were not available for distribution—of 216,000,000 tons. If we take a selected four weeks, when all these factors were concentrated upon the out-

    87
    put of coal, we get an estimated output of 214,000,000tons. Now that involves one factor which we have followed from the Sankey Report, and which I feel it right to stick to; but we are reducing the actual hours by 12 ½per cent., and we are only counting -on a reduction of 10 per cent. That may be right. We have the authority of the Coal Commission for that, but with the factors which are outside the coal industry operating upon it, I am not sure that that 10 per cent may not be rather optimistic.
    Mr. S. WALSH: Was it not higher than that estimate?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no! But this is affecting the future, and we can only estimate that; we cannot prophesy what is going to happen. So that we are estimating, and that estimate involves a 10 per cent, reduction, although, as I have said, I am by no means sanguine that in the first weeks, at all events, there will be only a 10 per cent, reduction. I think it may well be more. With those estimates of 217,000,000, 216,000,000, and 214,000,000 we have, perhaps unjustifiably— "Hope springs eternal"—taken the 217,000,000 to work on, and all Members of the Committee have got a tabulation in the White Paper, in Table 6, which shows a deficit of £46,600,000 upon the working for the coming year. Now, those figures were handed in to the Coal Coin-mission. They have been before the public for weeks. There has been no serious -criticism of them. I think they are fail-figures, and I think they are right. Now, £46.600,000 is, of course, 4s. 3d. per ton on all the coal raised, but—and here ail of us who are concerned with this estimate must don the white sheet—although that £46,600,000 is a deficit in relation to 217,000,000 tons of coal raised, it is related to a tonnage of 161,000,000 which will be affected by the increase, because we have got the coal used in the collieries—18,000,000 tons—on which it is no use putting 6s. a ton, even for bookkeeping purposes. There is the miners' coal, which is part of the miners' wages, and then there is the coal for export, and bunkers sold at open market prices above the minimum. That is to say, these 32,000,000 tons of coal to which I now refer are already earning more for us than they would earn if you were to put on the 6s. Supposing the minimum price were 30s. If you raise it to
    88
    36s. or 38s. it makes no difference. So that these 32,000.000 tons are not affected by the rise of 6s.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is that 6,000,000 tons included in the cost of coal at the pit-mouth, or, in other words, wages to miners?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not quite follow.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Six million tons is granted to the miners, as I understand it, at a very low price, as part of their wages. Is that included in the calculation the right hon. Gentleman made just now as to the cost of the coal at the pit-mouth?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes!
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to deal with the effect which the loss of our exports will have on the price of food in this country?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; I have a few words to say on that.
    Mr. ADAMSON: If the 6,000,000 tons is included in the cost at the pit-mouth, why set it out against us again?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is not set out twice. If it is burnt in the miner's cottage, it is not sold to a man in London.
    Mr. ADAMSON: That is if it is included in the cost of coal at the pit-mouth. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that it is. You cannot add it again.
    Sir A. GEDDES: You cannot add the 6s. to it.
    Mr. SPENCER: That is not exactly the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Suppose coal costs, say, 10s. a ton in the London market, and the labour price is 5s. a ton, it must be 5s. a ton. for the 6,000,000 tons supplied to the miners. What we want to know is, is that 5s., which is the cost to get the miners' coal, transferred to the market price
    Sir A. GEDDES: I thought I had made it perfectly plain when I gave four sets of figures, the first one per ton raised to the pit-mouth, and the next one the number of tons sold at the pit-mouth In the first lot of figures which 1 read out is the actual cost per ton raised. The second lot of figures is after the cost of the tonnage, which does not get away from the pit, is added to the cost of the tonnage which does get away from the pit. You cannot add 6s. to it when the 6s. has not been

    89
    put on. This is a deduction from the amount of coal which is available for supplies, and the calculation then is perfectly simple. There is 5s. 9 ½d. per ton to add. In addition to that, there is the cost of the Coal Control to be met. That at present amounts to seven-tenths of a penny per ton, but in all the new circumstances, the now difficulties that are arising, the Coal Control at present is not adequate, and we must allow another three-tenths of a penny per ton for Coal Control, which will make it one penny per ton as the future cost of Coal Control. The seven-tenths of a penny per ton was the past cost of the Coal Control without allowing for a reduction in output. So that we get, therefore, a price of 5s. 10 ½d., according to this method of calculation, which is an absolutely necessary increase so as to get a balance. To that we have added three-halfpence in order to give a slight margin according to that estimate.
    But I have another estimate to lay before the Committee, got at in a different way, an3 that other estimate we have worked out from the actual subsidised cost— subsidised by export trade—at the pit-mouth, a relatively easy thing to obtain from the figures actually in possession of the Coal Control, and which were given to the Sankey Commission. Taking, as I have, in this particular estimate, the 216,000,000 basis, and knocking off the 18,000,000 tons used in the collieries and the 6,000,000 for the miners' cottages—from which, by the way, there is derived a revenue of almost exactly £1,200,000—there remains 192,000,000 tons for commercial disposal. The subsidised cost of raising this 192,000,000 tons is £281,250,000. Knock off the £1,200,000, and you will be left with £280,000,000. Domestic and industrial use absorbs 157,000,000 tons. The present average pithead price—which is without the 6s. rise obtained for the coal, is 22s. per ton. That is equal to £172,700,000, which leaves a balance of £107,350,000 to be obtained from the sale of coal for export and bunkers. For these purposes and on this basis we shall only have 36,000,000 tons in all available. At present the prices for this export and bunker coal range from 15s. per ton for the poorest qualities, anthracite duff, and small broken dross at the lower end of the scale up to 90s. per ton, depending upon the quality. Last year's average was 29s. At present the average price is 39s. But, unfortunately, our diminished exportable quantity is having this effect,
    90
    that the composition of the exported mass— some of which is good, big coal and some of it bad stuff—the average composition of our export and bunker mass has deteriorated.
    There are some quite instructive figures on that point in the trade returns for June. Taking 1917, the small coal we exported in June of that year amounted to 535,000 tons, and of large we exported 2,000,000 tons—a ratio, roughly, of one to four. This year we exported 724,000-tons of small, and only 1,500,000 odd tons of large—a ratio of one to two. The average price that we are getting for our export coal is falling because the quality of the composition of the mass of the coal is less good than it was; and as the amount of coal we have to export declines, the composition of what is exported gets worse. So we are estimating for a, price of 35s. for our export on an average against 29s. last year, and 39s. at the moment. That is we may expect to receive £61,250,000 for our export and bunker coal. When that has been deducted-from the £107,000,000, which ought to have been paid for our export, we are left with a deficit of £46,100,000. This deficit, according to this method of calculation, has to be spread over 157,000,000 tons, and it works out at 5s. l0 ½d. per ton. Allow 1d. per ton for Coal Control, and you reach 5s.11 ½d
    These are the different methods, one checking the other, of calculating the amount that should be put on to the price of coal, and they both point to the 6s. increase if the country is prepared to go on subsidising its domestic coal out of the profits of its exported coal. It is rather dangerous to imagine that during the coming year we are going to have a great deal of coal to export at a good price, because competition is getting very keen. It may surprise some hon. Members to-know that American coal f.o.b. at Atlantic ports is almost exactly 20s. She is nearer' some of the places to which we sent coal than we are. But it is not only coal that we have to consider as a competitor, but oil. Let me read a short extract from a letter from South America which has come to my notice:
    "It has come to my notice that for a long period the West Coast of South America has been left without adequate supplies of patent fuel coal. This has had the effect of establishing; oil in that market. I am afraid that is the permanent position there now. During the War the oil companies"

    91
    the American oil companies—
    "made contracts for three years with various consumers on the West Coast who used to use our patent fuel coal at 120s. per ton delivered. Their idea of the three years' contract was that they could recoup themselves for the establishment of tanks, pumping arrangements, and shipping in that period. The three years' period has terminated. The American oil companies have intimated that they are prepared to contract for one year for 70s. per ton of oil (which is worth 2 tons of coal in calories). The price for the second year is based on the current price at the end of the first year, and similarly as to the third year. I think you will agree with me that oil at this price, taking into consideration the easy facility for transport it offers, will be a most formidable competitor to coal …for many years we were practically without competition; I am afraid that happy period is past."
    That is some of the competition we have got to face. We have also got to face this: that the Americans are now offering long term contracts, and if we are forced, in order to maintain our hold on the markets, also to offer long term contracts, our profits must be further reduced, because the price will have to be lower than the price we have been getting hitherto. So one can only say that, though we are estimating on a 6s. per ton rise for coal, we are doing it knowing that we are taking a very considerable risk in having underestimated the amount that we ought to put on, because that 6s., the Committee remembers, is arrived at after allowing full credit for about Is. 4d. subsidy derived from our export trade.
    An HON. MEMBER: How much subsidy in railway carriage?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is a considerable subsidy in railway carriage, but I could not put that subsidy in figures. There are one or two other points with which I wish to deal. I see in the "Times" a statement from the Secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. In this he said:
    "Apart from the single economy in the proven wasteful system of coal production, here are the actual facts vouched for over the signature of the Coal Controller, dated 3rd June, 1919: Table 7. Estimated output for the year 1919, 230,606,000 tons; estimated deficiency for the year ending December, 1919, after providing the owners with a guaranteed profit of 14 millions, £36,900,000. This sum, spread over 230,606,000 tons output, equals 8s. 2.4d. per ton. Thus, in the teeth of the Government's own witnesses, Sir Auckland Geddes would increase the price to the consumer by 6s. per ton, even when advised that the arithmetical deficit is only the 3s. 2.4d."
    That statement has had considerable vogue, and I have been asked a good many questions about it. Therefore, I think it
    92
    not useless to refer to Table 7 of the White Paper for a-moment, where we see the deficit of £36,900,000 referred to—the deficit upon this year. No part of that deficit, so far, has been raised from the price of coal; it has been met from the taxpayer or borrowed money. If we have to pay the whole of that £36,000,000 of this year, as apparently suggested in the statement I have just quoted, the increase in the price of coal on the remaining part of the year, inland coal, would have to be 9s. 2d. per ton. If we wiped out all that is behind us, and started afresh now, for the period of the reduction of hours, the calculation is then precisely the same as the other calculation which I have given to the Committee. Only there is a half-year to be dealt with. Therefore, the increase in the price of coal would be precisely the same as that which we have made.
    5.0 P.M.
    Another point which has been made strongly is that in the past there was an increase which is described as a useless or unnecessary increase in the price of coal, of 2s. 6d. It is said, as a result of that the Government made a large profit out of the coal industry. I do not think that that transaction has ever been fully understood. The half-crown increase was imposed in June, 1918. In the spring of 1918 it was ascertained that the Coal Mines Agreement Act was being worked at a loss. The accounts up to March of 1918 showed a deficit at the rate of £6,000,000 per annum. In order to make the agreement self-supporting it was necessary to impose a charge of 2s. 6d. For the March quarter of 1918 the actual pithead price of coal supplied to inland consumers was 8.24d. per ton over the cost of production. That was before the 2s, 6d. was put on. In the next quarter the actual cost at the pithead was only 1.86d. over the cost of production. Actually in the September quarter, after the imposition of the additional 2s. 6d., the resulting profit was Is. 6.58d. per tone over the cost of production. It has been said that the Government was profiteering out of the people of the country. It was doing nothing of the sort. It was preventing international profiteering. The actual cost of coal raised and the price paid for the coal raised were so near each other that even after the 2s. 6d. was on there was only a profit left of 1s. 6d. and a very small fraction to the mine-owner, as against the present 1s. 2d. The profits that were made out of the 5.0 P.M. 2s. 6d. rise at that time in connection' with the 2s. 6d. were profits made from overseas. For example,

    93
    we had during the War to get large quantities of goods from neutral countries for which high prices were asked and in fact we got those goods by bartering coal. The only way that we could keep the price of those things which we were buying any-think like reasonable was by charging 1 the arrangements for barter a larger sum for the coal, and that was the source of the so-called profits. They were not profits in a sense, but they were going against what the Government was paying for stores t the War. These sums of money only passed as a matter of book-keeping through the coal industry, and on the international basis that money was absolutely required to meet our war charges accruing overseas. That was what happened at that time. But the actual arrangements, so far as the industry at home was concerned, leaving on one side altogether its export activities was this, that after the 2s. 6d. was asked there was Is. 6 ½d. profit per ton of coal available for the mine-owners in this country. The mass of money which passed through the coal industry—it was not taken from the coal industry but passed through—at that time was altogether coming from outside the country, and was part of the general adjustments in connection with the international bargain.
    These possibilities of so-called profits no longer exist. We have not got the coal to export, and as I have already said, it is absolutely urgent that every section of the -community should realise how grave- is the position. If we have not the coal to send overseas our ships will have to go out in ballast if they are to come back bringing iron ore, or whatever it may be in the way of raw material. [An HON. MEMBER: "Food supplies!"] If we have not exports to send out, and we shall have few exports if coal, iron, and finished iron and steel are dear, the exchanges must go more against us, and we must be placed in a position of having to pay more for all our food. And so I would say to this Committee that this is no time for any section of the community, or for the Government to think that its interests are separate from the interests of the whole lot. If we are to get through the dark and anxious days which lie ahead we have got to get back to the spirit which we had during the War. It is no good anybody saying that anybody else especially is to blame, excepting on one thing, and there the blame is heavy if it can be proved in any way whatever. The
    94
    men who are to blame at the present time are those who are not doing their best to get production, to get output, to get the cost of production down by increasing its, bulk. That, at the present moment, is the most urgent need of every department of our national life, and that is the point upon which the miners, the actual workers in the mines, can do more to help the country than in any other way to get ahead, and whatever the other difficulties outside the industry may be, or of getting the coal away from the mines, let us see that the maximum amount of coal is got out of the mines that can be got.
    I will ask the leaders of the miners to go down to the men they know so well and say to them, "This is no time for doing less than the maximum you can do." I would ask the leaders of the other section of the community to say the same thing to their people, but because coal is the basis and principal source of our power, its shortage, and its dearness affects us more than the shortage or dearness of any other thing except bread. Therefore, I would ask every man who has influence with the miners, if they see, as they must see, and know that many of the men are not working to the limit of their capacity—[An HON. MEMBER: "And many of them have not the chance"]—many of them who have the chance are not working, and many who have a limited chance are not working to the limit of their chance. If they will work to the limit of their capacity then I have very little fear that it will be possible for us soon to say, "The output is rising so well that we may run the risk of bringing down the price of coal." I would say this: If the output goes up we will only be too glad and willing to meet the rising output by a fall in the price of coal. If the output can be got up I think I might say, on behalf of the Government, that as the output rises w e will only be too glad to get the coal down 6d. a time, or some small amount, and not wait till there is a big lump, but we will take it off by sixpenny blocks in order at once again to get our industry freed and our exports cheaper. But unless we get coal, and unless everybody really will do all he can to get output, and unless men of other industries will do all they can to free the circulation of goods in the country to get up the supply of things required for the miners, we shall have great difficulty. The key of the position, the final key rests with the miners—

    95
    [An HON. MEMBER: "Carry out the Sankey Report!"]—;it rests upon the miners not on any Report, but working.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100. I do not remember, since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, a more depressing speech than the one to which I have just listened, and that speech is really the strongest condemnation I have heard of the policy of the Government. If the position in the country is such as the right hon. Gentleman has portrayed, then to come down to the House of Commons, without any warning or inquiry, and without any consultation, to give notice of an advance in price of coal to the extent of 6s. per ton, is one of the most extraordinary things I have ever heard. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?" J No one recognises more than my colleagues and myself that this is a crisis which has to be faced and solved if the nation is to be safe. Our complaint is as to the way the Government treat us. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it was no part of the Government policy to select the eve of an election when a Labour candidate is fighting for a seat in this House to announce a 6s. per ton. increase in the price of coal. All I can say is that, if it was not part of the electioneering tactics of the Government, it was a very peculiar coincidence that this announcement should have been made at such a time.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, made a very strong and moving appeal, not only to miners or mine-owners, but to all the organised industries in the country, to co-operate in dealing with what the country is faced with. Part of the gravamen of the charge levelled against the Government is that they do not give us a chance. Why were we not taken into consultation? Why were we not asked to meet the right hon. Gentleman or the Government to discuss a situation so grave and serious. To come down to the House of Commons itself, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, and overwhelm us with schedules of figures which we ought to have time and opportunity to examine, is really not the proper way dealing successfully with what, after all, is a very grave problem. Are not the Government and the right hon. Gentleman aware of the desire on the part of organised Labour to co-operate with them. Very nearly on the last day of the Coal Commission the
    96
    Miners' Federation of Great Britain representatives made an earnest appeal that they should be allowed to co-operate with the Government in finding a way for dealing with this reduction in output, and the reply we had, very much later, was 6s. a ton increase on the price of coal. Is that the way to deal with this problem? Surely not.
    There was a meeting only last week—the very day that the right hon. Gentleman came down and made his dramatic announcement to the House—of the Advisory Committee and the Coal Controller. There were present representatives of the Government, coal-owners, and workmen, but not a word was said there as to the necessity for placing 6s. per ton on the price of coal. If the right hon. Gentleman really desired the co-operation of the mining industry towards a solution of the problem, surely the way to do it is not to come here and declare an advance of 6s. per ton increase on the price of coal, but rather to invite us to a consultation with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" and laughter.] If my hon. Friend opposite thinks this is a subject for laughter, all I would say is that that is not the impression which the right hon. Gentleman's speech has left upon my mind. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has-told the Committee that it is essential in the national interest, if we are to be saved' as a first-class industrial and commercial power, that we must have an increase in the output of coal. It is essential, and I am directing my mind to that problem.. My complaint is that the Government have delayed taking us into their confidence, and allowing us to co-operate with-them in any way whatever.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): May I interrupt my right hon. Friend just for one moment? His complaint is not that he did not know that this increase was necessary, but that the public did not know. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as long ago as the 4th of June, called the attention of the House and the country to the deficit, and announced that it would have to be dealt with.
    Mr. BRACE: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his statement, which was not at all needed. This is by no means the first crisis that we have had. This is by no means the first time that we have been faced by a very serious national situation because of a shortage of coal. In

    97
    1915, owing to the large number of miners being called to the Colours, we were faced with so serious a position in the coal industry that the Government themselves felt called upon to take steps to secure the co-operation of the coal-owners and workmen's representatives to increase the output of coal from the mines of the Kingdom. What did they do? They convened a great conference of representatives of coal-owners and workmen at the Opera House, and there the whole position was explained, with the result that they went home and individually and collectively explained to their respective people that the nation must have more coal or perish, and the output went up at once. Look at Table 1, on Page 4 of the White Paper, and there you will see it given in a nut-shell. In 1913 there were employed in the mines of the United Kingdom 1,111,000 men and boys, producing an output of 259 tons per man per year, which worked out at an average of one ton per man per shift. When we come down to 1915, the number of men and boys employed had fallen from 1,111,000 to 952,000, and as a result of the Opera House meeting, when the present Prime Minister and the then Home Secretary frankly explained what we must have to save the nation, these men went back home, and they increased the output of coal to an average in 1915 of 266 tons per man per year, or 1.02 tons per man per shift.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: That was not due to the conference between the Government and the Miners' Federation, but to contraventions of the Eight Hours Act.
    Mr. BRACE: I do not understand why the hon. Baronet should have interposed. I am not inquiring as to why or how; I am stating the broad fact. Supposing they did agree to set on one side for the time being some of the provisions of the Eight Hours Act, the whole of my point is that when requested both coal-owners and workmen's representatives agreed to cooperate and did co-operate with such success as to give an increased output.
    Sir C. CORY: We are now being asked to reduce the hours.
    Mr. BRACE: If the hon. Baronet will forgive me, he will quite see that I cannot argue the Eight Hours Act on this question. Another coal crisis faced the situation in 1916. The position had become so acute and the need for coal by our Allies and ourselves was so great that the co-
    98
    operation of the coal-owners and the workmen's representatives was again sought. A meeting was held at the Central Hail, Westminster, and was addressed by Mr. Asquith and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Samuel. The whole position was explained, and those coal-owners and workmen's representatives went back home and explained in detail to their people exactly what the nation must have to make good in connection with the War. Look at the result that we got, as shown on the same page. In 1916 the output was 265 tons per man per annum, and the average output per man per shift was equal to that in the record year of 1913, while the percentage of absenteeism had fallen from 10.7 in 1913 to 9.7 in 1916. There is the evidence, quite clear. Whatever may be said about the miners, they are a patriotic people. After all, the miners are a very independent kind of people, not uneducated let me say. The young miners of to-day are much better educated than my colleagues and myself. They have had the advantage of a very much better later education. They have some of the most wonderful educational institutions in connection with their mining villages. They have splendid libraries which they have erected, and which they maintain themselves. There they have the advantage of all the current' literature of the day. These men are well educated. You cannot drive an educated people, and the miners resent the way that they have been treated. They resent all these charges which are being levelled against them, not perhaps by the Government, but by people an the country and by some of the Press of the country.
    If you want to move the miners, then you must operate upon the policy of appeal and trust, rather than demand and condemnation. It was upon this policy of appeal and trust that the miners responded on the last occasion, and I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government to appeal to and to trust the miners. Let us know the situation. Let us not have it fired at us, as we have it to-day. Until my right hon. Friend spoke this afternoon there was hardly a man or woman in the country outside the mining community who did not think that the miners alone were responsible for this reduction in output which necessitated this increase of 6s. per ton. I was very glad to hear him explain that one of the causes for the shortage was a shortage of

    99
    material at the docks and another a shortage of wagons on the railways. Those are matters with which I invite the Government to deal direct with the representatives of the workmen and the employers in those particular industries as I invite the Government to deal with us direct as workmen and employ és. We felt a strong resentment last week when we heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement and when we read the criticisms and opinions afterwards. As a mining community, we felt strong resentment at the way in which we had been treated. We came down here to-day expecting an entirely different story. I thought my right hon. Friend doleful, I thought him rather depressing, but from the standpoint of damping down any feeling that the miners' Members may have in this House, rather subtle and shrewd. It is rather difficult to put on him what we thought we would like to put on him, and to that degree he has eased the position of the Government.
    We do realise how serious is the national situation. No one can know better than ourselves that so long as you have the cost of living of the standard which exists to-day you must have agitation and unrest. No one can know better than ourselves that if we are to have a reduction in the cost of living then it must be by increased output. That is one of the things that I have been preaching all along. One of my complaints against the employers of labour in this country is that they have concentrated so much on questions of wages and hours, rather than upon output. The real test of prosperity is not so much wages and hours; the real test of prosperity is the amount that we produce. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman appeals to my colleagues and myself for an increased output, we offer ourselves ready most cordially to co-operate, because, if I may be allowed to say so, we do love our country, and we have a deep regard for our country's welfare. But I hope this Committee will not allow themselves to be brought to the belief that the workmen are responsible for the economic situation of Britain to-day, or that the miners are responsible for the position of the mining industry to-day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Richards), who is an official of the South Wales Miners' Federation, has been good enough to hand me a series of replies which he has received within the last day pr two from the collieries to a number of
    100
    questions which he has sent out. In connection with his organisation and my own we have an out-of-work fund, from which we pay 10s. per member and 2s. 6d. per child up to a certain age, if the workman, through no fault of his own, is off work one week, or six days consecutively, or twelve days in the month. In 1917 we paid out to members who were idle-through no fault of their own £41,862, and in 1918 we paid out £'43,240.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): Sickness benefit?
    Mr. BRACE: No, this is simply the out-of-work fund for South Wales alone. The-strike or lock-out arrangement is an entirely different one. The Committee, therefore, will realise that if our members could have been given that opportunity to produce which they were anxious to have we should not have paid out in 1917 £41,000 and in 1918 £43,000. Why were they idle? These are the replies. One hundred and fifty-seven collieries were unable to work because there was no trade, on 670 days last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "No trade?"] Yes, no work. The collieries were at a standstill because there was no trade, no wagons. One hundred and thirteen collieries were idle because there was an insufficient number of trams, tubs, at the collieries; 101 collieries were idle because of a shortage of timber and rails; 111 were idle because of a shortage of horses and mechanical power; 91 reported a decreased output because of the delay in repairs; and 82 collieries reported reduced output because of the delay in developing work at the collieries. The-Committee will, therefore, see at once that the loss of output is not caused by any unwillingness on the part of the workmen to give to the nation what it wants, but because of a lack somewhere in the organisation of the industry to give the workmen an opportunity to produce I, therefore, invite the Government to let us get into-touch with each other—the Government, the coal-owners, and the workmen. Let us have a repetition in 1919 of what we did in 1915 and 1916. Let the Government and the industry work in hearty co-operation. If you do that, then I think you may be assured, even if we cannot get back at once to the standard output of 1917, we shall be able to wipe away a large margin of the deficit which we have cause to deplore this afternoon.
    The Coal Control Department itself have-made some blunders too. You know they

    101
    say the miners are a fighting people connected with a fighting race; but they are patient too, and if they were not patient the Coal Controller would have had trouble quite recently. I will take a case in point to show how a Government Department works; yet my right hon. Friend comes down here and leads the country to think, not intentionally perhaps, that the Government are everything they ought to be, and that the miners ought to be condemned. Here is how the Coal Controller's Department acts. It is necessary in the arrangement for the reduction of the hours from eight to seven to fix a piecework rate which will meet the new situation. In Yorkshire and Lancashire, and, I believe, in Notts and Derby, the coal-owners and the workmen have arranged for an increase of 14.3 as the necessary addition to be placed on the piece-worker's rate of pay to enable them to meet the reduction in the hours. My right hon. Friend and some of my colleagues met the coal-owners in South Wales and talked the matter over with them, and ultimately they said they would like to have time to consider it. We fixed a date for another meeting, and on the day appointed we met. I had just started to open the case when one of the coal-owners said to me, "I have a letter from the Coal Controller." "What is it?" I asked. "Oh," was the reply, "it states that the maximum amount of increase that we are to agree to must not be more than 10 per cent." I said, "Well, that is awkward; we cannot go any further. What are you going to do? In Lancashire and Yorkshire, and, I believe, in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, they have agreed to 14.3 increase." He replied, "I do not know; here is the order; the maximum is not to exceed 10 per cent." If we were not a patient people we should have begun to make a row. But we did not. We said, "There is something wrong." So we communicated with the national executive which got into touch with the Government, and I think they met my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and were able to prevail upon him that the Coal Control Department had made a mistake in fixing 10 per cent, as the maximum. But up till now we have not yet received a letter telling us that the 10 per cent. order has been altered, but although the alteration of working hours comes into force this week—on Wednesday— we have made no arrangements with the
    102
    coal-owners or the Coal Control Department as to what is to be the rate for pieceworkers in this great industry. That is something we have to deal with at Keswick this week. An hon. Friend near me tells me that the men will be out to-morrow as a result. I venture to put it to the Government that this is not the way to deal with an industry which is a key industry. This is a matter which should have been dealt with long ago, and if the Government really realise the seriousness of the coal situation, which is the foundation upon which British industries rest, then they ought to conduct the operations of the Coal Department in a way other than that which offers a serious temptation to men to stand idle because no rate has been agreed upon. So much for the Coal Control Department.
    Then the coal-owners are not free from blame. Sometimes I sympathise with them; at other times I condemn them, and this is one of the occasions on which I do condemn them. Here we have at this moment—well I understand that the men have returned to work to-day—but we have had at Nixon's Navigation Collieries from 6,000 to 8,000 men idle for a fortnight or three weeks over a little dispute in regard to a tram of rubbish. A man went into the pit to work in the morning, finding an empty tram ready for him to fill But a haulier came along and said, "You must put a tram of rubbish in first." He took the empty tram out of the man's place and substituted for it a tram of rubbish. That man can only be of advantage to the nation by hewing coal, not by unloading rubbish. He said, "I have no room in this stall for this rubbish." The haulier replied, "Never mind, here is the order and there must be room for it." "There is no room," retorted the man; "the place is full except, perhaps, at the top, and I cannot put any in there." The haulier replied, "You have to have it," and left it there. As a result the men went out. A settlement was attempted by arrangement, but the company replied, "Oh, no; the order is that the man must unload the tram of rubbish, and the rubbish must be unloaded." All this occurred at Nixon's Navigation Collieries. Ultimately I took up the case. I said, "Cannot you use this ton of rubbish somewhere?" The reply was, "No, it must be unloaded there." I suggested that, as it was denied there was room in the stall for the rubbish, the company should send

    103
    a labourer in the next night to unload the rubbish, and the answer at once was, "No; all the men must unload their rubbish. We are going to establish our right to make the colliers unload it." In establishing that right the company got all the men employed by that firm out.
    Is that the way to increase outputs Who is responsible for that loss of 15,000 or 16,000 tons of coal there? It was very nearly a crime in face of what the right hon. Gentleman has declared to be the situation of the nation. [An HON. MEMBEE: "And it applies to other industries as well."] If the difficulties cannot be settled here, it must be settled by negotiation—by consultation—and I invite the Government to give us a Committee to inquire at once; not to impose the 6s., but to give us an opportunity of entering into consultation to see if we cannot immediately increase the output of coal. 1 am authorised by those who act with me to declare to the Government that we are entirely at the service of the State for this purpose. No one can recognise more than we the situation. We know we cannot go on as we are going on. We believe that we can increase the output; absenteeism can be reduced, and by a better reorganisation of the whole of the concerns of the collieries we shall be able to have an output which will approximate more nearly to the needs of the nation than does the present output. I can imagine someone saying, "All this is brought about by tinkering with nationalisation." I hope it is not going to be argued that because the industry has been under some kind of Government control for some time that that is a demonstration that nationalisation has failed. You have got the worst of two systems under the present system; you have all the disadvantages of private ownership with Government control. You had better by far have private ownership and private control than that kind of mixture. If you want to have the full advantage of nationalisation, then you must not only have Government control, but Government ownership. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Government officials!"] Why not?
    Workmen look to the Government to give legislative effect to the Coal Commission Eeport—the Sankey Report. I regret to have to say it, but there is a feeling of real suspicion in the atmosphere in which private employers and the Government
    104
    live, in these days. If we are to make the best use of our industries, then we shall have to welcome the introduction of every labour-saving appliance that science can give us. I should mislead the Committee if I did not tell them that there is not a readiness amongst workmen to welcome the introduction of machinery to produce profits for private individuals; but they undertake by resolution to welcome it if you will nationalise the industry and let the product of their labour go to the advantage of the nation rather than to that of private owners. I would venture to submit to the Government that delay in dealing with the question of nationalisation will only add to their trouble and difficulty. Men of my class are convinced that if we are to bridge the gulf successfully in this great world evil, and if Britain, industrially and commercially, is to find herself right on the top, it can only be by the nationalisation of such key industries as the mines. This is still a free country.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we to be allowed to discuss this question of nationalisation?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The right hon. Gentleman was only making, as I understand, a passing reference.
    Mr. BRACE: I respectfully submit that I am quite within the rules of order in touching thus lightly upon the question of nationalisation, which 1 offer as part of my solution of a great and difficult problem. Some of my colleagues will deal with the figures of the White Paper, but we cannot accept them. I was very interested in following or trying to follow— I found it very difficult-my right hon. Friend in his exposition of the real meaning and balancing of the 2s. 6d. At the end he came to the conclusion that there was a number of collieries who had some profits which otherwise they would not have had and they certainly did not require—Is. 6 ½d. I think was his figure. I want to put in my caveat here against the White Paper. We do not accept the figures of the White Paper. I should be trespassing upon the time of the Committee if I attempted to deal with it, but some of my colleagues later on will, doubtless, deal with it in detail. Our contribution towards a solution of this difficulty is to offer our services to the Government to help to increase the output, after consultation. We,

    105
    therefore, propose that the 6s. per ton should not be imposed on Wednesday as was intended, but that we should have an opportunity of looking into the matter and giving us and the coal-owners a chance to increase the output without any delay. Our second proposition is that, in order to make the industry as productive as possible, to keep peace and to enable the miners to have faith in the Government, they should carry out the recommendations of the Sankey Coal Commission Report, and without the slightest delay come down to the House with their legislative proposals for nationalising the mines of this country. Speaking on behalf of the miners, I say at once that even without nationalisation our call of country is sufficiently strong to make us exhaust ourselves in giving every output and to ensure the future placing it, without any shadow of a doubt, upon sound lines: If you will give us nationalisation, which is the key system and which we believe the nation must have to save itself, then there will be an encouragement for us to welcome with open arms every labour-saving appliance which science can devise, and which will enable us to increase the output of the British mines to a higher standard than it ever reached before. I regret the circumstances which have caused the right hon. Gentleman to come down to the House of Commons and to make a declaration in favour of a 6s. per ton increase. This increase cannot go on if the other industries are to have a chance to live. This increase cannot go on if we are to have an opportunity of reducing the cost of living throughout the homes of the people of this country. We regard it as vital that it should not be put on. We ask the Government to give us an opportunity, by consultation and by conference, to devise ways and means which will give them the increased output necessary and make it unnecessary to place upon the cost of coal 6s. per ton increase. While we enter our protests against the way in which the Government has treated us up to now, we still feel as good citizens our obligations to the State, and we offer this as our contribution to the State, but as a protest I am bound to move a reduction in the salary of the Minister by £100.
    Sir EVAN JONES: As this is the first time I have addressed this House or a Committee of the House I crave the usual indulgence. I think I may claim even greater indulgence than usual owing to the importance of this subject. My right hon.
    106
    Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace;—I think I have every right to call him my Friend—Has in his very powerful speech pleaded guilty. The whole tenour of his speech was a plea of guilty in view of what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman has with great magnanimity made an offer to the Government, and those who have to carry out the instructions of the Government in this matter will appreciate it to the full. He has offered in connection with this particular difficulty the whole forces, the whole strength, and the whole influence of the powerful organisation of which he is so distinguished a member, in order to put this matter right. That statement and that promise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is the one great ray of hope in what otherwise is rather a cloudy atmosphere. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not accept the figures of the White Paper. May a remind him that the figures of the White Paper were presented to the Coal Commission six weeks ago. They were at that time circulated in full detail through the public Press of this country. Copies of them were sent to every member of the executive committee of the Miners' Federation, to every coal-owner in the country, and to the Mining Association of Great Britain. I have not seen a single criticism either on the part of the Miners' Federation or of any other body of the figures contained in that White Paper until the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman does not tackle them himself. He simply says, "I do not accept the figures of the White Paper, but I am going to leave somebody else to say what is wrong with them." Neither the Coal Commission nor the Miners' Federation of Great Britain nor any member of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has ever questioned the accuracy of one single detail in this White Paper. I am surprised to hear my right hon. Friend, although he did it in a most genial manner, at this stage question the accuracy of those figures.
    6.0 P.M.
    Again, the right hon. Gentleman complained that he had received no notice of this proposed increase in the price of coal. At the same time these Papers were circulated through the medium of the Coal Commission, the President of the Board of Trade, on the very same night, said in this House that the estimated deficiency on the working of the coal industry for twelve months from July of this year would

    107
    amount to £46,000,000, and that in order to meet the situation, if the taxpayer was not called upon to make good the deficiency out of taxes, that cost would have to be transferred to the consumers. That statement was made publicly six weeks ago. The whole of the figures in the White Paper have since been subject to public scrutiny, and the basis on which the estimate of £47,000,000 was made has not been questioned. To-day, after six weeks' notice, after ample opportunities for all persons concerned to inquire into the whole basis of these figures, the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says that he has received no notice of the intention of the Government to put this increased cost on to the price of coal. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his Friends have felt rather hurt because they were not called into consultation by the Government to consider this question. The light hon. Gentleman has referred on previous occasions to meetings held at the Central Hall and, I believe, one or two other places, between representatives of the Government and the miners, which we all admit produced a magnificent result. But surely the war feeling of this country was then strained to the uttermost. The men and all other persons connected with the State would have jumped to render any assistance under any conditions. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we are to continue our war methods in days of peace? Does he suggest that the same methods which the Government thought fit to adopt to meet the extraordinary conditions caused by the stress of the War are to be the methods by which they are going to build up the country in a time of peace? If that is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, why do they so object to our friend "Dora"? The proper way to carry that out would be to consider whether we should not go on in times of peace by maintaining the principles of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman forgets what the condition of affairs was then. He wants to know why the Government did not take him and his Friends into consultation over this matter. At that time the Coal Commission was sitting. The Coal Commission is a body appointed by this House, with full statutory powers, to inquire into all these matters which the right hon. Gentleman now complains that the Government did not call upon him and his Friends to
    108
    discuss with them outside this Commission altogether. The Coal Commission was sitting. It was charged by this House to inquire into these very matters which are the subject of this Debate. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that either the Coal Controller or the Government, or anyone else- should have gone over the head of the Commission to inquire into matters with which they were specifically charged under the Coal Commission Act. If I was a member of the Commission I should certainly have considered such a proceeding on the part of the Goal Controller or anyone else—to hold an inquiry into this very matter that the Commission were inquiring into, and while the Coal Commission was sitting—as a distinct reflection upon the proceedings and powers of such a Commission.
    I should like to say a word on the Sankey interim Report, which was accepted by the Government in the letter and in the spirit. I want to show with what hopes the Government were looking forward to the realisation of the anticipations raised by that Report on the subject of output. The spirit of the Sankey Report, which recommended an increase of wages of 2s. a day and a reduction of hours of one per day, was based clearly, distinctly, and unmistakably on the supposition that that output would be maintained, and not only the standard of what was estimated to have been the output in September, 1918, but that by improvements and by better work on the part of the men it would be further increased, and, therefore, that the deficit, which was estimated by the Sankey Commission at £13,000,000 per annum, would have been decreased, and the course made easier for the Government to find the money. The Chairman and those who signed the Sankey Report said, We rely on the honour of the miners' leaders to see that they carry out their promises to maintain and increase the output, and if those promises can be realised, then it would be very much easier for the Government to find the money for the payment of the £13,000,000 deficit estimated by the Sankey Report. It was in that spirit, I am sure, that the Report was accepted by the House. The Sankey Report itself estimated the deficiency at £13,000,000. The Government, by its acceptance of that, shouldered that deficiency, but they shouldered it under the full understanding that

    109
    the output would be maintained at the level on which that estimate was based, and that it would be so increased that the deficit would be a gradually diminishing quantity, and that about the end of 1919 practically the industry would be self-supporting and paying its own way.
    What has happened? How have those anticipations been realised? What is the position of those who ought in the first instance to bring this matter before the attention of the Government and tell them what is happening? Week by week the Coal Control Department watched the course of the output, eagerly looking for the slighest indication of an upward tendency. Week after week they were faced with a gradually decreasing output. They waited. After the payment of the Sankey wage, and with the acceptance by the Government of the Sankey Report, they still watched and waited to see if there was any indication before they took any action or made any comment. It was the duty of the Control. Department, while the Sankey Commission was still sitting, to make sure that these facts were brought before the Government, so that if they thought proper they should be communicated to the Commission. Instead of the output maintaining even the level on which the Interim Report was based, it was seriously declining. The deficiency which the Sankey Report estimated at £13,000,000 was based, as therein set out, on an estimated output for the first half of 1919 at the rate of 264,000,000 tons a year. The actual realised output is about 231,000,000 tons without any reduction of hours. There has been a reduction in output of 25,000,000 tons on the anticipated output on which the Sankey Report estimated the deficiency. We still waited, down to the very last week for which it was possible to obtain information, and week by week the same result has come. There was no ray of light, and no apparent hope in any of these figures to indicate that there was even any slight upward tendency in the output. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest, in face of the fact that the Coal Commission was sitting to inquire into all causes that were operating in connection with this industry, and all questions concerning the cost of production of the industry, that the Coal Controller should call together his Advisory Board, the very members of which were sitting on the Commission itself day by day, with the owners and the Miners' Federation, and begin to open an
    110
    inquiry over the head of the Commission? I am quite sure from what I know of my right hon. Friend that he has not fully taken all these facts into consideration. As to the very urgent necessity of obtaining our supplies of coal at as cheap a price as possible, I am sure that the Government, with alacrity, immediately they begin to see a genuine upward tendency in output, will at once reduce the price to meet it. That is not only a wise policy, but it is a policy of keen business methods and it is the only way to meet it The moment there is any upward tendency to any marked degree, 'I am quite sure the Government will not wait before they begin to reduce their prices.
    I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and I have never known him more pleasant than he is to-day. It is sometimes said the more pleasant a man is the more dangerous he is. I know that is not the case with him. I know him too well. But he tried very jocularly and nicely to get in one at the Coal Mines Department on the subject of its blunders in connection with piece-work rates. I presume the Miners' Federation of Great Britain provides the members of its executive committee with the instructions they receive on important matters. It is true that the Coal Controller sent out an instruction limiting the increase in piecework rates to a maximum of 10 per cent., which my right hon. Friend held up as one of those examples of its mysterious blundering. On that occasion the Coal Controller did not send that out on his own authority but under the direct instruction of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government on the Front Bench. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain then approached the Leader of the House, and after considerable argument convinced not only him but all of us that there was one element in his calculations that had been left out in fixing the 10 per cent, maximum, and it was then arranged that while the 10 per cent, should be operative over the country as a whole, the maximum should be arranged in accordance with a formula, and instructions in connection with it were sent out to all the owners and a copy to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain three days after the meeting with the Leader of the House. If my right hon. Friend; has not received those instructions I can only suggest that he should communicate with the secretary of the Miners' Federation and ask him what he has been doing.

    111
    My right hon. Friend also made some reference to the mystery of the 2s. 6d. increase that was put on the price of coal in June, 1918. I think the President of the Board of Trade in his statement quite clearly explained the reasons for that increase, reasons which were perfectly legitimate, and which made that increase not only advisable but absolutely necessary. The main facts which were operating and which governed the imposition of that increase were that the Coal Mines Agreement Act passed by this House imposed a distinct obligation upon the Government, which the Government accepted, that the working of that Act should be made self-supporting. What happened? As the accounts for the working of the agreement came in it was found out early in the spring of 1918 that the mines were being operated at a loss of about £6,000,000 per annum, and it was found necessary, in order to comply with the distinct mandate of this House to make the working of the Coal Mines Agreement self-supporting, that 2s. 6d. should be put on. After that 2s. 6d. was put on, and when the accounts had been brought out and we were able to tell what happened in the September quarter, upon which these abnormal and artificial profits, and the £4,000,600 of estimated profit was based, it was found that even in that quarter the profit, or the difference between the selling price of the coal at the pithead and the cost of production of the coal used for inland consumption, was only 1s. 6d. a ton. That was in spite of the 2s. 6d. per ton that had been put on. The rest of the profits, which added such a glamour and made the country think that the Government was scooping in huge sums of money out of the coal industry, were profits derived from the sale of export coal, which, as the President of the Board of Trade explained, were used in an international sense in connection with the War.
    In spite of the 2s. 6d. which was put on the price of coal, the coal for the inland consumer was still being subsidised, and is still being subsidised to-day, from the export profit at the rate of something like 1s. 4d. or 1s. 6d. per ton. If we lose these export profits from which the coal of the inland consumer is being subsidised, then, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, the price of coal would have to go up by another 1s. 4d. or 1s. 6d.
    112
    a ton. Is it a healthy sign for the industries of this country that the consumer of coal should have coal at less than the cost of production? Is it reasonable? Is it sensible? That is what is happening today. The inland consumers, of coal in this country, even with the 6s. increase, will be getting coal at less than the cost of production, and I submit that that is not a healthy sign. I think the President of the Board of Trade would have done better if he had faced the situation now a little more boldly, and had told the British consumer that in order to restore a healthy atmosphere to this industry, he must put on not 6s. per ton, but 7s. 6d. I shall be somewhat interested to know in what respect the figures of the White Paper are going to be contested. It seems rather belated, after ample notice has been given, and when nothing has been said during the whole of the intervening period, that we are now informed, without reasons given, that these figures are not accepted.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Can the lion. Member amplify the figures in the White Paper by letting the House know the extent to which sanction has been given to the coal-owners to go in for what in ordinary times would be capital expenditure out of the profit?
    Major MORGAN: Exploration expenses.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Perhaps the Coal Controller can give us the figures of absenteeism for the weeks subsequent to 26th April?
    Sir E. JONES: The absenteeism figures for the five weeks down to 28th June show a distinct improvement. They have gone down from 13 per cent. in the first twenty weeks to 11 per cent. in the five weeks in question. But I should like to point out that while the absenteeism figures have gone down the output per man has also gone down. I think right hon. and hon. Members will quite understand the reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the reason?"]
    Mr. SCOTT: What is the output per man?
    Sir E. JONES: The reason why it has gone down is this: With a fixed output, if the absenteeism is less naturally the output per man must be less. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No!"] If hon. Members will go into that they will find that that is the case. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I am speaking in terms of percentages,

    113
    and if hon. Members will look into the question from the percentage point of view they will find that the percentage must vary as I have said when the output is constant. The percentages are derived from the output and the percentages must vary accordingly. With regard to the question as to exploration costs, it is the regular practice of the finance branch of the Coal Mines Department not to allow any charges for exploration to be put as a charge against expenses of working. That has to be carried by the owner. But in connection with new developments which it is most essential should be allowed to be carried out while this uncertain atmosphere prevails, because if developments are stopped it will have a most pernicious effect upon the output in future, the Government have intimated that when they introduce a Bill into this House to deal with the interim Sankey Report they will introduce Clauses with regard to the manner of dealing with these development charges, of which full particulars have been sent to all the parties concerned.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Can the hon. Member give to the House the figures of expenditure under the name of development charges?
    Sir E. JONES: I think that question should be addressed to a Minister. I think I can speak on behalf, at any rate, of the bureaucratic official branch of the Board of Trade in this matter have seen charges levelled against the incompetency of the bureaucratic official who was responsible for the huge blunder of the estimated increase of 4s. 6d. instead of 6s. per ton. I am that bureaucratic official. I have never been an official in a Government office in my life until I voluntarily undertook this exceedingly pleasant job, and I am not at all averse to a change in the business habits of a long lifetime to be now invested with the glory of being a bureaucratic official.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I think I have addressed the House on three previous occasions, and on each occasion I have omitted saying something which I should have liked to have said, and I have said something I wish I had not said. To-day I am going to say only the things which I believe ought to be said, and if hon. Members opposite will not interrupt too much I believe I shall succeed. We should approach this problem not as Labour leaders or employers, not as
    114
    nationalises or anti-nationalisers, and not as supporters or opponents of the Government, but as citizens who realise that we are faced with a very serious problem, and that the duty devolves upon us to try and find a solution. It is not merely the mining industry that is concerned. We have a very serious situation arising in every direction. We have subsidised railways, subsidised agriculture, subsidised buildings, a subsidised post office, and now we are faced with subsidised mines. We have only to have the textile and the metal trades in the same position and we shall be bankrupt. While we are in this position we are borrowing money to pay our way. I am sure no responsible citizen can view the present situation without grave misgiving, and without some anxiety as to the general welfare of the people of this country in future. But I do not take the gloomy view of the President of the Board of Trade. I want to deal with his figures. I see in Table 5 that in 1913 we produced 287.000,000 tons of coal. It is estimated that in twelve months from 16th July of this year to the same date of next year we shall produce 217,000,000 tons, The table says that in 1913 it was necessary for carrying on manufactures, keeping the home fires burning and providing bunkers to consume 210,000,000 tons. It is estimated that in the next twelve months we are to be content with 191,000,000 tons, and this notwithstanding the fact that in 1913 we exported 77,000,000 tons and in next year we are only to export 23,000,000 tons. If those figures are correct, if that estimate materialises we are in for a more serious situation in this country than we have ever been faced with in the lifetime of the oldest man in this House.
    The President of the Board of Trade has said that you cannot build up one industry without at the same time keeping on the other in a state of prosperity, but what hope is there of building up any industry at all if this is to be the position of the coal industry. If you are only going to have 16,000,000 tons less than we have in 1913 for trade purposes at home and for bunkers and for domestic purposes, I do not see how any prosperity in any of the trades is possible at all. But I do not believe myself that those figures are going to materialise, and I say that the Government have no right to sit down and say that that is to be the future and that they are simply putting on 6s.

    115
    to cover it, without making some effort to see that that is not the future. And that is the problem we are up against in this House. Anyone who looks at Table 6 will see that we have a number of estimated figures there, but we have one that is an ascertained figure, and I want to get on to some agreed facts. It says that the ascertained profit for the quarter ending 30th September, 1919,— I suppose that is 1918—on the basis of an output at the rate of 228,000,000 tons per annum, with the average number of persons employed as 961,000, is 3s. 7d. per ton. Those are ascertained figures. They are representative of the mining industry at the time. As I understand it, it means that, if 961,000 men produce 228,000,000 tons of coal, they not only earn their own wages and produce sufficient to cover all the other items in the cost of production, but they also leave a margin of 3s. 7d. profit. Pursue that one stage further. If 981,000 men produce 228,000,000 tons of coal, that means that each man produces 237 tons per year. So we are brought down to this simple fact, that the mining industry, with a production of 237 tons per man per year, is a paying proposition to the extent of 3s. 7d. per ton.
    Sir A. GEDDES:That was before the Sankey award.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I ought to have explained that this was the position on the prices ruling and the wages paid in the September prior to the Sankey Report. But if every man who goes into the mines will produce 237 tons of coal per annum, we have a paying industry without paying 6s. or anything else additional for the coal. That is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, on that proposition. I will come to the other items in a few minutes.
    Sir A. GEDDES: That 3s. 7d. is the profit from overseas trade—[HON. MEMBEES: "No!"]—export profit which was ruling, and which it is quite impossible to expect to return.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The profit is the margin left after all expenses have been met, whether it comes from home consumption or foreign consumption, and all profit was not made from the foreigners. We got the actual figures before the Commission and we know what they were; but I submit, and I do not think the President
    116
    of the Board of Trade will deny—that if in September last every person employed produced 237 tons of coal, that is a paying proposition.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It was then.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: That is all I want: it was then. I want the Committee to take note of the figure 237 tons, because, in my opinion, that was the only figure by which you can judge the value of this Table 6, or of the estimates that have been made, as to whether we ought to pay 6s. per ton or anything per ton, or whether the industry can be made to pay its way without any extra charge at all. Look at the next item. Deduct for the wages of 163,000 additional persons employed at the pre-Sankey rate, on an average of some £3 a week, which comes in round figures to about £25,000,000–2s. 3d. per ton—and then the outside public are called upon to pay, in the circumstances, 3s. 2d., arrived at by dividing the amount by the 161,000,000 instead of the 228,000,000. That is the most astounding proposition of all. Out of the 6s. that is to be paid as an increase in the price of coal 3s. 2d. is to provide wages for 163,000 miners for the next twelve months, who are not to do one single stroke of work or produce one single ton of coal. That is the proposition with which we are faced. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let us read it again. I confess that I turned it upside down and twisted it inside out before I could get what this meant, but when we are asked to deduct from the 3s. 7d. that was profit the wages of 163,000 men for twelve months, which is estimated at 2s. 3d. per ton on the whole of it, and which is 3s. 2d. per ton on home consumption, that is a fairly strange proposition, to my mind. If we get 163,000 additional miners into the mines, all these men have to do is to produce 237 tons each, the same as the 961,000 are producing, and instead of making it necessary for the public to find them wages for nothing, those 163,000 miners will have earned their own wages, will have covered the cost of production on output, and will have added 38,000,000 tons to our total of coal at 3s. 7d. per ton profit. All that resolves itself into the problem, Can you get from the men employed in the mining industry an output of 237 tons per man per year? If you get that, there is no necessity to put a cent on the coal of this country, and in this we should not only wipe out the 6s., but

    117
    we should have an enormous surplus and be able to reduce the coal. I challenge anybody to contradict that statement, if that first item in this Table 6 is correct.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member says that if we could get 237 tons per person working all would be well. That is not so. The figures here deal with the period which was quite a peculiar period that will not recur. It was the pre-Sankey period. We will not go back to pre-Sankey conditions. Those are past and gone. We have also got here the vast profits of the war period from the export trade when there was no competition, and included in this are those sums which I was speaking about earlier to-day, which belong really to the system of balancing our purchases overseas. You cannot base anything on the 237 tons per man. The next point is made about the number of men who have gone into the mines. My hon. Friend says that they are doing nothing on the average. If those men by their efforts there do not create an increased output then they are doing nothing. That is just what has happened.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am coming to that.
    Sir A. GEDDES: There are 1,139,000 men in the mines—that is the latest figure— and they are not getting the increased quantity. That is what is putting on the increase of 6s. on the coal. That is what we are asking to get changed, so that these people will do increased work.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I understood that this was the proposition on the basis of which the 6s. was imposed. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if 961,000 men produce 228,000,000 tons of coal and you only get the same output when there are 163,000 men additional, then these men are doing nothing so far as the total is concerned, and that is what this proposition amounts to. That is what it is based on. That is the proposition, and I want the House to try to appreciate it. We are facing an estimate, a forecast of what will happen, twelve months from next Wednesday. I want to know exactly what this estimate means, and whether it contains any sort of justification for putting on 6s. a ton, or whether we ought not to apply a remedy which, in my opinion, can be applied to make it unnecessary to put on a single ¼d.
    118
    I say that, with the figures in this document, and pre-Sankey wages, 237 tons per man per annum is a paying proposition.
    Let us take the other items. We are asked, the public are asked, first of all, to pay 3s. 2d. per ton to find wages for men for doing nothing. It is 2s. 3d. in this document, but the outside public are asked to pay 3s. 2d. The next item in the Paper shows that the output is going down even from that figure, for it lays it down that not only are 163,000 additional miners to do nothing, but that even the 961,000 are going to do less. The original total must be reduced by 5 per cent. You knock out another 11,000,000 tons, and by that process of reducing production you increase the overhead charges by 3d., and the outside public must pay 7d. Then we get another item on account of this reduction of 11,000,000 tons, for we have to reduce exports by 11,000,000 tons. That means a loss of profit to the extent of £11,000,000, and the outside public must be asked to pay 1s. 4d. a ton to cover that loss. So that you have 3s. 2d. for 163,000 men getting wages for nothing; 7d. on account of increase in overhead charges due to reduced output; another 1s. 4d. due to loss of export profits; and then, in order even to make this 217,000,000 tons, we have to keep collieries going that ought to be closed, for the Controller says, "You must keep them working and you must have £3,000,000 for doing it." There is about 3d. a ton charged on that, and the public are asked to pay 4d. on their house coal.
    That is the scheme. That is the document which is put before us. I am not painting the lily at all. I am simply trying to interpret a document placed in our hands, I want to get back to the question—Is it reasonable to suggest that we can get, even under the seven hours' day, an output of 237 tons per man per year? If I can prove that it is reasonable to expect that, I will afterwards revise the table in this document and show how it would work out. Let us get back to the output of the last twenty years. What have the miners done? What is the history of the mining industry? Let us get back to the passing of the eight hours' day. It was passed in 1908 and came into operation generally in 1909. In 1909 the output per man was 268 tons per annum; in 1910 it was 260 tons; in 1911, 262 tons; in 1912, when we had a six weeks national strike, it was 245 tons; in 1913 it was 259 tons. For 1914 the figure is obviously incorrect in this

    119
    document, and I have not made use of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] You have only to look at Table 1 to see that in 1914 the number of men is given as 1,117,000, and in a footnote it says that that is the number of men employed in July of 1914. But we had 200,000 men taken from the industry for the Army before December of that year. In 1915 the output was 266 tons per man per year, and in 1916 it was 265 tons. I will come to 1917 and 191S later. During the whole of that period the average output is 263 tons per man per year.
    7.0 P.M.
    The question is, can we, under a seven hours' day, get 237 tons output as against the average of 263 under the Eight Hours Act? Mr. Justice Sankey has estimated that there will be a reduction of 10 per cent, on the coming into operation of the seven hours' days. Ten per cent, deducted from 263 tons leaves 237 tons. In that short history of the coal trade we have seen what the miners did without any coaxing and without any threatening. I have given you the figures for the years in which we had the most troublous periods we have ever known. In 1909, 1910, and 1911 I was organising strikes; everybody was organising strikes. We had the Tonypandy riots and thousand's of men out for twelve months. It culminated in the national strike, but notwithstanding all the strikes we produced an average of 263 tons per man per year. What is to prevent us producing 237 tons per man in future? Even with the reduction of hours from eight to seven? Are we likely to have a reduction of more than 10 per cent.? Fortunately here, again, we have experience to guide us; we have facts and figures and a long record to fall bark upon. Let us go back to 1901, before the reduction of hours took place. In 1901 the output was 281 tons; in 1902, 285 tons; 1903, 283 tons; 1904, 284 tons; 1905, 285 tons; 1906, 294 tons; 1907, 294 tons; and the average annual output per man during those eight years was 286 tons. You have, therefore, an output of 286 tons under the Nine Hours Act taken over a long period, and 263 tons average with a working day reduced by one hour. That is a reduction of rather less than 9 per cent. I want to emphasise one fact, namely, that it does not matter how the number of men varies—no matter how many men are employed in the industry, the output per man during the last twenty years has been almost with-
    120
    out change. Figures are not available as to the number of men employed in 1901. In 1902 the number employed was 810,000, and they produced 285 tons per man per annum. There were 623,000 the next year, but the output was then just about the same, namely, 283 tons for every individual. By 1905 the number employed had gone up to 843,000, and the output; was still 285 tons for each man; and even when you come down to 1913, when there were over 1,000,000 employed, you will find the same output per man. That being the case, I say that we have gone on altogether wrong lines' in forming a basis. The Government has taken what as their basis? The first twenty weeks of this year. I have taken as a basis the last twenty years of experience in the industry. What does the first twenty weeks in this year mean? Let us look at it. If we can make up the difference, as 1 submit it is reasonable to assume we can, and if it is possible we ought to do the needful to get it, what happens? We could abolish rationing to-morrow, we could put our home production on the 217,000,000, and, instead of reducing our exports from 34,000,000 to 23,000,000, we could increase them to 56,000,000, simply by getting the men to do in the next twelve months what they have been doing without any effort on anybody s part at all year after year for the last twenty years. If that is the position, why not tackle the problem and solve it on the question of production and not by putting on this 6s. per ton, which is going to ruin all the industries of the country. I will give one more figure in relation to the output per man. What does the 217,00n 000 tons per year mean, and what is the estimated output per man on which this 6s. is based? It is estimated, and this is what the Government budget for in this' Paper, that we are only going to have from each man in the mining industry during the next year 1 83 tons of coal.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Is not that what they are actually doing to-day?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: We are talking about the next year's work, and 183 tons per man is what the Government have based this 6s. on We have been doing 263 tons, and we are to get a reduction next year of eighty tons per man. That is the statement. In 1908 there was a fall of twenty-three tons, but with that exception year after year it has never varied more than a ton or two in the year and

    121
    here we have eighty tons knocked off. That is the estimate. We had a 9 per cent. reduction when the Eight-hour Act came in, and now you have an estimate of a 30 per cent. reduction in the output per man employed, or from 263 tons per man to 183 tons per man. To those who are associated with the industry all I have to say is that tin; thing is too silly to laugh at. If you will allow me I will just redraft Table 6 of this estimate.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me for interrupting him, but we are all very anxious about this point. Is not this reduced output upon which the White Paper is made up not an estimated but the actual figures taken from the present working?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I will answer you quite frankly. This estimate is based on the assumption that what has been done in the first twenty weeks of this year will be done all through next year, and I will tell you what it moans for next year. Let us, instead of going on this basis of 183 tons per man, take 237 tons per man, which is the natural proper output to get. [An HON. MEMBER: "But you cannot get it."] Table 6 says, "Ascertained profits on 228,000,000 tons is 3s. 7d. per ton. "Let us redraft that by saying 237 multiplied by 163,000 equals 38,633,000 tons, making a total of 266,631,000 tons on a profit of 3s. 7d. We have abolished the £25,000,000 required to pay 163,000 men, and we have abolished 3s. 2d. out of the 6s. We have 5d. down for increased charges due to diminished output, and if you get this raised to 236,000,000 tons instead of increased charges you are going to have reduced charges. You can wipe that 5d. off, and put another 6d. profit on, and you get 4s. 1d., instead of 3s. 7d. an profit. But we have got a loss of profit due to less exports, but there is no need to have that loss. We cannot only abolish the loss, but we can increase the exports, and instead of having 1s. 3d. less, we ought to have 1s. 3d. gain. I am making this statement in all seriousness, and it is, I think, incapable of being upset, and I am making it on the assumption that we can get 237 tons per man per year. By that one process you get 5s. 4d. a ton profit and all you have to make up is to deduct 30,000,000 tons for the Sankey Award which works out at 2s. 3d., not 2s.9d. Taking 2s.3d. from 5s. 4d. you have 3s. 1d. left, and you have to deduct the coal-owners 1s. 2d. and you have still 1s. 11d. left. You have to deduct
    122
    compensation for remunerative collieries, of say, 3d. per ton, and all you have then is 1s. 8d., and I say that is what will result from getting all our men to produce 237 tons of coal in the year during the next year without putting a penny on the ton of coal, and what does that give us? Instead of a deficit of £46,000,000, we would have a surplus of about £22,000,000 by increasing the output and doing nothing else. Let us get down that problem.
    Why has the output per man gone down, and what has to be done in order to get it up? That is the problem. We have got a reduction in output per man, that is clear. If we go on for the next year producing, as the Government budget for, 183 tons per man from the men employed, we simply cannot live on it, and this country cannot exist on it, if the forecast contained in that White Paper is realised. I think that White Paper ought to have a black border on it, and it ought to be entitled "A Funeral Dirge."
    Mr. SEXTON: We had one.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I could not help feeling that we had a funeral sermon from the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon. I have not got into that gloomy state of mind. Let us look at the first twenty weeks of this year. For five years we have been in a state of war. The mines have been denuded of labour. Does not everybody in this House know that the colliery owners wanted horses and could not get them, wanted ropes or machinery or rails or timber or trains, and could not get them. Do we not all know that? Is not that the position into which hundreds of thousands of men have come back and gone. You had a denuded industry for five years and a shortage of machinery, of rails, and ropes, and trams, and timber. What do we find? I have been dealing with this question of output in my own district amongst the men I represent. I have gone to them, and pointed out to them what declining output means. I have urged them to improve it, and they have said to me, "Mr. Hartshorn, what do you advise us to do, we have been lying down in the whole district simply because we have got no timber," and they have asked me, "Do you advise us to work in danger?" I know that in the mining industry one out of the six men and boys employed on the surface and under ground is injured every year, and I know that every time the clock goes round four British miners go West. I will never ask

    123
    British miners to work in danger. Those men say, "Give us timber, and we will give you coal." Neither the British Miners' Federation, nor the miners themselves, nor the colliery-owners can get timber. It is the business of the Government to see that we get it, and it is their business to organise this thing as the country was organised for war. There is the Controller, but it is said, "We are not going to adopt the same methods in peace as we did in war." If that is the spirit in which we are going to approach this question then there is nothing but bankruptcy staring us in the face.
    We have got to tackle the problem in the spirit in which we tackled problems during the War. If we do that, and if the Government will say, "We will organise the material and those things which are required in order to be able to produce the coal," then we say here from these benches with the full authority of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, we will stake our very existence on the fact that without any threat our men will produce as much coal per man per year as will make it altogether unnecessary for one single penny to be added to the price of coal. Do not let anybody imagine that putting on this is going to induce the miners to produce. It is not. [An HON. MEMBEE: "On the contrary."] It only irritates the miners. There is no more loyal body of men in this country than the miners; there is no more sporting body, there is no body of men to whom a national appeal can be made with a greater certainty of a ready response than the miners, but if anybody thinks they are going to threaten or bludgeon him into doing something they are on the wrong track.
    When the President of the Board of Trade says, "Increase the output, boys, and we will bring it down 6d. a ton if you like," that is not the way. If the Government will say to us to-morrow, "We will organise the material "—and why should they not say it? How are we going to build up our other industries, how are we going to revive trade, unless we can get the coal which is the very basis of all future prosperity? What have we as miners got to trouble about the 6s. for if we are only thinking selfishly? It will not be put on to us. We have nothing to lose by it. We are thinking merely as citizens and of the general effect on the
    124
    nation, and if there is one cent put on the price of coal it is simply because the Government are not prepared to get down to the real serious problem of organising material and enabling us to organise and supply the coal that will enable it to be produced at a price which does not require any increase at all to be put on. I want to make an appeal to the Leader of the House and the President of the Board of Trade to give us a chance. Why not meet the Miners' National Executive? Why not see what we can do to organise this industry? The matter of three months would be a trifling matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] A matter of three months, even if it means a few pounds out of taxation, will be a very insignificant matter compared with the evils that are going to result to the general prosperity of this country by putting on 6s. on the price of coal, and I sincerely hope that you will give us a chance, in an atmosphere free from friction to get down to this problem in a spirit in which it is possible to solve it, and in the only spirit in which it can be solved.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Committee will entirely agree with me in expressing our great obligations to the hon. Member for the admirable speech he has made. The whole point between him and the Government, as I understand it, is entirely this question of output. The whole question is, Is the Government right or wrong in relying on the experience of twenty weeks? I do not pretend to be an expert in the coal trade, but I must point this out to the hon. Member, because I think it is very important, that we have bad the assurance of the Coal Controller, on which we are absolutely bound to rely, that not only does the twenty weeks produce an. average output per man which justifies the figures of the White Paper, but there is no sign of any improvement. That is the formidable fact.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The point I make is that I do not think there is going to be any improvement until the Government takes in hand the organisation of material, but the moment that is done you will get your improvement.
    Lord R. CECIL: It is possible it is the organisation of the material, but it seems to me very astounding that in all the mines of the country they are all being held up by this want of material and nothing else. I have some difficulty in believing it, but, if it is so, it is a very serious criticisms

    125
    of State control. I do not propose to go into figures, and I should not be able to cope with the hon. Member's great knowledge of the subject, still less with the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, but I want to ask the Committee to consider very seriously the position in. which we are placed. My right hon. Friend made a speech which has been characterised as alarming. Well, it is alarming, very alarming, and he said, what is perfectly true, that if we cannot find some solution of our present industrial position there really is very little to hope for in the future. We have got to recognise that. The hon. Member opposite recognises that. What are the two causes that seem to me to be at the root of the matter? One is the immense rise in the cost of production, due to the rise in the cost of labour, which is in its turn due mainly, if not altogether, to the rise in the cost of living. The real thing we have got to tackle is this question of the rise in the cost of living, and I wanted really to make a few observations to the Committee as shortly as I can on that point, because it seems to me that it lies at the root of the whole thing. It is no use going to the wage earners of this country and saying to them, "You shall have higher wages," if in point of fact when the higher wages are paid they do not buy any more goods. That is the way to produce discontent. I sit for an agricultural constituency, and I am told that the wages of the agricultural labourer have risen from something like 17s. a week to 38s., but that even at that new figure the agricultural labourer is no better off and in some respects he is worse off than he was under the old one.
    An HON. MEMBER: But the farmer is.
    Lord R. CECIL: That is not the point. What is the cause of this immense rise in prices? It is at least two and a half times what it was before the War. Why have prices gone up? I know there are a certain number of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members opposite who say it is all profiteering. Well, I have no wish to defend any profiteer, but I have great difficulty in believing that there is a gigantic conspiracy of profiteers who had succeeded in outrageously raising the prices, not of one commodity but of all commodities, not in this country alone but all over the world, except in one country, and that, I am told, is America. Why there should be no profiteers in
    126
    America seems to be an amazing thing. The figures given by my right hon. Friend in reference to coal to-day traced exactly what the cost of coal at the pit's mouth was and how it rose to the price at which it was sold to the consumer, and it was quite evident that though there may have been a certain amount of profit to the various middlemen and dealers in coal, yet the profit was in no way excessive. I think it amounted to 1s. 8d. a ton a about 50s. per ton cost. If it is not the profiteer—do not let me be misunderstood. I would like to re introduce the-Star Chamber to deal with the profiteer. I believe it was introduced originally to deal with people something like-profiteers, and it is the only successful method that has ever been devised. But whatever measure is necessary to deal with the profiteers I am sure the whole House is absolutely and unanimously in favour of dealing with them. But I do not believe for a moment that that is a complete account of the state of things we have to face, nor do I believe it is due simply to a shortage of supply, which is the ordinary reason, because as far as I can learn—and when I was working on the Economic Council in Paris I endeavoured to make some inquiries—I cannot learn that there is anything like a world shortage of the essential materials. I do not mean to say that if everybody all over the world bought as much as they did before the War there might not be a shortage, but, as a matter of fact, there is no-difficulty in supplying, so I understand, the demands that are made, nor even is the question of transport, the question of shipping, so serious—it is not negligible—as to produce any shortage to account for the rise in prices. Then what is the meaning?
    I am very glad to hear the Government are going to appoint a Select Committee, though I am rather doubtful of a Select Committee, having served on some Select Committees myself, as the best means of arriving at the truth of a very delicate and very difficult economic inquiry such as this. I would prefer a small Royal Commission of exports. I believe that would have been a more satisfactory body, but; that is a matter for the decision of the Government. I venture to suggest that the real cause of the rise in prices is the great increase of the currency. [An HON. MEMBER: "The gold standard!"] No; it is merely the actual increase of the amount:

    127
    of currency. That may or may not be the explanation, but it does fit the facts more or less. You have a great increase of currency in this country, something like two and a quarter to two and a half times what it was before the War, and you have approximately a similar rise in prices. You have, I am told, in France a much larger increase. It was stated to me—I Cannot say that I had the figure officially as four times their pre-war currency, [An HON. MEMBER: "Paper currency!"] I do not want to be led into an elaborate economic argument, but it is not really a question of paper currency. It is the actual amount of counters that are available; it is the ordinary law of supply and demand. If you have a great increase of currency, you have a great increase in prices. The value of the currency goes down because there is an ample supply. In France the currency has gone up, I believe, about four times. Prices are higher in Franco than they are in England. In Germany, I believe, the currency has gone still higher; but I admit that the circumstances there are so peculiar that you cannot argue from that; and a similar thing, more or less, will be found, I believe, in all the countries of Europe. In America there has been a comparatively small increase. I believe there has been some, but a small increase, and practically prices are no higher in America than they were before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Not materially so. I am assured, speaking generally and broadly, that prices have not gone up to anything like the same extent as they have gone up in this country. That does not mean that they are not nearly as high in America as they are here, because they were much higher in America before the War than they were here.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They have gone up about 25 per cent.
    Lord R. CECIL: My right hon. Friend tells me the increase of prices is about 25 per cent. in America, as against 100 or 125 per cent. in this country. Those are the facts that are given to me. If they are true, we ought to be prepared to apply the remedy. One remedy, no doubt, is to increase the output. That is the remedy for everything, because if you increase the output, in proportion you will diminish the price of the articles of which you increase the output, but I doubt myself whether that is a complete remedy, and I would venture
    128
    to suggest to the Government and to the House that if this really is true they ought to be very careful not to go on increasing the currency now. I am told, and I believe it is a fact, that the currency is still being increased week by week. I have not the figures before me, but it is still going on, and it must go on as long as you make large capital expenditure. That is the fact. If you are only providing currency for ordinary trading operations, you do not want more than enough to make the necessary medium of exchange. But if you have to provide currency in order to pay for expenditure which does not produce any immediate return, and no return a all in the case of war expenditure, then you have an extension of the inflation—I do not like using the word "inflation," because it has a special meaning— but an extension of your currency, which is exactly the danger you have to avoid. I would ask my right hon. Friend and the Government to look at this very carefully. We had the other day—I merely take it as an illustration—a speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes),who foreshadowed large capital expenditure in putting right—I dare say an excellent object—the transport services of this country, and nothing could be more sanguine and more cheerful than my right hon. Friend in bringing it forward. He was going to reconstruct the railways, to make a large number of roads, and to reconstruct the canal system of the country. He was as cheerful as the President of the Board of Trade was the reverse this afternoon. I could not help being reminded of the French proverb, "Jean qui rit et Jean qui pleure."
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Translation!
    Lord R. CECIL: I was going to give a translation—"Geddes the gay, and Geddes the sad." If what I am trying to present to the House is anything like accurate, we ought not to have what I may call a certain incoherence in the policy of the Government. You ought to say about each capital expenditure, and still more about military expenditure, not only, "It is desirable," but also, "Can we afford it?" That is the first point I desire to make in connection with this question of the industrial situation which really lies at the bottom of the whole question, because if it were not for the difficulty we are in industrially we should not have had the necessary rise of wages, and we should not have any question about an increase of price at all.

    129
    There is one other observation I want to make. The hon. Member who spoke last said undoubtedly the output could be increased. He did not quite undertake to say how it could be increased and he did not quite give us any clear account as to why it had diminished so seriously, except this want of material. I am afraid I do not regard the want of material as a sufficient diagnosis of the difficulty. I do not think we ought to conceal from ourselves what the right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) said as to there being a certain amount of suspicion, and that you could not disregard that fact. I think that is true. I believe that the wage-earners in this country, and in all the countries of the earth, are in a position of profound unrest, and I am sure they are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present industrial organisation of the country. I do not believe—I never have believed—that it is a question of wages, and hours simply. I do not believe that is the real trouble in the matter. I believe that they desire greater industrial freedom. I do not like the phrase that is some times used about the wage-slave. It is a gross exaggeration, of course, but there is an element of truth in it, and every honest man ought to admit it. What is really the position of the wage-earner in most industries? He is paid so much wages. He is a mere item. He has to carry out a certain industrial policy on which he has never been consulted, and with which he has no power of dealing at all. He is not really a free, self-governing man in industrial matters. I hope I shall not be suspected of revolutionary tendencies, but I do not think that we ought to conceal that from ourselves.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: It is common sense, anyhow.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am sorry to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say that, because it makes me distrust my opinion. But, seriously, that is, I am sure, at the bottom of a great deal of the present discontent. It is really at the bottom of this claim for nationalisation. The real reason, as I think my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench said, why it is difficult to persuade the wage-earner to increase output is because he says that any extra profit will go into the pockets of the, owners and nothing to him. The suggestion is that nationalisation will put that right. I hope my hon. Friends opposite will consider very carefully this question of nationalisation. Increased profits from increased
    130
    work will not go any more into the pocket of the miner, whether he is working under the present system or under a national system. Even if there were no waste, and everything worked well, or better than it does now, the amount that he would get as the reward for increased labour would be insignificant, and, as for freedom, his position, I am convinced, would be infinitely worse. I take my right hon. Friend's story of the Coal Controller. I do not wish to make any attack on that hon. Gentleman, who made an interesting speech this afternoon, but, assuming that my right hon. Friend's charge is absolutely true, what does it mean? It means that a Government Department issued an ukase that no advance upon 10 per cent, was to be made, and no one could get behind that in any way until a political negotiation had taken place in this House by which the Government Department was over-ruled. That is the story of my right hon. Friend. Does not that show how helpless the miner would be in a condition of nationalisation? Then take the case of the hon. Member who spoke last. He said that the whole trouble is that the Government will not provide timber. What greater condemnation could you have of the theory that the miners would have a greater influence under a nationalised system on the management of mines than they have under the present system? I am convinced that it is a complete delusion that nationalisation will give freedom to the wage-earner, and I do not believe hon. Members opposite, when they give the matter their impartial consideration, can believe for a moment that nationalisation would in itself increase output. Do they really want the House to accept from them, on their authority, the proposition that a worker for the Government works harder than a worker for a private employer? I do not think any hon. Member would say that privately.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Is the Noble Lord aware that, during the whole War, there were fewer strikes in Government Departments than anywhere else?
    Lord R. CECIL: That does not answer my question. But, really, do not let us draw our illustrations from the period of the War, because you had a really great patriotic sentiment then working at high fever, which set aside many of the ordinary defects of industrial human nature. At any rate, that is the sug-

    131
    gestion I venture to submit on nationalisation, but I do not think we can afford—I say so quite frankly—to say, "We will not have nationalisation, and we are not prepared for any other reform. We propose to go on just as we are." Personally, I am not prepared to say that. I do think—I have said so in public more than once, and I say so in this House—the time has come when it is only fair and right that the wage-earner should have a voice in the management of the concern in which he is employed. I believe the demand for what I believe President Wilson called "the democratisation of industry" is just as strong and just as reasonable—at any rate, just as deeply founded in human nature—as the demand for self-government. I know it is said by many of my friends in and out of the House, "If you do that you are going to weaken or destroy your efficiency. Industry can only be carried on autocratically. You must have one head to decide." The same, or much more, was said about autocracy in politics. It is quite true that for mere efficiency the Government of an autocrat who really understands his business is better probably than any other form of Government, but the convinced opinion of the world, and particularly of the English world, is that they would rather have slightly less efficient Government and freedom than greater efficiency without freedom. Hon. Members opposite will say whether I am right or wrong from their experience, but I think that is the foundation of the whole trouble at the present time.
    I believe we have got to find some system by which the wage-earner will have—1 will not say the lull control—but, at any rate, a voice in the management and a share, I think, in the profits of the industry. Those are views 1 hold, and I do ask the Government not to treat this in a piecemeal way. I am far from making any attack on the Government. I know the enormous difficulties under which they have been working during the past six months, with a large part of the Government, perhaps the most important—the Prime Minister, at any rate—away in Paris, and the rest of the Government here. But the time has come when, in the interests of the country, they must have a comprehensive policy in these matters. It is no use saying, "We will not make up our minds about nationalisation for months and months, after which we shall be able to give some advice to the country." They
    132
    are entitled to some time to consider a very difficult question, but they must realise that the longer they put off a decision the greater the unrest of the country. It is essential, in the country's interest, that the Government should have a de-finite policy in this matter, and should put it forward clearly and courageously in this House.
    May I add one word to my hon. Friends opposite They are now coming to a time when they will be, in my expectation, the most powerful party in the State. Their responsibility is very great. They must not look at these things from a sectional or class point of view. They have got to look at them from a broad, statesmanlike point of view. I am not the least afraid, if my hon. Friends opposite will realise their responsibilities, that they will discharge them as thoroughly as have other Englishmen in times past, but I do hope, if my words have any weight, that they will look at this matter not sectionally but broadly, and in a statesmanlike manner, so as to arrive at a real settlement in the interests of the country at large.
    Mr. HOLMES: I have had the privilege as a chartered accountant of acting professionally for some twenty-five or thirty colliery companies during the past five years and I have consequently been in constant touch with the Coal Controller's Department since it was established—therefore I may perhaps claim to have had some experience in regard to collieries and the Government. I desire to try to show to the House that it is unnecessary at the present time to in crease the price of coal by 6s. per ton. I believe the estimates have been exaggerated and that everything has been shown at its worst. Charges which ought not to have been allowed against the profits have been included, and deductions which ought to have been made have been left in. I am going to ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller if they will be good enough to look at the White Paper. I am afraid that I have not got their attention—;—;
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am sorry if I appeared not to be listening, but, owing to the stir, I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to suppress their conversation.
    Mr. HOLMES: I am going to ask the President of the Board of Trade to look at the White Paper and to refer to the second item. In the second item there are 163,000 additional persons, the result of which is that the right hon. Gentleman deducts 2s. 3d. per ton from the 3s. 7d. on the ascertainment of the quarter. I want to take the House back to the beginning of the War when many men left the collieries to join the Forces. The result was that the collieries had to abandon certain districts and certain seams. The enlistment of the men, and the subsequent comb-out, made it that the collieries did not only give up districts, but they also gradually gave up doing the repairs which they had been accustomed to do underground. When they came to the hard headings they had to leave them as they were instead of cutting through them in the usual way. Most of the colliery companies—that is the larger ones—paying excess profits duties, saw that this expenditure was going to come later, and they approached the Inland Revenue authorities. In many cases they were given provisional allowances, for it was said that later, though they had not been doing the repairs, they would have to pay on the Excess Profits Duty on the amount which they subsequently expended, and which had been allowed. Then coal control came along and excess payments, and provisional allowances, at different rates and over several years, were settled; for it was felt that repairs, not done for three or four years over the War, would bring such a state of confusion that it would b impossible for any one to face the situation. Therefore it was decided to make an allowance to the colliery companies forthwith—an allowance which should be final. I can speak with some authority because it was my privilege to settle this on the part of the colliery companies with the liaison officer who acted for the Inland Revenue and the Coal Controller.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Can you give the House the total figure?
    Mr. HOLMES: I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt me. I have not the slightest idea. What happened was this: The arrangement made was that so far as any district which was closed was concerned, that the colliery company should estimate the cost of re-opening—there were roofs falling, roadways choked up, rails possibly to be relaid—for rails in many cases had been removed and put
    134
    somewhere else during the War. It was agreed that the colliery companies should estimate the post-war cost of those re-openings, and the amount of those costs were charged up in the accounting period during which the closing took place. So all the colliery companies have carried forward, from the date in which they closed either districts or scams, sufficient money to reopen whenever they so desired. In regard to the hard headings and repairs which the colliery companies were unable to carry out during the War, this was the arrangement come to—that the pre-war average of profits should be taken with the increased cost of doing the repairs, or of cutting through the hard headings, and that in such accounting periods—1914 –15 –16 –17—both for the Excess Profits Duty and the coal mines excess payments, the difference between the amount actually spent and the pre-war average, plus the increased cost at the present time, should be allowed. So that in regard to this every colliery company is carrying forward considerable sums—thousands of pounds in some cases—which they have in hand to do underground repairs and drive through hard headings at the end of the War.
    The reason why they were unable to do these things was because so many men enlisted. This loft the companies with their men devoted to the actual coal getting. The companies took the men off repairs and hard headings as far as possible. They have now the men back. The number now amount?, approximately, to as many as when the War started. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that a large number of men who have gone back since the Armistice are engaged on this work of reopening districts, of making underground repairs, or on the work of driving through hard headings; the money which is being paid to them, which is hero debited on the White Paper, should not be charged against profits for the next twelve months, but taken from the reserve which has been made during the five years of war. Not only that, but it must, I think, be assumed, so far as I can see, that at least 60,000 men out of the 163,000 are engaged cither on new work which will be charged to capital, or the reopening of districts, the driving through hard headings, or in doing underground repairs. Therefore, at least l0d. per ton will come off that 2s. 3d. because the wages of these men will be paid out of these reserves which the collieries have, and, besides, in the

    135
    £30,000,000 is included the extra amount paid to these 60,000 men. Therefore, that proportion is about 5 per cent., or 2d. in the £, as given by the Sankey Report in its calculation. I trust the President of the Board of Trade follows my argument.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes.
    Mr. HOLMES: The right hon. Gentleman shook his head over the last point. I say that for the next twelve months, if I may sum it up, you will have at least 60,000 of these men doing work for which the colliery companies have reserves. Their wages in advance have been allowed— were charged with Excess Profits Duty and coal mines excess payments for 1914, or subsequently. It is not right to charge these particular amounts up against profits for the next twelve months; therefore, the President can immediately reduce his increased cost of 6s. per ton to 5s. for this item alone. To continue, in the White Paper 5d. per ton increase is for the extra cost of overhead charges due to a decreased output of 11,000,000 tons. Up above, on the White Paper, we are told that, on the basis of the Sankey Interim Report, if the output increased from 228,000,000 tons to 264,000,000 tons—that is an increase of 36,000,000 tons—6d. per ton would be saved on the overhead charges. If on a reduction of 11,000,000 tons we actually lose 5d. per ton for overhead charges, one of these figures must be wrong, for you cannot increase by 36,000,000 and gain 6d. and decrease by 11,000,000 and leave 5d.
    Sir E. JONES: The 6d. allowed and referred to in the first case was after allowing for the payment of the wages of the additional men; the 5d. under the second head is independent of that.
    Mr. HOLMES: One is given duplicates of these statements from the Coal Controller's Department. I will go straight on to the next point with regard to last profit on the export trade. Here we are told that, as a result of the reduction in the export of 34,000,000 tons to 23,000,000, we shall lose £l per ton profit. This is taken off the ascertained profit for the quarter ending 30th September, 1918. But the profit then on the export trade was not £l per ton, but 10s. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted it himself this afternoon, and it was given in evidence before the Coal Commission at 3s. 7d. per ton—made up of 1s. 6d. per ton on the inland
    136
    coal and 10s. 0.38d. on the export coal. If you are going to compare these, you should surely only take 10s. per ton profit and not £l! You are probably making £1 per ton profit at the present price. The Coal Controller shakes his head. I must press this; it is frightfully important to the public. We are going to make the consumers pay this 6s., and I am submitting, in the first place, that, so far as Is. is concerned, it is not necessary. In regard to these 160,000 odd people now, I suggest, with regard to the 5,500,000 it is unnecessary in regard to the profits of the export trade.
    Sir E. JONES: The £l per ton profit is the actual figure adopted in the Sankey Report, which makes an allowance of 9,000,000 for the reduction of profits from the export trade. The whole of the estimates are based upon the Sankey Report.
    Mr. HOLMES: I really cannot see that at all.
    Sir E. JONES: If my hon. Friend will refer to the Sankey Report, he will find the figures given there.
    Mr. HOLMES: We are acting on the basis here, in this White Paper, of 3s. 7d. per ton, and that 3s. 7d. per ton represents 1s. 6d. per ton on inland coal and 10s. per ton on export coal; therefore, if you are trying to cut down all your loss on a reduction of exports, you must take off, with that 3s. 7d., 10s. per ton and not £l per ton. I cannot see that the explanation is in any way relevant.
    Sir E. JONES: If I may interrupt again, I would say that the whole of these estimates are based on the actual basis and calculation adopted by the Sankey Report itself. The £l per ton was arrived at on the supposition—which was correct—that the reduction in exports estimated by the Sankey Report referred to the reduction of profits on exports to neutrals, upon which the profit at that time was nearer £3 per ton than £1.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOLMES: This 3s. 7d. is not based on any estimate, but it is an ascertained profit, and from that you have to take off to make it fair the 10s. per ton which was included as the profit. I do not agree with the Coal Controller's explanation at all. The estimates of the Coal Commission have nothing to do with it, and I submit that at least £5,500,000 should be taken off the 3s. 7d. per ton ascertained profit. The President is estimating that on the

    137
    23,000,000 tons to be exported he is going to get 10s. profit per ton. I suggest that on the average he will obtain far more than that. He is exporting coal now up to 9s. a ton. He has a minimum rate to Greece and Norway of 75s. for the best coal, but bunker coal which was 55s. at the beginning of last week is now 62s. 6d. The more you reduce the amount you have to export the higher the price you will get for it. If we have only 23,000,000 tons instead of 34,000,000 tons to send abroad we shall get a higher price, because some people will have British coal, and as the supply will be less the demand will be more, and the price will be greater accordingly. Under these circumstances to put 10s. per ton down as the profit on the 23,000,000 tons exported is perfectly ridiculous, because this coal has gone up 7s. 6d. per ton in the past week simply as the result of all this talk. The demand is very great, and will be greater as the supply is reduced, and I believe that we shall find instead of 10s. profit on export coal we shall find in the ensuing twelve months, if you only export 23,000,000 tons, that the profit will be nearer 30s. per ton.
    Then there is the £3,000,000 added as compensation to owners. I hope the President will let us know the real state of the finances of the Coal Mines Department. Tile Coal Controller said it was intended to be a financially sound concern, and they have, therefore, to add that 2s. 6d. per ton last year in order to try and meet the expenses of their own Department. I want the Coal Controller to tell us what the amount of the coal mines excess profits outstanding comes to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget Debate said that £350,000,000 excess profits were due to the Government and had not been collected. Similarly there may be millions of coal mines excess profits. One of our biggest colliery companies owes thousands of pounds, and probably the best part £500,000, for coal mines excess profit. Their assessment has not been settled, and they have paid nothing. I know another which also owes well into six figures who has only paid a few thousand pounds, and there must be others, and all this surely is coming in during the present year. Will it not be possible out of this £3,000,000 set aside as compensation to owners working under the instructions of the coal controlled mines to meet that out of the coal mines excess profits It was intended that this com-
    138
    pensation should come out of such a fund. If we can have a proper estimate of the coal mines excess profits, I think we ought to meet that £3,000,000 compensation out of that fund.
    I will now turn back again to the first page, and there we find that the coal for exports and bunkers comes to 32,000,000 tons, instead of the 23,000,000 tons put down as coal for export. That means, I suppose, that 23,000,000 tons are going to be exported and 9,000,000 tons sold for bunker coal. If that is so, you have underestimated in the White Paper the profit which is going to be earned on bunker coal. The Controller has taken that amount in at 10s. a ton profit, and ho will certainly get £l profit on the bunker coal during the corning year. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] May I remind the hon. Member that bunker coal has gone up in Cardiff 7s. 6d. per ton this week, and I found this out by telephone this morning
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: For bunker coal a far more inferior quality is sold.
    Mr. HOLMES: I am aware that the prices vary and they are all sorts of prices. I do not suggest that you can get £l per ton profit on bunker coal, but I believe the average will be nearer £l than 10s. I will now summarise what I have attempted to put before the House. My first point is that the 60,000 additional workers in the mines should have their wages for the next twelve months paid out of the funds which the collieries have accumulated under the scheme agreed between, the Inland Revenue and the Coal Controller's Department and the collieries, and this should not be charged against the profits of the year. That will effect a reduction of Is. per ton, so that instead of being Is. 10d. it will be l0d. per ton. There is one other very important point that I have not mentioned. We have put down here £12,600,000, representing 1s. 2d. per ton on the output, which is going to the colliery owners. I think the President of the Board of Trade has expressed the opinion that the Sankey award means that the 1s. 2d. per ton is to include not only the profits on coal, but the profits also on coke and by-products. I know the matter was referred to the Cabinet, but I do not know whether they have come to a decision. I also know that the draft Bill which the President of the Board of trade prepared to ratify the 1s. 2d. does include the coke and the by-products profits, and

    139
    I want to know, Are they included here? Therefore you must deduct from the £12,600,000 the profits on the coke and the by-products, because in the 3s. 7d. per ton you have no profit on the coke or the by-products.
    Nobody but the Coal Controller can tell us what those are. I put them at £7,000,000, taking coke at l0d. and the by-products at 4d. If you deduct £3,600,000 profit on coke and by-products, this makes the figures of the White Paper different all round. We substitute the loss of is. for the loss of 1s. l0d. and, let us say, £9,000,000. I should knock out altogether the loss on exports, but, instead of being £11,000,000, I will put it at £5,500,000, and that will be more than made up out of the increased profits you will make in the coining year on export coal. The guaranteed profits to owners should be reduced to £9,000,000, and that will leave the compensation of £3,000,000 as it is. That reduces the total the Coal Controller has got to raise to £21,000,000, instead of £46,600,000. That is not taking into account the increased profit which I suggest will be made on bunker coal and exports beyond 10s. per ton if my figures are right. This is without taking into account many other factors which might very well be taken which would tend- to reduce the proposed increase from 6s. to 2s. 6d. As I have said, every estimate here shows the case at its worst, and no attempt has been made to look into the various small points which one might raise, but even on these broad lines I say there is no necessity to raise the price of coal by more than 2s. 6d., and I shall be interested to hear what reply the Coal Controller has to make.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: No one will deny that the prosperity of this country absolutely depends upon having a cheap and abundant supply of coal both for home use, shipping, and for export. The history of the coal trade under private enterprise is an astounding one. In 1855 the output was 64,000,000 tons, and by 1913 that output had been increased to 287,000,000 tons by private enterprise. We hear people stating that the system of individual ownership stands condemned, but, as a mater of fact, the present serious position in which we stand in regard to the coal output has largely arisen through the substitution of Government control in place of the control and management of
    140
    the coal-owners, who understood the business. It is estimated that the output for the twelve months commencing 16th July will be down 70,000,000 tons. The diminution in the output of coal during the War, we know, was largely—in fact, almost entirely—due to the fact that no less than 250,000 coal miners patriotically volunteered to serve their country. Today the greater part of those men are back in their employment in the mines. The number of men employed in the mines today is practically the same as in 1913, and I submit, with some knowledge of the coal trade, that, given proper management and proper arrangements and understanding with the men, there ought to be no difficulty in the men getting back to the 1913 output, namely, 19.8 tons per month, as against the last return of 16.7 tons per month. I am quite aware that we have to take into consideration the diminution in hours of working from eight to seven. I suppose in that case that 10 per cent, would have to come off, but that would still leave the output enormously higher than the estimate made for the next year of 217,000,000 tons.
    To-day we have had from representatives of the miners most able and fair speeches, in which they have announced their intention and determination to cooperate with the Government in every possible way to increase the output of coal, which is absolutely essential for the prosperity of this country. They have not only offered to do that, but they have admitted that in the absence of coal for export and in the absence of sufficient coal for our manufactures, our own home needs and shipping, there would be practically ruin facing this country. Talking of coal output, we have to remember that in the United States of America they have steadily increased the output during the War, until they have reached the enormous output of 770 tons per man, as against 240 tons per man in this country. I know that there are differences in the character of the seams and the conditions under which they work, but there is no difference to account for that enormous disparity between 240 tons and 770 tons. I am not throwing stones at the miners; I have had the honour of representing over 20,000 of them in this House for years, and I should be the last to do that, but I do say that there is great room for inquiry as to how this enormous difference arises, and what can be done in any way, either by improved methods of working or

    141
    organisation, to bring our output per man beyond 240 tons per year. Personally, I believe it can be done with goodwill and by working together on both sides, masters and men.
    I believe that Governmental control is partly responsible for the fact that so little repair work, so little replacement, and so little development have taken place during the War. Fresh capital is required for improved equipment in many cases, but the enterprise of owners has been absolutely paralysed by the management of the collieries being taken out of their hands, by the uncertainty prevailing, and by the absence of any proper incentive to stimulate individual effort. We have reason to be proud of what British enterprise and individual effort have done in the coal trade, both on the part of the owners and workmen. We have had evidence, shall I say of incompetency, on the part of the Coal Control Department, which does not give us much encouragement for entertaining the idea of nationalising our coal mines and putting them under Government control. On 4th June the -Coal Controller intimated to the Coal Commission that it was estimated that the deficiency on the working of the industry, on the basis of the estimated output given for the twelve months from July next, after providing for the guaranteed profit to the owners at the rate of 1s. 2d. per ton, would be about £46,600,000, or 4s. 3d. per ton. We are now told that they omitted in the Coal Controller's Department—someone made a terrible blunder—to take into consideration 18,000,000 ton3 coal consumed at the collieries, 6,000,000 tons coal supplied for the miners' use, and 32,000,000 tons coal for export and bunkers, and that the deficiency of 46,600,000 tons would therefore have to be averaged over 161,000,000 tons and not over 217,000,000 tons. The deficiency therefore would be 5s. 9 ½d. instead of 4s. 3d. Such a blow to the future public administration, will cause a revulsion of feeling in the country against any idea of Government control of the mines by nationalisation. Such a great mistake certainly would never have occurred if the collieries had been left under the management of experienced colliery men.
    Mr. BARNES(Member of the Cabinet): There was no inconsistency. The 4s. 3d. estimate was based upon total output; the 6s. is on a good deal less.
    Sir J. WALTON: They ought to have known that 18,000,000 tons were required for colliery consumption, that 16,000,000 tons were required by the workmen for keeping their fires burning, and that they could not apply the 6s. to the 32,000,000 tons for export and bunkers, because they were sold beyond the minimum prices and the profits brought into the account on the credit side. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back and I congratulate him on the excellent service that he did for his country while he was in Paris. In the absence of largely-increased coal exports, how are we to pay for our food imports and prevent further rises in prices? We know perfectly well that the 77,000,000 tons that were exported in 1913 constituted the main factor in enabling us to get cheap food supplies in this country. We sent our ships to South America, Argentine, Russia, and elsewhere, laden with coal, and they brought back wheat. It stands to reason that if the ships go out light and have to charge a double freight on the return journey it means increased food prices. We must not forget that we cannot any longer pay for our imports with the interest on foreign investments which we have already parted with during the War. We cannot pay to the same extent by shipping freights that would be owing to us from all over the world on our huge carrying trade before the War, because of our depleted Mercantile Marine, thanks to the barbarous and savage methods of Gorman submarine warfare. We are likely to have a reduction in general exports from this country owing to the increased cost if coal prices are to be raised by 6s. a ton. In competition with the United States of America, Japan, and Germany, with their cheaper coal supplies, we are certain, to some extent, to lose trade that we used to have before the War. We already have Australia buying iron and steel from the United States. Even Glasgow has sent an order very recently for 5,000 tons to America. And do not let us overlook the fact that our manufacturers and colliery owners, and indeed everybody in this country, with big incomes, and big interests, are handicapped to the tune of 10s. in the £ war taxation. All this has to be borne and paid and it accordingly reduces our ability to compete with nations like America, where taxation is practically nil, and Japan, who has enriched herself during the War, and is paying practically no taxation at all.

    143
    I believe the War has left us facing a new world, and we ought, therefore, to approach all these questions of trade, wages, and employment on entirely new lines. It is generally admitted that the increase in the price of coal will really increase the price of everything we have to buy, whether home- produced or imported. My judgment is that the Sankey Coal Commission's terms of reference ought to have included some instruction to inquire as to whether the high prices of coal would allow rapid economic development and the restoration of prosperity to this country. The Committee should have been instructed also to consider how the excessive prices of coal could be reduced to the consumer—manufacturer, ship-owner, and householder alike. There is no doubt whatever that the coal-miner ought to be well paid. But while admitting that, I think everything should be done to reduce coal prices. A system of subsidies has sprung up, unfortunately, to a very large extent. In connection with the coal mines at the present moment there is a deficit of £46,600,000, which is to be raised by charging 6s. a ton extra for the coal, or else it has to be paid by the taxpayers of the country, and trade will be subsidised to that extent. I believe that is an unsound system. The railways are being worked at a loss of £60,000,000, bread is being subsidised at an expense of £50,000,000, workmen's labour is being paid for, and altogether something like £200,000,000 is being provided as subsidies—that is a larger sum than our total pre-war national expenditure—in different trades. All these subsidies must be abolished before we can reach a sound financial position. The price of coal must be such as will cover the cost of production, and the charges for rail transport must be sufficiently high to cover the cost of the services rendered.
    Naturally one has thought a good deal about the various suggestions which have been made to bring prosperity not only to the coal trade but to other trades. I have often wondered whether if we had the nationalisation of the coal mines it would mean industrial peace in the coal trade. Would it mean giving up the idea of direct action, which certain trade unions propose, and which, as far as I can see, would sweep away Parliamentary Government altogether, holding the nation up to ransom? I do not believe the majority of my working men friends hold with that view
    144
    at all. So far from State control introducing more economical management, better technical methods and greater efficiency on the part of the workmen securing the maximum output, I believe it will have the opposite effect. I honestly believe that. Our experience of Government control has not so far been encouraging. I do not notice that the Post Office and other State employés are a very contented lot of people. I do not find that they are as contented as those, who work for private employers, at any rate that is what I find in my constituency. The Government management of the telephones has been both inefficient and expensive. The Government control of the railways has landed us into a deficit of £60,000,000. The coal is going to cost another £46,600,000. State control by the Coal Controller has been a disastrous experiment. Advances to the extent of 16s. 6d. per ton in the price of coal to the consumer, including the 6s. now proposed, has been the result. I opposed the Coal Control Bill for all I was worth because I believed that all that was necessary was to leave the management and working of the coal trade in the hands of those who understood it, by mutual agreement between employers and employed, and having the Coal Prices Limitation Act to-prevent unduly high prices being charged. That was all that was necessary in the interests of the nation and of the consumer, and I believe if we had gone on working under those conditions we would not have been in the serious position in which we find ourselves to-day.
    While I doubt very gravely if there would be any advantage in the nationalisation of the coal-mines, I do believe in the nationalisation of coal royalties. I have always held that the State ought to own the minerals under the soil, and if it can be done now, with fair compensation to the royalty owners, I would have the State acquire these mineral rights. I hold that it ought to safeguard the nation and prevent any mineral royalties being paid in connection with petrol, which has now been discovered in this country. With regard to the nationalisation of coal royalties, I would advocate that because certain districts can be more cheaply and better un-watered by great central pumping stations than as at present by separate pumping-arrangements at each of the collieries. Cuttings to prevent the influx of water are more necessary in some areas than in others, and the working of that by the

    145
    State would make that more easy. I do not think that my miner friends object to the coal-owners receiving a margin of profit of 1s. 2d. per ton. Some collieries have been comparatively inexpensive to win. In some collieries the capital expenditure per ton raised is two and three times as much as it is in other collieries. To give 1s. 2d. all round is a very unequal distribution. A percentage on capital expenditure would be a fairer division. I do not believe that coal-owners and coal-miners are in any need of State interference. With good will, they can settle between themselves on fair and equitable lines both the conditions of work and the share of profits made by each side putting all their cards upon the table. That is my belief, not that, as one a little interested in coal, I want to have undue profits.
    A very large proportion of the miners would prefer not to be compelled to work under one employer only, namely, the State, but rather to have continued to them the choice of employers as they have now. I say unhesitatingly that many of those who have served their country in the Army have had such a dose of State or Government control that they will not want to have it perpetuated in their daily work for the rest of their natural lives by the nationalisation of the mines. Nobody knows better than I do the dangerous and arduous nature of the calling of the coal-miner. I have represented coal-miners for twenty-two years in this House, and I have always advocated improved conditions, good wages, and shorter hours, but I do say that care must be taken to modify the demands both of coal-miners and of colliery owners so that they shall not injure and hinder the prosperity of the other trades and industries of the country. That, in the long run, is in the best interests of the 20,000 miners I have so long had the honour to represent in this House. It is time this nation woke up to realities. The artificial prosperity or the last five years has been obtained only by spending one-half of the accumulated wealth of the country and by piling up a National Debt of £8,000,000,000. This living on capital cannot go on without bringing the country to absolute ruin. I hope that the present prices will be considered and settled on lines which will promote the general prosperity and well-being of the whole nation. This does not apply to coal-miners and coal-mining alone. It applies, as we were told to-
    146
    day by the President of the. Board of Trade, to many industries outside coalmining, but which affect coal-mining and react one upon the other. I hope that all electioneering considerations and Parliamentary tactics will be brushed on one side in the consideration and settlement of these most important problems. Coal is most emphatically the most important key industry in this country, vitally affecting as it does the well-being and prosperity of the whole nation. I say unhesitatingly that coal-miners and coal-owners alike must do what is their duty towards the nation as a whole, putting aside, to some extent at any rate, selfish personal considerations. One thing above another I declare, namely, that the largely increased production of coal and the sale of it at a reasonable price are essential to our national prosperity, and I welcome the assurances of the representatives of the miners in this House of their willingness to co-operate and assist in every possible way in bringing this about. Another point is economy in the use of fuel, which is now wasted to a criminal degree by crude and obsolete processes. Had the Government devoted themselves to enlightening the nation in a more economical use of fuel, they would have done much more good than by their ill-advised and disastrous interference with the working of the coal industry, in regard to which I am afraid they are open to the charge of having shown lamentable ignorance. Naturally so! What did they know about coal? I do not suppose that anyone in the Coal Controller's office has ever been down a pit in his life. There may have been two or three who had some knowledge of collieries. The less State interference and control, the better it will be for the trades and industries of this country, which have built up their prosperity in the generations gone by by personal initiative and enterprise. The sooner we clear our minds of depending upon State assistance and determine to help ourselves, so much the sooner shall we have brought back to this country that prosperity which we all so much desire.
    Lieut.-Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am sure the House will agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walton) when he said he hoped the question would not be approached from any electioneering point of view. It is much too serious a question for either the miners, the employers, or the Government

    147
    to spend their time in scoring points off one another and in manoeuvring for position in the battle for and against nationalisation. I hope the Government will continue to pursue this subject in the same reasonable and conciliatory spirit which has been displayed in this Debate. I hope, therefore, they will lose no time in accepting the invitation held out to them from the Labour Benches for a Conference on this subject. I feel certain that if the Prime Minister or his representative addresses the coal- owners and the men, and ask for increased production, it will not be in vain. I hope, too, most sincerely, that the suggestion of the Sankey Report will be followed that pit committees shall be set up. I believe pit committees were instituted during the War, notably in Lancashire and Cheshire, with the very happiest result I believe they led to increased production, and the power and the increased responsibility placed upon the men, not only for doing away with absenteeism but in making suggestions for the improved transmission of trucks down the roadways, was amply rewarded. I have in my Constituency a considerable number of miners, with whom I have the friendliest relations. Last week I had a conference with their leaders, at which a mine manager was present, so I had the benefit of hearing both sides of the question. What the men repudiated with great indignation, amply corroborated by the mine manager himself, was the suggestion that the decrease of output per miner was due to any slackness on the part of the miner. The falling off in the output of the individual miner is due to perfectly intelligible and understandable causes. It is one of the effects of the War. We called up during the War a vast number of miners. Ninety per cent. of them were young men of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty. In the ordinary course of events they would have been skilled hewers of coal. They lost the opportunity of learning to be skilled hewers, and now they have come back to the pits and are learners again. That is one of the causes of the falling off in output per man. There is also the fact that there are in the pits a great number of returned soldiers, many of whom are crippled or suffering from malaria or other diseases The miners' calling requires the utmost muscular efficiency, and here again we have a cause for the falling off in the output per miner for which the miner himself is in no way responsible.
    148
    I found, too, a, very strong feeling with regard to the shortage of tubs and the disrepair of the roadway, which is hampering the miner in his work, in addition to causing great hardship to the pit ponies. I found a very strong feeling also with regard to the shortage of trucks. As a miner said to me, "I have often lately walked very nearly two miles underground to the face of the coal, and then only been able to make half a day's work owing to the fact that there were not enough tubs or trucks to clear away the coal." The President of the Board of Trade spoke as though the shortage of trucks was to a very large extent the fault of the railway men. He said there was undoubtedly an unwillingness to do as much work as before, but I cannot help thinking he was somewhat unjust to the railway-men. I was informed last week in my Constituency that the directors of a certain railway have paid off the men who were working on the handling of night traffic, simply and solely because they were forced to pay them time and a quarter. It was more expensive to handle goods traffic by night than by day. It stands to reason that if that is done the cessation of handling traffic by night increases the congestion by day. For that, at all events, the railway men cannot be blamed. There were 30,000 trucks in France, of which only 3,000 have been brought home. The coastal traffic has almost entirely been destroyed by the subsidy given to the railways. Is that inevitable? Is it beyond the power of the Government to revive the coastal traffic, or must it inevitably die out so long as the subsidies are given to the railways? I really think we have a grievance against the Government, inasmuch as they have taken no very active step to provide an increased number of trucks on the railways. It is not the fault of the railwaymen, but of the actual shortage of trucks that there is congestion on the railways. I have in my Constituency what was a very large Government factory. A certain firm was anxious to take it over when the War ceased in order to make steel railway trucks, and they made an offer to the Government, but there was the usual official delay, and it is only comparatively lately that the firm has been able to take the place over and commence the manufacture of trucks. We seem to be suffering from the evils of control, and also from the evils of individuals. We are suffering from the fact that a body of men are controlling the railways and the mines

    149
    who offer no inducement to handle the traffic efficiently or to increase the output of coal at a cheaper price. I question whether it would not be a wise step on our part to cut the Gordian knot, and to nationalise both mines and railways. We should, at all events, get good will on the part of the men, and we could not have greater inefficiency than we are getting in the management both of mines and of railways. I, for one, shall look upon the nationalisation both of mines and of railways, when the question comes up to be seriously discussed, with a perfectly open mind.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I desire to associate myself, and I think other hon. Members of the Labour party also desire to associate themselves with the view which has been repeatedly expressed that we should try to deal with this problem broadly, without passion or prejudice, and certainly, as far as possible, with an absence of political bias. We are confronted this afternoon with a great economic issue which is not confined to the coal industry in this country, but which is in large measure the result of the legacy and the conditions brought upon as as a people through the War since 1914. Repeatedly during the War men connected with all points of view in politics and in public affairs have advanced the opinion that the Government was following a very dangerous course, that they were borrowing money right and left instead of taxing, so far as they might tax, to meet acute war needs. They were diluting labour in a large number of industries, they were diluting the currency of this country, as has been strongly emphasised by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) this afternoon, and they were introducing into wages over a very large part of the industrial field an artificial condition of things which was bound to re-act in the most violent manner after the War had concluded. It is one of the results of the legacy which we have before us to-night. There can be no difference of opinion on these benches or in any part of the House on the question of production. I am glad that in many ways hon. Members opposite who differ very strongly from us not only in economic views but also in political colour have not seriously advanced the argument to-day that any considerable section of the Labour movement is committed to the policy of underproduction, or failing to turn out as much as we can in any indus-
    150
    try in which we are engaged. I realise, and I admit that outside, in certain sections of the movement, there are one or two people who have urged in the past that under production, or a form of sabotage of that kind, as I regard it, is one method by which they might accomplish in the industrial field what they were failing to achieve elsewhere. That, however, is only a small section of the movement, and even that section is now realising that the policy which advocates under production is one that must react most violently in the last resort on the workers themselves, must tend to keep up prices by the shortage which it incurs or involves, and must tend to make the solution of our economic difficulties harder than they would have been.
    9.0 P.M.
    What is, broadly, the difficulty confronting us? We on these benches who believe with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin that Labour must be statesmanlike in all its proposals before it has a right to look for power or government in this country, have been advocating very strongly that production must be maintained. Up to the point so far as output is concerned there has been no difference between us, and, if I may use the term, the most abandoned proprietor of capital on the benches opposite; but where we part company from them is that while we jointly and commonly advocate maximum production in this country as vitally necessary for a proper reconstruction we devote at least equal attention to the problem of distribution. We believe that these two finings are inseparably connected, and so bound up together that one, more particularly the second, reacts very strongly upon the other. We differ from the argument which is commonly advanced by many men that production of output is everything. We push it beyond that, and we ask the people of this country and the House of Commons to have due regard to distribution. What does that mean in the crisis which confronts us now? Coal is bounding up in price. Very largely by reason of the financial and economic policy followed by the Government during the War, we have succeeded in this country to very high prices. I am not complaining. We have fully recognised that this inflation of prices is not confined to our own country; it is a world movement. But I submit very strongly that we must make allowance for the discontent and the unrest which exists in the industrial community

    151
    to-day, and we must take into account that the tremendous pressure of these inflated prices, and the effect they are exerting upon the great body of people. Coal, iron, any industry you like to name is affected in precisely the same way, and the workers have tried to bring up their remuneration to meet the increased cost of living, which may be anything between 100 and 125 per cent. I do not think any hon. Member, however prejudiced he may be against the point of view expressed on these benches, will say that over the whole range of wages of industry in this country there has been an increase to a corresponding extent. It is true that in certain highly-paid industries wages have doubled and perhaps more than doubled during the War, or at all events the household income has shown that increase, but for the most part, while there has been advance it has not been up to the point of the increase in the cost of living, and to that extent the real position of the people is worse and not better to-day. These are fundamental facts which account for a great deal of the difficulty that confronts us in this problem.
    I want to see the output in the coal industry and in any other industry resolutely maintained and increased, but there are one or two things which the Government must do, and do very quickly, before they can expect an all-round improvement in production. First of all, it is urgently necessary that the Government should declare its attitude as regards our future trade policy. What is to be the policy outside this country in future trade relations? Are we to embark definitely upon a system of Protection or Preference, or is there to be a sound economic policy or, if I may use the term, an economic side to the League of Nations? That is the first call which we make upon the Government's attention. We believe that not only has that a profound influence in the case of coal but it is of very great importance to the whole range of British industry which is in a state of uncertainty and insecurity regarding the future, not knowing where to turn because of the absence of any declared and definite world commercial or trade policy. In the second place—the issue of nationalisation has been permitted to some extent in this Debate—the Government will require to make up its mind very early whether it is going to consent to fullblown public ownership, with all that that involves, in the staple industries of this country—;coal, railways, and so on, or
    152
    whether it is going to embark upon a modified policy of public ownership or whether, on the other hand, it is going to abide by some modified qualification of the existing system. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin indicated in a speech which commended itself to every Member on the Labour Benches, his great fear that nationalisation involves in effect the serfdom or slavery of masses of the workers. He said even if you got efficiency as the result of national ownership there would remain the great danger of a bureaucracy operating on the people. But I do think that he fell short in his argument in not pushing it a little further. Very few members of the Labour movement who know their business al the present hour are content with the old ideals of State ownership and control. There was a time when State socialism was very powerful in certain sections of our movement, but there has been a tendency in recent days away from State Socialism, on the lines which were obviously in the mind of the Noble Lord, to what I may describe as the guild ideal, which combines the benefits of public ownership with local or democratic control. That argument has not cropped up before in the course of this discussion, but there can be no question at all that if the minds of the miners, for example—it is their case which is under discussion—were examined under that head you would find among the best educated of the miners to-day a very strong belief in the guild ideal as regards the future of their industry compared with State ownership or the application of State socialism.
    No doubt these are very large and perhaps academic considerations, but I make no apology for mentioning them in this Debate, because perhaps to a larger extent than we realise in the House of Commons they arc governing the point of view, the disposition and the whole temperament of great numbers of people in the industrial world to-day. I urge strongly in the second place that the Government should define its attitude towards nationalisation, especially of staple industries, at the very earliest moment for another reason. Most of the hon. Members opposite, while they differ most strongly from our faith, will at least do us the service of making a plain and thorough examination of our arguments. The choice which is going to face them is not a question between them and the

    153
    Board of Trade or any other public Department. It is a choice between some form of public ownership and control of domination by the trust or the combine in our business, industry and commerce. It would be unfair to the House to multiply the illustrations which might be multiplied from that point of view. Not only the evidence written up with great care and accuracy by Mr. Macrosty, in recent years, but in the past month or two you have the report of the Reconstruction Committee on Trusts, showing the enormous extent to which these trusts or combines or associations, etc., have made progress during the War period, encouraged in many cases by public Departments themselves, who, to do them all justice and fair-play found no other course open to them in the circumstances, and this has a close bearing on the question which is now being discussed and on all these industries. The President of the Board of Trade and the Government may have this or that view about nationalisation, but they cannot reverse the strong economic tendency in this country towards the trust or combination! This factor has entered very largely into the views of great numbers of workers outside, who see the evidences that these trusts are controlling a large part of even the finance of this country and are responsible, directly or indirectly, for a great deal of its trade and commerce. All these things have impressed the workers and have strengthened the claim for nationalisation, and it so happens that it is proposed in the case of the coal industry at an earlier hour than in others, and by those who are the most resolute advocates of that great policy in our national affairs.
    There is a third point. If the Government are going to take any real steps to increase production, they will require to examine very closely the whole question of methods of remuneration in industry and commerce. While the War was proceeding wages were artificially dosed. In some cases very large sums of public money were set aside for the provision of remuneration which had not any strict relation to the needs or the means of the industry to which they were applied. Money was paid out because of the acute national need. But we have succeeded just in that sphere, as in other spheres outside this, to artificial consequences which it is the plain duty of the Government to examine and to analyse and, if possible,
    154
    to get rid of at the earliest possible moment. Let it be admitted that in the trade union world, in the coal industry itself, or in any other industry we like to discuss, there is a widespread diversity of opinion on this point. Many of the unions are strongly committed to a policy of opposition to any system of payment by results. Other unions are prepared to admit it. But with this rivalry of schools it is the duty of the Government to examine the matter and lay down something which might be adopted. It would have a great bearing on production if we could get rid of these questions in connection with remuneration, and would contribute to a very great extent to a solution of the problem which confronts us. The experience of any change in the methods of remuneration, particularly from the point of view of introducing a system of payment by results, has been singularly unfortunate so far as the workers were concerned.
    The principle which was laid down by employers and owners was simply this, that they must have maximum production, and, so far as the workers are prepared to accomplish this, which is a public duty, they said, "We are prepared to pay you higher rates in the light of the extra services which you render." That was followed up, and was responsible in many industries for the part they played during the War. But what was the policy immediately introduced by a considerable number of employers where statutory regulations did not prevent their doing so? Immediately the remuneration went beyond a certain amount, perhaps owing to the men taking the extra work "out of their physical strength, rates were cut, and the history of payment by results is, perhaps, the most tragic of all on the question of the manner in which rates were cut when the workers responded to the call for increased production. How far these considerations are going to operate in the near future it is difficult to say, but I would urge the Government to consider them for this reason, that not all of us in the Labour movement on these benches are directly and intimately connected with trade. A very few of us, if I may say so, belong to the despised academic element in the movement. I trust that we are not without our contributions at this hour. I want hon. Members opposite and the Government to believe that Labour has a real statesmanship, that it is not bound up with the policy of under-production to achieve some temporary aim. If hon.

    155
    Members, particularly right hon. Members opposite, will embark upon a fearless policy outside this country and in its domestic industry inside, I have no fear whatever that the great body of people we have the honour to represent will respond in the days to come.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think there is a single Member of this Committee who does not feel the momentousness of the situation which is being discussed. We are all agreed on the one hand as to the disastrous effects that the increase of 6s. per ton on coal will cause throughout the country. I do not wish to labour the point; it has already been made amply clear. It means an increase in the cost of living, an increase in the cost of production, and, with the increase in the cost of production, comes again a further increase in the cost of living, apart from the effect on our export trade to which the President of the Board of Trade has alluded. We are all agreed, again, as to the other side of the dilemma, which is that the country cannot go on indefinitely subsidising one of the richest trades. I think, perhaps, we are all agreed on the third point—and that is, that all Members of this House are only too anxious to do their best to face the problem in order that the whole industrial situation of the country shall not be prejudiced. That has been made abundantly clear both from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who answered the President of the Board of Trade and by the miners' representatives.
    What action ought to be taken if the situation is to be met, and met effectively? Very shortly the Government have to take a decision, with a full sense of the seriousness of the consequences, and what the Committee has to do is to bring home to them what is really the best step that can betaken. There is one factor to which, I think, not quite sufficient importance has been attached. We all now recognise the difficulty of the problem. But it was not until the announcement of the increase came—in fact, not until the speech of the President of the Board of Trade was made— that the country, as a whole, realised the seriousness of the outlook. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the benches opposite stated that a great deal, if not all, of the falling off in production was due to the fact that the mines had not been properly supplied with all the appliances they need—with wagons, trams, steel rails, timber, and all the rest of it. It will be
    156
    agreed that the absence of such appliances would account for a great deal of the reduced production. I do not profess to be an expert on figures, but I do not think that it can account for all. I think there is a natural falling off in work as well. What is more, I do not think that hon. Members on this side are really in a position to cast the blame for this falling off, if there has been any. After the period of war there is the war weariness to which the Noble Lord has alluded. There is also the inflation of prices, to which reference has been made. Very often the economic fact that if you want to consume you have to produce is wrapped up and hidden in the question of money, the inflation of prices, and the apparent extravagance that is going on. Take it all in all, it seems to mo that, even if there has not been the production that there might have been, it is not the miners who are to blame. At any rate, they have great excuses. We recognise it here, but it has never been brought home.
    I venture, therefore, to make this suggestion to the Government, and not in any spirit of criticism. What will happen if the 6s. per ton is put on now? It means that we start again on the vicious circle of raising the cost of living, of raising the cost of production, and that the whole process will continue. If it is true that the evil might be cured by greater productivity, by getting better appliances for the mines, would it not be worth our while to cut our losses for a definite period, say a period of three months, and to recognise that it will cost the Stale a sum of £12,000,000, but making it absolutely clear at the same time that if at the end of that period the situation is not better from the point of view of production, then without question an amount that is justified shall be put on the price of coal without any hesitation at all. As a corollary to that, if I might make another suggestion, it is this: The miners' leaders, by their speeches this afternoon, have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to help the Government and to do their best so far as in them lies in order to remedy the situation, but at the same time I am sure that they will say—indeed, I have heard it from one or two of them perfectly frankly—that while they have expressed their own belief in the necessity for greater production, at the same time the necessity has never really been brought home to the bulk of the workers. It is not only the miners' leaders who are in

    157
    question. If better appliances or a better supply of appliances, is needed, a remedy must be found there, too. In the provision of steel rails or timber, and in the repairing of the railway wagons required— in these industries and their ramifications increased productivity is required. So I would suggest to the Government that what is really required is not only a meeting with the miners' leaders.
    We have had propaganda during the War in order to get recruits at a time when recruits were vitally needed. We have had propaganda throughout the country since the War, just lately, in order to secure, the Loan. To put this matter of increased production on a proper basis is more important to the country even than consolidating floating debt. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House that the Government might consider whether we should not endeavour throughout the country to bring home to the people what is a vital question, and to do it with the same care and the same thoroughness as were shown in the case of recruiting and the raising of the War Loan. If that is to be done, may I venture upon one other remark. This is likely to be a most difficult matter. Anyone who can claim any cognisance of labour questions even from the outside, realises the suspicion and in some ways the justifiable suspicion with which a mere request for Increased production is received. Consequently, if we are really to go to the country with any effect, we have got to go with clean hands just as we went during the War. We have got to go to them in such a spirit that the workmen themselves may be free from the suspicion, which as I say, has not been unjustified, that when they are asked to put forward all their efforts to remedy the situation it is not going to be for the exploitation of their work and simply to make greater profits for individuals. We must employ men for the purpose whose knowledge can easily grasp the economics of the question like the great body of school teachers, and in whose impartiality there is not a shadow of doubt. The one great object of the Whitley Committees has been, if I may say so, the humanising of industry throughout the country, and the recognition of the fact that the workers in an industry have a right not merely to the ordinary daily or weekly wage, but that they really have the right to take an interest in the industry, to understand
    158
    what the industry is, and to have a share-in the management and a knowledge of and a share in the policy and control. If that is part of the new development, at any rate an appeal can be made on these grounds too, that there is a social obligation towards the commonwealth on their part as well as an economic reason for greater production.
    There is one more point to which I would like to refer. A background to the whole of this Debate has been the question of nationalisation. I will not venture to discuss it in detail or to take up the time of the Committee about it, but I may say frankly at once, I am not nearly so severe in my opposition in principle as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). If anyone were to come to me and say, Are you in favour of nationalisation?" 1 should be inclined to reply, "Nationalisation of what, and by what method."] do not myself believe for a moment that the experience which we have had during the War is either a justification or condemnation of nationalisation on its merits; but would it not be a mistake to import the question of nationalisation into this problem. When all is said and done, nationalisation is not really an end but only a means. It is intended as a means to prevent the exploitation of wealth. It is intended as a means to the end of giving, as I say, to the workers a human interest and share in the work in which they are engaged. Is ft not worth while to try and prevent the question of nationalisation being imported into this question to prejudice the result or to prevent the question of nationalisation bring made the battle ground of politics in the immediate future. Sometimes I think we are inclined to believe that there are only two alternatives, complete capitalist industry of the old kind on the one hand, and unadulterated "hotel" management on the other. There is every sort of different kind of management in industry which is possible, and kinds of management by which the ends about which we all agree can be obtained without, perhaps, some of the drawbacks which are involved in the nationalisation of some of the industries. One instance is the London Port Authority, another instance, though I am not a universal believer in profit sharing, is that of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Thirdly, and even more interesting, are the proposals which are made at present in

    159
    the Whitley Council as to the pottery trade, for something like the old guild system worked by masters and men.
    I venture to say, as modifying what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said, that we would ask for a policy from the Government on the subject; but we would ask also that instead of that policy being -brought out ready made, finished, and to be taken or left, that information should be gathered about the different kinds of control and management of industry which are possible, as alternatives to either the old state of affairs on the one hand, or complete "hotel" management on the other. I do not believe at this time of day it is really possible for the Government to produce a new policy, home-made, to be taken or left in a matter of this kind. I venture to say the nation has got to be carried along with it, and the sooner information of this kind can be really collected by investigation and placed before the country, the better for all concerned. It may prevent, as I say, this problem being complicated by questions of nationalisation, and on the whole question of nationalisation we may get wiser results than we would do otherwise. If 1 may venture to do so, I would urge this upon the Government, because I believe if we can take these steps we really may avoid some of the evils which seem so heavy and lowering over us how. Let us, if possible, put off for a definite period the absolute levy of 6s. per ton, but let it be clear that at the end of that period it must go on the industry, which can no longer be subsidised, if the efforts made in the meantime are not sufficient and do not come up to prophecy. In the interval, let us have the case amply placed before the people of the country, and. as I say, let us also dissociate if possible the question of nationalisation, not that it should not be discussed, but that we hope it may not prejudice the question under discussion,
    Mr. ADAMSON: The subject which we are discussing to-night is of supreme importance to the continued prosperity of this country. If the speech to which we listened from the President of the Board of Trade reflected the exact position, then I do not think there is any doubt existing in any of our minds, but that we are in a parlous position, indeed. Fortunately, however. I think, both for the peace of mind of the House and of the country, my hon. Friend one of the Members for South
    160
    Wales (Mr. Hartshorn) was able to deal very effectively, I think, with that speech. For some time past we have had the question of key industries very frequently discussed both in this House and in the country. The question we are discussing tonight is one that affects the key industry, the industry on which all sections of our industrial system rest. In view of the importance of that, I think it is incumbent upon each of us to give the question under consideration our serious and earnest consideration in the course of this Debate. This is not a question on which we can afford to gamble, either with a view to securing a political advantage or to giving gifts either to royalty-owners, mine-owners, middlemen, or any other class. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or miners!"] As far as I know, and 1 have forty-five years' connection with the trade, the miners have their first gift yet to get, and anything that they have got up till now they have had to work very hard for. So far as I am personally concerned, I want to examine the question from that point of view. I favour thorough examination of all the essential factors, before this increase of 6s. a ton is made, or, as a matter of fact, any increase is made in the selling price of coal. I believe I am also speaking the mind of the mining community when I say that they are strongly in favour of the most minute inquiry being made into this matter before such action is taken as the Government propose. This is too serious a decision to be taken in the haphazard fashion in which decisions of this kind relative to the coal trade have already been taken I am strongly of the opinion that the decision to increase the selling price by 6s. a ton has too much of the gambling element in it, and whether it be for the purpose of gaining political advantage or defeating the probability of nationalisation, this great industry is too vital to our continued commercial prosperity for us allowing either the one element or the other to influence us unduly.
    I want to confess quite frankly that up till the time that I heard the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon emphatically denying that tills action had been taken for political purposes. I, in common with many of my fellow countrymen, was of the opinion that there was a political motive behind it, but whether the motive be of a political character or not, or if on the other hand it is for the purpose of defeating the nationalisation of the

    161
    industry, then all I want to say to the Government is this, and I think it will at the same time answer some of the remarks that have fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and the hon. Member who. spoke last. It is not nationalisation that is on its trial in this House to-night. It is private ownership of mines plus Government control that is on its trial here now—private ownership of mines plus the kind of control that neither I nor the mining community like, because if you are going to have control either of mining or of any other industry that leaves out a section of your people who, because of their experience and their knowledge gained in that particular industry, are qualified to give the most valuable assistance, then you are not having the proper kind of control. The Committee may remember that Mr. Justice Sankey, in his Interim Report, says among other things:
    "We are prepared, however, to report now that it is in the interests of the country that the colliery worker shall in the future have an effective voice in the direction of the mine. For a generation the colliery worker has been educated socially and technically. The result is a great national asset. Why not use it?"
    You cannot successfully control an industry of this kind without bringing into your service the vast experience and knowledge of the men engaged in the trade. Unless the control has a character of that kind I say that you are not having the greatest advantage that it is possible to secure from a system of control. The proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to increase the price of coal by 6s. a ton completely reverses every estimate that has hitherto been made—made by the Government's own witnesses on oath before the Commission and supplemented by the document handed in by the Controller. Both Mr. Justice Sankey's Reports are based upon an output of 250,000,000 tons per annum. When this output is reached we are informed that there need be no deficit and consequently no necessity either for 6s. or any other amount being put upon the selling price of coal. That figure cannot be reached until the Government and those responsible for controlling the mining industry of the country have carried out the findings of the Commission in so far as they affect an improvement in mining with a view to increasing output. I am not referring to the question of nationalisation at the moment. Are we, therefore, to assume that the Government have no intention of carrying out these
    162
    vital recommendations, but are going to depend on trying to put the blame for a falling off in the output upon the shoulders of the miners? I quite recognise the fact that the President of the Board of Trade, in the former part of his speech, told us there were a number of elements that entered into the reduction in output, but the closing sentences of his speech, I think, clearly demonstrated the fact that a considerable amount of the blame for the falling away of output rested on the shoulders of the miners. I think that the Coal Controller, in his excellent speech—excellent from his point of view—also was inclined to put the blame for the falling away of output on the shoulders of the miners. So far as I am personally concerned, I am not prepared to allow the blame to be put on the miners either by the President of the Board of Trade or by any Member of this House, without doing my best to try to defend them. If we take, again, the very elaborate statements that the President of the Board of Trade has prepared, I think we shall find that they are set out with a view to showing that there is a considerable amount of blame attachable to the miners for the falling away of output. What were the recommendations of the Commission which I suggest must be carried out before the output will reach the figure of 250,000,000 tons. I want to quote from the evidence of one of the Government's own officials, namely, Sir Richard Redmayne, the Chief Inspector of Mines. He says that in order to guard against any estimated loss of output arising from the reduced hours of labour, steps must be taken for

    "1. Making good the loss of technical efficiency resulting from the abstraction of the most efficient miners for war service and from the worsening of the equipment of the mine.

    2. The possibility of better clearance from the pithead, and the pooling of privately-owned wagons.

    3. The reduction of voluntary absenteeism.

    4. Conveyance of miners underground by mechanical haulage.-

    5. Greater utilisation for the out-shaft for the winding of coal and miners.

    6. Greater use of double-deck cages.

    7. Employment of winding plant and engines.

    8. Extension of the multiple shift system.

    9. Greater use of mechanical coal-cutters, etc.

    No attempt has been made since these representations were put forward by the Chief Inspector of Mines to carry them into effect. But, if I may set aside the failure to do so for the time being, and examine the position as we have it to day, I join issue with the President of the Board of. Trade on his estimate of 217,000,000 tons

    163
    output for the twelve mouths, beginning from 16th July. What is the position as we have it in the coal trade to-day? I take my own district as an example, and the position there roughly represents the position in other parts of the British coalfield. Notwithstanding the great demand for coal, coal in my part of the country is being put on stock at certain of the collieries. Anyone with the slightest experience of mining knows that the stocking of coal is not an economical process. Not only is coal being put on stock, but collieries are being laid idle. In the last week, at certain collieries, we had 2,000 men idle for want of trains or for want of wagons in one day. These represent, roughly, a loss of 2,000 tons to the nation. Not only had you the loss of 2,000 tons by these men being laid idle, through circumstances over which they had no control, but, in consequence of that, these 2,000 men have to be paid 3s. war wage. The stocking of coal and the laying idle of the pits is stated to be due to the want of wagons. The President of the Board of Trade, in part of his speech this afternoon, confirmed that. Pooling of wagons would, to a considerable extent, assist in remedying this particular evil with which I am dealing at the moment. In a number of cases, not only have we coal being put on stock, and men being thrown idle, but we have a considerable number of cases when the men at work are not getting a full day's work. As I have already stated, from information I have obtained from my friends around me, this position in the district I represent largely reflects the position in other parts of the British coalfield.
    10.0.P.M.
    Then there is another factor that enters into the position and adversely affects the output at the moment. Within the last six months or thereabouts we have had a considerable number of men returning from the Army and the Navy. In many cases these men have had the greatest difficulty in getting work. Some of them have had to go for weeks, and in some cases for months, before they could find work. Why is this? Because mining is not like other industries. When once you have withdrawn a large number of your men, as you did during the War to put them into the Army and the Navy, unless you are prepared to take special pains, the travelling ways and the working places are very quickly closed, and it takes weeks, and in some cases months, to reopen them again when the men return to their employ
    164
    ment. This is a matter to which the Government cannot say they have not had their attention called. As early as May, 1917, I personally, interviewed the Prime Minister upon this and other matters. In the early days of 1917 the submarine campaign was seriously affecting the working time in my own district, being largely an exporting district, and I interviewed the Prime Minister with a view of making certain suggestions to him for improving matters. While I was there I at the same time took the opportunity of pointing out how the failure to take the necessary precaution to keep the work places open would also affect other parts of the country, as well as my own district. The Prime Minister at that interview, at which one of the members of his Cabinet was present with him, suggested that I should put what I had said to him into writing, and send it to this particular member of the Cabinet, so that they might have an opportunity of considering the matter, and, if possible, dealing with it. I carried out that request. Amongst the matters that I wrote to that member of the Cabinet about was:
    "That the restrictions placed upon the coal-owners in regard to the outlay of capital on development work such as sinking new shafts, driving stone mines, and the opening of new sections be removed so far as our district is concerned, and in this way enable these coal-owners to provide suitable employment for the number of men idle. In my opinion, not only would this help to relieve our present difficulties, but it would at the same time be a wise step for the Government to encourage with a view to providing work for a large number of our men who will be released when the War is ended, and demobilisation takes place."
    I went on to say:
    "If this step is not taken, not only in my own district but in other mining districts of the United Kingdom, I am convinced that a very serious situation will arise as soon as the War terminates. So far as this district is concerned, if 50 per cent. of the men who have gone to the Forces were to be released at once the employers could not find working places for them inside of twelve months. The consequence of such a state of matters is too serious to contemplate, and the Government would be well advised to take time by the forelock and guard against such a contingency by encouraging coalowners to keep as many working places open as possible for the return of the men."
    The reply of the Government to that, and to what I had said to the Prime Minister, was:
    "The question whether any large development work can be allowed can only, they think, be decided on the circumstances of each particular case."
    10.0 P.M.
    There the matter ends. We are facing our difficulties to-day largely in conse-

    165
    quence of the failure to take those necessary precautions to keep open the working places. I know that I may be told that there was a war on at the time I put this matter before the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am aware of it. Personally, I am only too painfully aware of it. But surely that is no reason why, when the failure to take the action suggested brings us up against this serious situation, that the miner should be blamed in any sense for the trouble? To my mind if the President of the Board of Trade, and the Government, would spend as much time in getting these matters that I have been bringing before them put right as they spend in compiling these figures, which means so very little after all, we would quickly improve the output of coal, and so do away with the necessity of this increase of 6s. per ton.
    I join issue, as I have said, with the "President of the Board of Trade on his estimate of 217,000,000 tons for the year beginning the 16th of the present month. Set about putting the things right that are wrong in the mining industry and your output will not be limited by 217,000,000 tons, or—if the matter is gone about in the right way—by even 250,000,000 tons, even with your shorter working day. If these steps are taken, and the result which I believe will follow, does follow, then your financial difficulties will disappear, and the trade on which all the industries of this country vitally depend will be made a valuable asset instead of, as it threatens to be under existing conditions, a millstone hanging round the neck of the nation that threatens to involve it in industrial ruin. That being the position as I know it from my own personal experience, and the experience of hon. Friends around me, I again join with those who already have made an appeal to the Leader of the House to refrain from putting on this increase in the price of coal for a reasonable time—and the hon. Member who spoke last I think put that reasonable time at three months or thereabouts. In the meantime let a careful and searching inquiry be made into the whole position. That is a wise line for the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to follow.
    You are not going to help British credit and British industry by the doleful picture painted this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade. Fortunately many of us who know the coal trade better than does the right hon. Gentleman—and may
    166
    I respectfully suggest, even better than the Coal Controller himself—take a more optimistic view of the situation. We do not want to see the coal trade of the country subsidised, either by the taxpayer or depending for subsidies, as it is put by the President of the Board of Trade, on our export coal. Up till now—and the coal trade of the country has a very long history—it has been able to stand on its own legs. For many, many years to come I believe the coal trade of the country, if properly handled, can produce sufficient money to meet all requirements without subsidies of one kind and another. I may differ in opinion from other hon. Members as to what may be the proper way to handle the coal trade. Certainly, I believe that it will never be on a sound footing until it is nationalised. I say this also: Being the key industry on which the whole of our industrial system rests, it is too vital to be in private hands, too vital an industry to be made the by-play of either one section or another of the community. We require, in the interests of the nation, to have this industry nationalised! We may be able to secure nationalisation in the near future or we may not, but that does not alter my opinion or the opinion of my hon. Friends who know the trade. If the proper steps are taken the coal trade can be put on a sound basis, and that is the position. Why should the whole of our people be excited in the way they have been during the past few days by the announcement of an increase of 6s. per ton without a full and proper inquiry? Before any such drastic step is taken I hope the Leader of the House will see his way to withdraw the proposal and have the fullest inquiry made.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is really only one subject which ought to be discussed as a result of the action of the Government, and that is simply whether the time has now come that the coal trade should pay its own way or whether we should continue to subsidise it at the expense of the taxpayer. A good many subsidiary questions have arisen, and I shall try and deal with a few of them before touching upon the main issue. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed to blame the Government because the definite proposal to carry our particular schemes for increasing output recommended by the Sankey Committee have not been adopted, but nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend that the Government cannot

    167
    be blamed for that, and they are in no way responsible. It was part of the recommendation made in the Interim Report of that Commission that they would send out interim reports dealing with these subjects, and the Government cannot be blamed for anything that has not been done in that direction.
    I was very much interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend who represents the Welsh constituency, the name of which it is so difficult to pronounce, but I do not quite follow his case. He was very much surprised, and even tried to be indignant, but without much success, at the sudden and unexpected course the Government had taken. What is the actual position in regard to coal? The indignation could not have been because the hon. Member and everyone else closely following this matter were not aware of the facts because they knew them all. This was not news to Mm. The surprise and indignation must have been simply because by the action of the Government the whole country has been made aware of what was apparent before to hon. Members opposite. The same thing was said by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and he also suggested that this proposal had something to do with political electioneering. I think a complete answer on that point was given by the President of the Board of Trade.
    What are the facts? There is no mystery about it whatever. On the 4th June my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade called the attention of the House and the country to the position of the coal trade, and he stated in this House that that meant we must raise the price of coal, or else the taxpayer must make good the difference. That was made perfectly plain in this House. As to electioneering, I know there is a widespread belief, which perhaps has some foundation in fact, that the Prime Minister does understand that subject. As a matter of fact, until the decision was announced the subject had been constantly before the Government, and at the beginning of the month, after a great deal of previous discussion, the President of the Board of Trade submitted to the Cabinet a definite proposal that some steps should be taken. Nobody can look forward with confidence to the future. I do not know what is in store for my right hon. Friend, but at the present time I do not think he is an expert in electioneering manoeuvres.
    Mr. ADAMSON: That action coincided with the polling at a by-election.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already explained that the definite proposal that this step should be taken was made by the President of the Board of Trade at the beginning of this month. It was discussed by the Cabinet, and they came to this decision, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister. We submitted our proposal and our reasons for it, and the Prime Minister agreed with the Cabinet that it was our duty to take this step. Therefore, it is obvious that the criminal, from the electioneering point of view, was-not the Prime Minister, but the President of the Board of Trade. I will now say a, word or two about the basis of the calculation on which our proposal rests. We have heard a good deal about figures this afternoon. I am not going to attempt to deal with them in detail, but I think in a very few sentences I can say enough to convince every hon. Member of this House that we have made out an unanswerable case that this figure is required if coal is to pay its way. [An Hon. Member: "No!"] Perhaps the hon. Member had better listen to my few sentences. First of all, there was the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first. He said he was convinced that our figures were wrong, but he would leave it to another of his colleagues to prove it to the House. Then my right hon. Friend who spoke last took an even simpler course, and he said, "I take issue with the President of the Board of' Trade." That is very easily done, but he added that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cam-bridge was ordered to make this case. Well, there is nothing much in that. We are all often ordered to do things, and I may have been ordered to make this speech to-night.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not think any of my colleagues knew the kind of speech I was going to make, and I was not ordered.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be so, and I do not mean that the hon. Member was putting forward views that were not his own, but let me point out this fact in relation to the figures. Nobody has questioned the necessity of amending this 4s. 3d. to 6s., assuming that the original' basis was right. The basis of this calculation was put before the Royal Commission, which contained, if any body could,.

    169
    the experts best competent to judge. It was a question of vital interest to that Commission. Yet not a whisper was raised in any quarter that there was an error in it until this statement was made the other day. Can anything be more convincing that there was nothing to which to take exception until prejudice was raised and it was to the interest of somebody to show that the figures were wrong?
    We now come to the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hartshorn). It again was a very simple one. There is no difference whatever between him and my right hon. Friend except as to the method of calculation. What is the difference? My light hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his calculation, which, remember, was presented to the Coal Com mission, took as his basis the actual output for the first twenty weeks of this year, and he used that as an estimate for the coming year. The hon. Member's basis is quite different. He takes not the last twenty weeks but the last twenty years, and says that it is upon that we ought to count in estimating the loss in the coming year. The hon. Gentleman is a very shrewd man. I wonder, if he were running a business of his own, and if he were making a calculation as to what the loss was likely to be next year in a particular form of business, he would base it on the experience of the last twenty years, or on the experience of the last twenty weeks, with this addition, unfortunately, that the last four weeks—since this Paper was issued—showed a worse result than the previous twenty weeks? That is the whole case. Are we right, in forming this -estimate for the coming year, to take as our guide what is happening now, or are we to take the average for the last twenty years? There is a great deal to be said why we should not take the last twenty years as a basis. In the first place, the hon. Member referred to what happened when the miners' hours fell from nine to eight. He pointed out that the loss in output very soon became only 9 per cent. Nobody knows better than he that there is some qualification to be put on that. At that time, though the change was from a nominal nine hours to a real eight hours, the average time worked was nothing like nine hours, but was less than eight and a half.
    Mr. HARTSHORN:That is not at all correct.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Those are the figures given to me, and I think they are right. I do not base it entirely on that. What I am going to say ought not to be regarded or used as if it were something unfair to the miners, but, really, we have got to be frank with each other in dealing with this kind of thing. When the change was made from nine hours to eight hours, there was no addition to the wage; therefore, if the man was to get the same amount of remuneration after as before the change, he would have to work harder. Under this arrangement there is an increase of wage which will enable the man to get the same income by doing less work than he did before. That must have an effect on output. I am afraid that human nature applies whatever one's position may be or whatever his occupation. When a man has got enough to live upon in the way in which he has been accustomed to live, he has not the same temptation to work harder in order to get a larger income. That, surely, is the truth, and, that being so, when we are looking simply at this matter, not judging its merits, not condemning or criticising, but looking at what is likely to happen, are we not right in saying that if we are to form an estimate it must be based on immediate experience? There is another point 1 should like to bring to the notice of hon. Gentlemen. Their whole argument to-day has been that we are wrong, and that the output will be far greater than our figures indicate. My right hon. Friend who opened this discussion quoted, as an example of the stupidity of the Government, its action on piece rates in relation to the change in the number of hours. And my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) spoke of that rather as an argument for nationalisation. But look at the facts. The agreement entered into by the Government was to accept the Sankey Report, which reduced the number of hours to seven. Our acceptance, as we said at the time, was based on the estimates contained in the Report. Very well. One of the estimates in that Report was that the output will be reduced by less than 10 per cent. If we are to accept that Report and act upon it then we must make the rate of remuneration per hour bear on a precise reduction of less than 10 per cent. in the output. We must do that, otherwise the whole basis on which we accepted the Report is wrong. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken to-day tell us we are wrong,

    171
    and that the output will be far greater than the estimate. But I have heard one hon. Member say that unless we allow for piece work a far greater rate of payment than 10 per cent. there will be a strike of the miners. That means that the miners will strike for no other reason than that they know the output will be reduced by more and not less than 10 per cent.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: There are coalfields where there has been no reduction at all in the hours under the Sankey award, and others the reduction may be more than 10 per cent. But taking the average for the whole country it will be 10 per cent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member was, I believe present at the deputation where I agreed on behalf of the Government, to leave out parts of the country where there was no change; so that does not in the least alter the nature of my argument. Now I come to the real question, whether or not we should allow things to go on as they are; whether we shall allow the coal to be subsidised out of the taxes, or make it pay its way. What are the reasons which induced the Government to take this course? Do not let hon. Members think that by raising the price of coal by six shillings we are going to get rid of all subsidies No, nothing of the kind. Already we have actually paid in subsidy this year—these were the figures given to me, for I asked for them a short time ago, by the Board of Trade—;counting the loss of Excess Profits Duty, to which I referred in introducing the Sankey Interim Report, close on £20,000,000, instead of the £13,000,000 mentioned in the Sankey Report. But that is not nearly all. You start now with the basis on which our calculation is made on which the hope is based—that the 6s. will enable coal to pay its way from the time the shorter hours come in. But there is a big subsidy there. That calculation is based on this, that we will get from the higher price, from the sale of exported coal, a sum of money over and above the ordinary price, which will be an equivalent to a subsidy of 1s. 4d. per ton on all the coal used at home. That is to say, even after we have taken this 6s., and even if all our expectations are realised, the State will still be paying a subsidy—otherwise it will come to the Treasury—of fully £10,000,000 a year if all our calculations are realised.
    Therefore it is not any hasty or unconsidered conclusion at which we have
    172
    arrived. I wish the Committee and hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise what that means. I quite realise—I need not emphasise it: we all know it—the seriousness of this additional price of coal to the whole trade of this country. Figures were given by my right hon. Friend which make that abundantly clear. It did not need to be made clear, because everybody understood 'it. What is the alternative? The alternative is to go on in the hope that in the dim and distant future things will right themselves by having one of the biggest industries of this country subsidised at the-expense of other industries. Do you think that things will ever right themselves as long as that continues I do not say for a moment that the State ought not to act in a matter like this as a prudent business man with a varied business would. Such a business man often allows one department to continue making a temporary loss, which is covered by the profits-of other departments, in the knowledge that in the long run it will pay him not to let that department starve. Up to a certain point it might be to the interest of the State, rather than have this great loss in our export trade, to go on paying a subsidy for a limited time. Well, we considered all that, and we did very deliberately come to the conclusion that we-ought not to go on, that things will never right themselves until the public knows what the real position is. That really was our view.
    Let me take two considerations which have been pressed upon me from the benches opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for the Erdington Division of Birmingham (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who made a very interesting speech, said the same thing. Why not delay it? If the House assents, as it must—because all this-playing with figures does not touch the reality—if it accepts the fact that this 6s. is needed to make coal pay its way—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—;the more you examine the figures the more you will see it—;if you accept it, what are you going to gain by delay? I think you run the risk of losing, apart altogether from the question of the finances of the country, and I have-been so recently Chancellor of the Exchequer and I hear so much from my colleague who fills that office now, that I wish the House to realise more than it does the seriousness of the financial position and that we really cannot go on m this kind of way.

    173
    Apart altogether from that, looking at this as a business proposition, as if you were saying, "Will it pay to keep this going at a loss for a little while?" I think it would not. At present prices everywhere are high. Freights are high. The competition to which we have had our attention called most strongly, that of the United States, is not so bad now on account of high freights. Suppose we allowed this thing to drift on for three or four months till things got more and more in a normal condition in the country of our competitors. Is it not certain that it would be far more difficult to adjust than it will be now when the prices are high everywhere? But there is more than that. Prices act and react upon each other. I have a great deal of faith in this country. Our business is embarrassed, but we have great assets, and I think we shall pull through. Prices act and react on each other and the fact of our prices being so high will, I think, tend to make the American prices a little higher than they would be if ours were lower, and it may help us in that way. In any case, I am convinced that if you look at it only from the point of view of trades like the iron and steel trade you run the risk of making it a good deal worse from the point of view of competition by waiting three or four months if the conditions are as they are to-day.
    Now let me come to the main argument which has. been put by the miners' representatives. My Noble Friend (Lord E. Cecil), in a very interesting speech, as able as usual and with a little lighter touch than, usual, which charmed the House more, dwelt largely upon the cost of living and the effect it has all round. He spoke a great deal about inflation and currency notes. That is a subject that specially interests me, but I am not going to argue it now, though I think the effect of it is greatly exaggerated. The assumption- is made that our increased currency is issued in the same way as the German was— creating paper in order to pay debts. We never did that. It was only an increase of currency. But whatever truth there is, and there is a great deal, you must get down to a sounder basis all round if things are to go well. Whatever truth there is in the dangers of inflation you will never cure them by continuing an artificial state of things. You must get back to realities. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) told us miners were
    174
    very patriotic. They were, and part of our trouble was due to the fact that so many of them left the mines so early, and I am sure the War is not such an old story that we are going to forget this kind of thing, whatever arises in the future. He says they are a sporting lot, but you must not bully them. I am not going to try. I saw in some paper that they bullied me. I do not think that; is true. At all events, I am not going to try to reverse the process. But how is it bullying the miners for the Government, which has the responsibility, to decide that the price of coal, which is 'in their hands must be at a figure which will pay its way? What harm would that do to them. If there was any class that would be detrimentally affected it would not be the miners, because they would get their full wages; it would be the other trades. Surely we are committing no offence upon the miners. How are we offending them by saying, not that we are going to reduce their wages, but that material which you sell and for which we are responsible, is to be sold at as near as we can get it cost price. There was one thing I was pleased with in the Debate. All the miners' leaders who spoke to-day—;I know their view, but I am not sure that it is as widespread as it ought to be—;put the case that unless you can keep up production all this higher standard of living must go. That is evident. It is essential that that should be done. I put, even to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with greater or equal confidence to the whole House, which is the better way to get that realised, and to get every man who is affected by it to have it in his mind all the time? Is it by leaving the taxpayers to go on paying a subsidy or is it to bring them face to face with the facts and let them see exactly the position? Which is likely to have the best effect? It is said that if we no longer are able to export coal and the material which is made out of coal that is fatal for all of us.
    You cannot get better wages than the trade will supply. I remember sitting on the bench opposite, I do not know how many years ago, and I express the view I then held, which I have always held, and which I hold now, that the aim of all of us ought to be to give the men who are working in all industries the largest possible share in the profits of those industries which does not dry them up. You cannot get wages

    175
    beyond that limit. There has been a very widespread feeling—I am sure all hon. Members will realise this—among all members of the working class that there is in the owners' profits an inexhaustible reservoir which will enable them to have their wages raised to whatever limit they would like to have them raised. That has to be cured. They have to realise that the share they will get will be in proportion to the work they do. This also must be realised—I am glad my right hon. Friend dwelt so much upon it, because it does not apply to one trade alone; production in one trade affects trades with ramifications which you cannot forsee—that the people of this country and of all countries got during the War into an abnormal state. They got the idea that they were going to have an easier time than they had had before. That is a great mistake. Apart from the suffering, if you look at the actual condition of things during the War, I think many members of the working classes have had in spite of the cost of living better conditions than they ever had before. We want that to continue, but that prosperity was largely due, and could not continue for ever, to the spending of unlimited quantities of borrowed money. We have got to pay for that somehow or other, and the only way in which we can pay for it is by spending with more care and working harder. There is no other method. I have said that the working classes had the idea that there was an inexhaustible reservoir, and this discussion and the widespread interest which it has aroused ought to do good in this way. It ought to show clearly that that idea was wrong, and that you cannot count upon the manufacturers' profit. It ought to be evident to the most mediocre intellect, and for this reason: The total profits of the owners are 1s. 2d., and you cannot deduct 6s. from 1s. 2d.
    What we have done is not an attack on the miners. It is taking a very grave decision, but nothing that I have heard to-day has made me think that it is not a right 3ecision. Then the right hon. Gentleman has made to the Government an offer of something in the nature of co-operation in trying to find out the causes of the falling-off in output and helping to remedy them, but they make it a condition that we should not put on the increase of 6s. Why? If the sporting instinct of which the hon. Member opposite spoke would come into effect, then just in proportion as the pro-
    176
    duction increased the price would drop down. I have had a calculation made that every increase of a ton per four weeks per man would enable the price to be reduced by something like 1s. 9d. per ton. There is a great incentive to increased output. The output per man in 1913 was 19.8. It has fallen now to 16.8. On this I would like to add that there is a great deal of room for improvement from the point of view of the miners. I would say, then, to my right hon. Friend, Why should we quarrel about this? We want to speed up production. We will co-operate with you in any way you like for that purpose, but meantime the interests of the nation require that coal should pay its way. I have got, in the absence of the Prime Minister, very often to take sudden decisions, and I am never afraid to take them on the ground of being accused of weakness. All this is a question of what is best for the country, and I say, then, to my right hon. Friends that if they can give an equivalent for the dangers which I see in delay, if they can say to me on the floor of the House, "If you postpone this for three months we will join with you and put our backs into it to increase the output, and during that time there will be a period of suspense, and there will be no stoppages or strikes for the three months," I would be inclined to accept it, and 1 think that the Government would do so also. I think that that is a fair offer. I have got to take the responsibility, and I prefer to take it if they will give me that undertaking. If you will give me an undertaking that for three months there will be no stoppages, and that every effort will be made to increase output, I am convinced that the country will gain by the arrangement.
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend is, of course, making us an offer which he must know we are not in a position to accept this evening. We are prepared to give our word that if he would withhold the addition of the 6s. we will undertake to set up an inquiry and co-operate for an increased output. On the question of a general stoppage the most that we can do is to lay the proposition of the Government before the conference at Keswick, if necessary to-morrow or the next day.
    An HON. MEMBER: And recommend it?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes, as far as I am personally concerned; but I do not want in

    177
    this House to eater into a thing I could not carry out. Personally, I would recommend that for the next three months. All I can do is to lay before the conference at Keswick the view of the Government. 1 would gladly agree to a policy of suspending anything in the form of stoppages of work, either general or individual, for the three months coming, so that we may have time to go further into this matter with the Government and set up an arrangement which would give us an increased output, and so abolish the necessity of adding the 6s.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We are prepared to take any steps we can to carry out the offer, but we are not prepared to delay the policy which we think right unless we have good reason to believe that the offer is going to be accepted. If my right hon. Friend will undertake to give me a definite answer by Wednesday, I will undertake to delay the putting of this into operation until Monday.
    Mr. ADAMSON: There is one part, and a vital part of the argument of my hon. Friends and myself that has not been touched by the Leader of the House. He has not indicated in any way whatever that the Government are prepared at the earliest possible moment to remove the causes which, we say, have reduced output. We are anxious to co-operate with him in that direction.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I interrupt? If the right hon. Gentleman means that he cannot consider the offer that I have made without an undertaking from the Government to go in for nationalisation, I say at once "No."
    Mr. ADAMSON: Nationalisation is not in my mind at all. The causes which we have put before the right hon. Gentleman are, men being thrown idle and collieries being kept idle.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We will undertake to do all that.
    Mr. ADAMSON: We are stocking coal at some collieries. Men are not getting a full day's work. There is a want of essential material. There is a need for the pooling of wagons, for improving machinery of various kinds. These are the
    178
    things which are reducing the output of coal. They are very vital. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the lack of trust!"] That is also a very important factor. We are quite prepared to accept your offer and to put it before the Conference, and endeavour to give you an answer by Wednesday.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am bound to say that the offer by the Government, so far as I am concerned, raised a great load from my mind, and the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend of acceptance is a matter which I think the whole country will regard with the deepest satisfaction, and the hope and trust that a speedy result may be arrived at.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I would suggest to the Leader of the House to make it Thursday instead of Wednesday for the reply, as a vote may have to be taken.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to quarrel about a day, and in the meantime I will postpone the Order until Monday.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
Resolved,
"That the Draft of the Ministry of Health (Consultative Councils) Order, 1919 [presented 24th June], be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Draft of the Ministry of Health (Welsh Consultative Council) Order, 1919 [presented 24th June], be approved."—[Dr. Addison.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Motion made, and Question,
"That this House do now adjourn."— [Lord E. Talbot.]
put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Eleven o clock.

  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  OFFICIAL STATISTICS.
  OFFICIAL STATISTICS.
INCOME TAX.
  CASUAL LABOUR.
  CASUAL LABOUR.
  EX-KING FERDINAND (BRITISH SECURITIES).
  EX-KING FERDINAND (BRITISH SECURITIES).
HOUSING.
  FARNBOROUGH SCHEME.
  FARNBOROUGH SCHEME.
  NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE EXPENDITURE.
  NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE EXPENDITURE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
  GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
  RICE (SHORTAGE IN FAR EAST).
  RICE (SHORTAGE IN FAR EAST).
  LAND CULTIVATION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  LAND CULTIVATION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
IRELAND.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  HOUSING BILL.
  HOUSING BILL.
  REGISTRATION OFFICERS (EXPENSES).
  REGISTRATION OFFICERS (EXPENSES).
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  EX-SERVICEMEN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICEMEN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYES.
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYES.
  SILVER-BADGE MEN (DISCHARGE).
  SILVER-BADGE MEN (DISCHARGE).
  AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION, BARROW- IN-FURNESS.
  AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION, BARROW- IN-FURNESS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS TOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS TOR RELEASE.
  TROOPS IN XORTH RUSSIA AND SIBERIA.
  TROOPS IN XORTH RUSSIA AND SIBERIA.
  LABOUR COMPANIES.
  LABOUR COMPANIES.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
  HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MILITARY SHOEMAKERS.
  MILITARY SHOEMAKERS.
  FALLEN SOLDIERS (REMOVAL OF BODIES).
  FALLEN SOLDIERS (REMOVAL OF BODIES).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (DISCHARGE FURLOUGH).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (DISCHARGE FURLOUGH).
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  ARMY BANDMASTERS (PROMOTION).
  ARMY BANDMASTERS (PROMOTION).
  IDENTITY CERTIFICATES (RENEWAL).
  IDENTITY CERTIFICATES (RENEWAL).
  FIELD STORES, ALDERSHOT (WOMEN EMPLOYES).
  FIELD STORES, ALDERSHOT (WOMEN EMPLOYES).
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN FUND.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN FUND.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  TRAINING GRANTS.
  TRAINING GRANTS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY.
  WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY.
  STORE BUILDINGS, REGENT'S PARK.
  STORE BUILDINGS, REGENT'S PARK.
  INDIAN ARMY (OFFICER'S APPEAL).
  INDIAN ARMY (OFFICER'S APPEAL).
  COLONIAL OFFICE (GOVERNMENT MESSAGES).
  COLONIAL OFFICE (GOVERNMENT MESSAGES).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (TREATMENT OF NATIVES).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (TREATMENT OF NATIVES).
PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
POLICE BILL.
  PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
  PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DENTISTRY.
  DENTISTRY.
  PRINTED MATTER (TYPE).
  PRINTED MATTER (TYPE).
  COLONIAL MILITARY OFFENDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
  COLONIAL MILITARY OFFENDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
  BASTARDY ACTS.
  BASTARDY ACTS.
  MANCHESTER ASSIZES (SENTENCE).
  MANCHESTER ASSIZES (SENTENCE).
  COAL MINES BILL.
  COAL MINES BILL.
  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (APPOINTMENTS).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (APPOINTMENTS).
COAL OUTPUT.
  AMERICAN COMPETITION.
  AMERICAN COMPETITION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GERMAN FIRMS (INCORPORATION IN SWITZERLAND).
  GERMAN FIRMS (INCORPORATION IN SWITZERLAND).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  GOODS DELAYED, NEWCASTLE.
  GOODS DELAYED, NEWCASTLE.
  MANSFIELD STATION (RESTRICTIONS).
  MANSFIELD STATION (RESTRICTIONS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (DERELICTS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (DERELICTS).
POST OFFICE.
  LONDON SUB-POST OFFICES (WAGES).
  LONDON SUB-POST OFFICES (WAGES).
  DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  COAL SUPPLY TO MIXERS.
  COAL SUPPLY TO MIXERS.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (OFFICIALS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (OFFICIALS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS. SUTHERLAND-SHIRE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS. SUTHERLAND-SHIRE.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  MUZZLING ORDER.
  MUZZLING ORDER.
  CEREALS, MEAT, AND WOOL (PRICES).
  CEREALS, MEAT, AND WOOL (PRICES).
  CARLTON HOUSE, REGENT STREET (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
  CARLTON HOUSE, REGENT STREET (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
  "STANDARD RENT."
  "STANDARD RENT."
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to disqualifications on account of sex, and with respect to the rights of Peeresses.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MILK PRICES.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I desire to ask what is the cause of the delay in setting up the Select Committee on the question of the discrimination in milk prices, which the House resolved should be set up a week ago. I hope that ray noble friend Lord Hylton will realise that this is a question which is pressing at this period of the session. There is not very much time before we adjourn, and the Committee ought to be set up at the earliest possible moment, owing to the anxiety felt on the subject in the Western counties.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I shall move to-morrow that the Select Committee be composed of Lord Rathcreedan (Chairman), the Earl of Northbrook, the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe, Lord Hindlip, and the Earl of Strafford. I am sorry that there has been delay, but my noble friend knows that it takes a little time to get the names of members willing to serve.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Can the noble Earl the Leader of the House give us any information as to the proposed course of business during this week?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, at the close of to-day's business, after we have dealt with the matters upon the Paper, the Ways and Communications Bill will be brought up from another place and a First Reading will be given to it here. To-morrow (Tuesday) we shall take the subjects which are down upon the Paper. On Wednesday there is a Question in the name of Earl Brassey about the coal industry, which I believe excites a good deal of interest and will give rise to a debate that will occupy the greater part, if not the whole, of the sitting. On Thursday we propose to take the Report stage of the Housing and Town Planning Bill. Notice has already been given from this Bench of the intention to move the suspension of Standing Order XXXIX in order to take both the Report stage and the Third Reading of that Bill on that day. I would further, with a view to what I am going to say presently, suggest that your Lordships should meet at three o'clock on Thursday afternoon in order to give ample time for the purposes that I am describing. Then, when we have finished those stages of the Bill, I would propose that at half-past five my noble friend Lord Lytton, who is in charge of the Ways and Communications Bill, should make his expository statement in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, to which, as I have said, your Lordships will have been asked to give a First Reading to-night. It would be unreasonable to ask the House to proceed with the discussion after the speech of Lord Lytton, which will occupy, I dare say, a considerable part of the latter end of the sitting; and I would then propose that the Second Reading be taken on Monday next, so that your Lordships will have had the interval between Thursday and Monday to render yourselves conversant with the Bill as explained by my noble friend. That I think, covers the business of this week and takes us on to Monday next.

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, passed, and sent to the Commons.

CREATION OF PEERAGES.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move for a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each

483
Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my attention was attracted to this subject during the sittings of the Second Chamber Conference a year and a-half ago, and I then noticed what an enormous increase there had been in the creation of Peerages in recent years. So far as I could ascertain the facts for myself, in the 25 years from 1880 to 1905, 91 Peerages were created, or an average of less than 4 a year. In the 12½ years subsequent to 1905 there were 150 Peerages created, or an average of 15 a year. During the tenure of office of the present Government there have been, as far as I can understand, 48 new Peerages created, or at the rate of about 24 a year, besides 12 promotions; or, in other words, 60 new Peerages in the 2 years. I know that there are exceptional circumstances. Some of the higher stages of the Peerage were granted to members of the collateral branches of the Royal Family who gave up German titles, and there were, of course, one or two in connection with the war. But the enormous proportion of the Peerages which have been created during the last 2 years have had, so far as I can see, no relation to the war at all.
I think it is very important that we should know the exact facts, and the only way to do that is to get a Return which will be published with authority. I may mention that since I have put the Motion down on the Paper I have had my attention called to a Return which deals with the years 1830 to 1899, and over the whole of that long period there was an average of about 6½ or 7 a year new Peerages created. That shows what a new departure has been made in recent years in the enormous number of additions which have been made to this House. I have not given notice of it, but I would ask the noble Earl the Lord President whether it would not be expedient in giving the Return to know which of the Peerages mentioned in it may have become extinct on failure of heirs.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the question raised by my noble friend is one of importance, and I shall have
484
no difficulty in promising him the Return for which he asks. The matter is one into which I have been making such investigation as was open to me this morning, and, while agreeing with the general propositions laid down by my noble friend, I am not certain that his figures are altogether correct. The Return for which he asks will, of course, check them when it is made
But I might, perhaps, in relation to the figures which he has given, acquaint your Lordships with those that to the best of my ability I have been able to ascertain in looking into the matter to-day. It is true that the pace has been greatly accelerated during the past century and still further accelerated during the past few years, for the reasons to which my noble friend, though only partially, has alluded. Perhaps the following figures may interest your Lordships. When Queen Anne succeeded to the Throne there were 188 members of your Lordships' House; when George III came to the Throne in 1760 there were 224; when George IV succeeded in 1820 there were 372; when Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 there were 439; after her long reign and upon the accession of King Edward in 1901 there were 591; when King Edward was succeeded by the present Sovereign in 1910 there were 623; and at the present time, in the year 1919, there are a little over 700 members of your Lordships' House. This shows that during the last 100 years there have been 330 additions to the Peerage, and that over 100 of these have been during the last eighteen years.
Perhaps I may make the process rather more clear if I give, with as much accuracy as I have been able to secure, the figures of the respective Administrations. I need not for the present purpose go further back than Mr. Gladstone's long Administration which began in 1868. Between 1868 and 1874 there were 39 additions to the Peerage—that is, at the rate of 6½ per annum. Mr. Disraeli followed from 1874 to 1880 with 29 additions—that is, at the rate of 5 per annum. Then came Mr. Gladstone's Administration of 1880 to 1885 with an addition of 28—that is, 5½ per annum. Then followed Lord Salisbury's long Administration from 1886 to 1892, with 38 additions—that is, at the rate of 6 per annum. This was followed by the successive Liberal Administrations of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, from 1892 to 1895; there were during that period

485
16 additions—that is, at the rate of 5½ per annum. When the Liberal Ministry fell we had the long era of Conservative Administrations under the lead, first, of Lord Salisbury, and afterwards of Mr. Balfour; they were in office continuously from 1895 to 1905. During that time 44 additions were made to your Lordships' House by Lord Salisbury, and 18 by Mr. Balfour—62 in ten years; that is, again, at the rate of about 6 per annum. Thus we see that up to that date, 1905, the ratio was approximately the same—something between 5 and 6 per annum.
We come now to the moment at which the pace was accelerated and when, I think my noble friend was justified in saying, a new departure supervened. This was when Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman became Prime Minister in 1905. He was succeeded in 1908 by Mr. Asquith, who remained in office as the head of a purely Liberal Ministry until May 25, 1915. We may therefore take it as a continuous period of Liberal Administration lasting for over ten years. During that time 89 additions were made—that is, the annual rate rose from 5 or 6 to 9.
Lastly we come to the latest phase, starting with Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government which took office in May, 1915. That Government remained in power until December, 1916, and was then succeeded by the present Administration. During the little more than a year and a-half of Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government 21 additions were made; that is at the rate of about 15 a year. During the present Administration, which has lasted from December, 1916, to the present day—I do not think my noble friend's figures were quite right about this—there have been, so far as I can ascertain, excluding the 4 Peerages given to members of the Royal family, 36 additions to the Peerage.
A NOBLE LORD: 42.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I make it out to be about 36, but I may not be quite right. That, again, is at the rate of 15 a year, so that if we take the two periods of the Coalition Governments—years of war, I would remind your Lordships—from May, 1915, to the present date, there have been 57 additions, which means a rate of 14 per annum. Thts we have gone up under conditions of war. We went up, in the period of Sir H. Campbell-
486
Bannerman's and Mr. Asquith's Administrations, from the rate of 5 or 6 a year to 9. We have now gone up to 14. Of course, as my noble friend remarked, this is largely due to exceptional circumstances. But I would point out that the exceptional circumstances do not arise out of the war alone. They arise out of the existence of a Coalition Government and the fact that the Coalition Government represents two Parties—I hope I may say all Parties—in the State, and that therefore the distribution of honours is inevitably on a larger scale than it would be with a Ministry formed of persons of one political complexion alone.
It is not for me to say—perhaps your Lordships may wish to discuss the matter later when you get the Return—whether the distribution has been, or is, excessive. It certainly appears to me that, whatever value may be attached to the legislative privileges of your Lordships' House, the charms of the Peerage as a social attraction do not diminish, and I am told by those who have cognisance of such matters—I am very glad to say that I have not—that one of their difficulties is not in admitting candidates to the privilege of the Peerage, but in excluding those who think they have not only a great claim but a superior claim to anybody else to appear in your Lordships' House.
I do not say that the figures which I have given are very consoling, although I am myself rather at a loss to know what conclusion to draw from them. There is, however, this to be remembered, that while this great increase has been taking place in the strength of your Lordships' House the population of the country has been increasing also, and I assume that it is not an unfair thing to say that the Peerage ought to bear some ratio to the numerical strength of the population as a whole. Let me give your Lordships the figures in that respect at one or two different periods. I take the population of England and Wales as distinct from that of Scotland and Ireland, for this reason—that Scotland has her own representative Peers, as has Ireland. I do not; know that, if I included those populations, the result would be very different; but for the purposes of my calculation, in order to make it more fair, I exclude them. In 1815, at the close of the Waterloo campaign, there was a total of 336 members of your Lordships' House. If we deduct

487
from these the Bishops, who sit here by right of their Sees, and the Irish and Scottish Peers, who were representative then as they are now; there were in 1815, 256 Peers out of a population in England and Wales of 11,000,000 persons; that is a ratio of one Peer to every 43,000 of the population. In 1854 the number of Peers had risen to 454. If you make a similar deduction from that total you get—I am not quite certain of my figures here; I drew them up with some haste—you get, I think, a ratio of one Peer to every 50,000 of the population.
Now we take the year 1918 which is the latest year for which I have been enabled to procure figures. If we make a similar deduction of the Bishops, the Irish and Scottish Peers, and the Law Lords from the total number of Peers, we get a total of 626 Peers for a population in England and Wales of 37,500,000; in other words, we now have one Peer to every 60,000 of the population. It is for your Lordships to draw what deductions you like from that. Whether the ratio is a fair one or not it is not for me to say. All it does prove is that as the population is increasing, the number of Peerages is not increasing in the same ratio. These are general observations, which I have made with a view to assisting the noble Lord in the Inquiry which he has instituted. When he gets the Return he will no doubt revert to the charge, and I anticipate a discussion which will be interesting if not fruitful.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl has given interesting figures, and I am going to suggest that he should make them still more interesting. I cannot say that I was altogether impressed by the argument which the noble Earl used at the close of his speech. We were to have a Peerage which was to be commensurate with the population. I always flattered myself in the old days that the noble Earl of all people regarded admissions to this House, not from the point of view of a compliment to individuals or as a there satisfaction to the nation that the population was adequately represented in regard to numbers, but in the sense that they would strengthen this House by the attendance of those members who were honoured with Peerages. What I venture to put to the noble Earl is that the great profusion, for which he has apologised, in the creation of Peerages during the last
488
few years has not added to the strength of this House, because the large majority of those who have been appointed attend very rarely; and one of the most important questions which the public regards, so far as it regards the debates of this House, is that for a long period of years there has been a tendency for members of this House to gravitate to the support of one political Party. If, when Mr. Campbell-Bannerman took office in 1906, the pace of creations of Peerages was greatly increased, as it was, and that pace was taken into a canter by Mr. Asquith and into a gallop by Mr. Lloyd George, if the public are to be satisfied it will not be merely because additional compliments have been paid to individuals, but because those who were appointed did act in some degree in leavening the Debates and Divisions of this House. We all know to our regret that the numbers attending this House have not been increased in relation to the additional number of Peers who have been appointed, and I think that as a record is kept every day of the attendance of Peers, it would not be at all unfair to ask the noble Earl to add to the Motion of my noble friend words to this effect—
"and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906."
I move that addition, not because I wish to pick out any class of Peers for special notice, but merely because the whole basis of this great creation of Peers has been the idea that you would produce a body more in accord with the advanced principles of the day. If the result of creating those Peers is that we have not the advantage of their attendance here, then the whole of that object is defeated. I ask my noble friend to accept the addition of these words.
Amendment moved—
At the end of Motion add—"and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906."—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I confess to being taken by surprise by the Motion of my noble friend. I always deprecate, as a matter of Parliamentary usage in either House of Parliament (it is easier in this House than the other), suddenly introducing an Amendment or Motion at the last moment of which no notice has been given, which is sprung upon the House, and which raises an entirely different, and in this case a wholly

489
irrelevant, issue. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is entirely entitled to ask for the information he did. I gave it with readiness, but I submit that to tack on to the Motion a record of the attendances of your Lordships' House is not only to do an invidious thing but it is to treat a domestic matter, for which your Lordships are responsible, as if it were a matter of national importance comparable with the issue raised by Lard Balfour of Burleigh. If the noble Viscount desires at any time to raise this question, to censure this House or individuals in the House for failure to perform their legislative duties, let him raise the question and we will meet him. I dare say a good many withers would be wrung in that operation, but do not let him tack it on to this Motion. If he desires to press the matter to a division, I shall ask your Lordships not to accept his addition to the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that if the noble Viscount desires to divide, I personally shall have to record my vote with the noble Earl opposite. It does not appear to me that the creation or multiplication of Peerages has a great bearing, or indeed any real bearing, on the question of attendance. If the attendances of noble Lords in your Lordships' House are to be canvassed I am afraid it will be necessary, if the Return is to be at all a fair one, to discover and publish the attendance of all noble Lords whether they have succeeded to hereditary Peerages or whether they have been created. There is no obligation, so far as I am aware, on a man who has been created a Peer to attend more frequently than those who have succeeded to hereditary Peerages, and the selection of the year 1905, at which a particular Government came into power opposed to the views of the noble Viscount, appears to me, to say the least of it, invidious. Therefore I sincerely trust that the noble Viscount will not persist in his addition to the Motion. If he desires at some other time to raise the whole question of attendance at your Lordships' House it is another matter, but I trust that this particular Motion will be left alone and receive no addition.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before we go to a Division I should like to say one word on the matter. I was not prepared for the addition, and I do not
490
know whether it rests with me to accept it or not. It rests with the House. I suggest to the noble Viscount that if we are going into the question of attendance we ought to take a longer period. I went into this matter with some care at the time of the Second Chamber Conference, and the officers of the House made a complete return of attendances over a period of years. There would be no reason for this House to be afraid of having that Return made public, if it was done over a sufficiently long period, because the attendance here took myself and the members of the Second Chamber Conference with complete surprise, as we did not believe it had been nearly so large as was indicated by the figures. I ask the noble Viscount, therefore, to consider carefully the period and to make it a longer one than he suggests.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know exactly what course my noble friend will take on this matter, but I confess I cannot regret that he has raised this point. It seems to me to be of the highest importance that it should be well understood, not only by the public but also by those gentlemen who have been honoured or are about to be honoured by His Majesty's favour and created Peers, that they are not made Peers merely in order to have "noble Lord" written in front of their name, but in order that they should take their part as members of the Parliament of this country. That appears to me to be a most important matter.
The idea that gentlemen who have earned the favour of the Sovereign—for perfectly good reasons, I believe, in the vast majority of cases, for work in various professions and departments of life—get their Peerage merely for the sake of the "gilding" which it gives to their names, seems to me the most degrading view of the Peerage which can be conceived. Peers are here in order that they should sit and vote as members of the House of Lords; and though I quite agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that probably the attendance of this House is sometimes underrated, yet there is no doubt—it is notorious—that the vast majority of Peers never come into your Lordships' House at all, or very rarely, That is a very deplorable matter.
It is quite true, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, that the obligation to attend is quite as much on the Peer who succeeds by inheritance as on the Peer who is

491
created, but it is true that the Peer who comes here by creation of his own motion and will has accepted the Peerage, and therefore has accepted the obligations which attend on the Peerage. It is a very astonishing thing that a large majority—I do not say all—of those who have been elevated to this House do not seem to acknowledge the obligations which rest upon them. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said with truth that the period over which this Return should stretch requires careful consideration, and I think also I ought to say, in justice to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that there is probably an inconvenience in raising a debate of this kind and pressing it to a Division except after notice. How far that will weigh with the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, I do not know, but I think the noble Earl will probably agree with the substance of my noble friend's speech—which was, in effect, that those who receive Peerages ought to accept and fulfil the obligation which the Peerage throws upon them.
LORD SEMPILL: I do not know what your Lordships are going to do with the addendum moved by the noble Viscount, but I should like to point out the hardship that would manifestly accrue from its acceptance, and that is that many members of your Lordships' House have during the period of the war been serving their King and Country, and naturally have been unable to attend in this House. I think that period ought, therefore, be taken into consideration if the noble Viscount's addendum be accepted.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: If I may say a single word, as having had an opportunity of sitting in both Houses of Parliament, I should wish to add to what has fallen from my noble friends. First of all, let me say that on a fitting occasion I should be entirely in favour of some Motion of this kind, but it ought not to be confined to the House of Lords. I observe, in the elected House consisting of upwards of 700 Members, that Bill after Bill quite recently has been hurried through and sent up to this House, less than 200 members out of the 700 having taken part in the Divisions. It is impossible, with that happening day after day in the elected House, that the views and opinions of the constituencies can be adequately represented.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: After the suggestion made to me, I shall not trouble your Lordships with further discussion. I only hope that when the noble Earl finds his numbers a little decreased he will remember the word "irrelevance" which he used to me on a matter which I consider very relevant on a subject of this kind. If he should sometimes find that the numbers behind him are not as large as they might be, in view of the additions which are made month after month to the Peerage, the noble Earl must recollect that on this occasion he has not given full rein to the feeling which I know he has held all his life as to the obligation resting on every Peer, and more especially on those who have been created, to give attendance in support of their Party.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Motion agreed to.

THE LOSS OF THE "LEINSTER."
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call attention to the circumstances attending the loss of R.M.S.S. "Leinster" and to the existing condition of the communications between England and Ireland; and to move for an inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is much business before the House this evening and I shall try to be as brief as possible, but the question is one of some importance, and I am afraid I shall require a little time in which to explain it to your Lordships. It may seem, at first sight, as if the two subjects in my Question have net very much to say to each other, but I think I shall be able to show that they have a great deal in common. It is hardly necessary to point out that in moving for an inquiry I only intend to do so with regard to the circumstances attending the loss of the "Leinster."
If any of your Lordships were to ask an audience of Irish Unionists what was the most successful institution in Ireland, you would be told that it was the Kildare-street Club, Dublin; but if you appealed to a larger number of Irishmen, especially outside of Ulster, you would be told that it was the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. Guinness's Brewery might possible run it somewhat close, but for political

493
reasons I believe the preference would be given to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. It is a peculiarly Irish institution of which we are all proud. It is very well run, and for a number of Years has carried the mails between England and Ireland with great success, in spite of very keen but perfectly legitimate competition on the part of the London & North Western Railway Company. There is a feeling abroad in Ireland that they have been very badly treated by the Government during the war: in the first place, with regard to the arrangements which were made to provide for the safety of its vessels when crossing the channel; in the second place, with regard to the arrangements made as to pensions granted to the widows and orphans of some of its crew who were drowned when the "Leinster" was torpedoed; in the third place, as to the arrangements which were being made by the Government for replacing the steamers that had been sunk; and, in de last instance, there is a feeling in Ireland that not only the Steam Packet Company itself but all Irishmen, and indeed all Englishmen, suffer owing to the arrangements which are now made by the Post Office as to the running of the mails, which arrangements entail very serious inconvenience on all who wish to hold any communication, of any kind, either by travelling themselves or by letter, with Ireland.
I raised the subject of the sinking of the "Leinster" in this House in October last, but both I and my noble friend Lord Somerleyton, who then replied on behalf of the Government, were somewhat handicapped in doing so because there were facts known to all of us to which we were unable to allude, because by so doing we might have furnished information which would have been valuable to the enemy. That embargo has now been removed, because the facts have been made public both at the meeting of the Company and also in the public Press. The attitude taken up by the Government with regard to the sinking of the "Leinster" was expressed by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, in the House of Commons the day after the disaster occurred, in the following words—
"An Irish packet boat crammed with men, women, and children, was deliberately torpedoed in broad daylight by the Germans. It was carrying no military stores, and was serving no military ends. It was pure barbarism."
494
We all know that when Mr. Balfour made this statement he only said what he believed to be the absolute fact, and I am perfectly certain it is the case that the "Leinster" was carrying no military stores and serving no military ends, but it is known to all of us that all the mail packets were used for the purpose of conveying backwards and forward between England and Ireland soldiers going on leave or rejoining their units.
A statement prepared by the company tells me that in the spring of 1918 the War Office converted the mail packets into troopships, and gave directions that the night boats were to carry 500 naval and military ratings and as many officers as wished to travel. Later that was modified to 500, including officers. This was the state of things in force at the time that the sinking of the "Leinster" took place, and then it was incumbent upon the Admiralty to provide adequate protection for this very large number of soldier, I think between 3,500 and 4,000, which crossed daily, to and from Ireland. In addition, the mails were sorted on board, which necessitated the presence on board of a large number of Post Office sorters. These, of course, we expect to be looked after by the Post Office, and those civilians who were on board expected their interests to be safeguarded by the Board of Trade. Those three Departments of the Government were actively interested in looking after the safety of these ships, and it must not be forgotten that the company were in a different position as regards the sailing of their ships front any other vessels which were going to sea at that time, because they were under contract to carry the mails in any circumstances, whatever might be the weather or whatever might be the danger from submarines, unless they obtained a specific order from the Admiralty that they were not to sail.
I will point out to your Lordships the difficulty which attended this. I may state that on one occasion when the "Cork," a cargo boat belonging to the company, was sunk, the chairman of the company went at once to Kingstown and saw the captain of the "Leinster" and asked him if he thought it was safe for the "Leinster" to cross that night. He said on the contrary that he thought it extremely dangerous, whereupon the chairman went to see" the Admiral at Kingstown and asked him to give orders that the ship was not to sail.

495
The Admiral informed him that he had no authority to do so, and that the only person in a position to give orders not to sail was the Admiral commanding at Cork—the Commander-in-Chief. Consequently he agreed to send a telegram to the Commander-in-Chief to ask if permission might be obtained under the circumstances for the ship not to sail. Fortunately the Commander-in-Chief agreed to this being done, and the message ordering the "Leinster" not to sail arrived just a quarter of an hour before the time at which she was due to start. This points out the difficulties which attended ally stoppage of the mail steamer.
It may interest your Lordships to know what safeguards the Admiralty consider necessary in order to protect the ships. In the year 1916 I think it was they gave orders, without the knowledge even of the directors of the company, that the ships were to be armed with guns. This was after the submarines were armed with much heavier guns, so that the guns put on board the mail boats were absolutely useless, and only served as an excuse for the Germans to say that they were sinking armed ships. They also gave instructions to the directors to supply a large number of additional life belts. In fine weather a seaplane used to cross with the mail boats, but only in fine weather. Latterly, as we know, the night sailings were discontinued, and all ships were only allowed to sail by daylight, which as a matter of fact made them an easy prey to the submarines. Under these circumstances it is not astonishing that the directors of the company thought that they ought to ask for further protection, and after the "Leinster" had narrowly escaped by a few yards being torpedoed at the end of 1917 the chairman of the company applied to Lord Justice Duke, who was then Chief Secretary, asking him to supply an escort. Mr. Duke agreed that an escort should be provided, and for a few days accordingly it was provided. But this was soon dropped, and on the directors expostulating they were told that the matter had been referred to the local representatives of the Minister of Shipping in Dublin. If he considered it necessary to provide an escort one would be provided, but at that time he did not consider it necessary. Considering the large number of troops on board and the number of civilian passengers travelling your Lordships may be interested to know who was the repre
496
sentative of the Ministry of Shipping in Dublin. One would have thought that he would be a distinct naval officer who knew something about the matter. Not at all The local representative of the Ministry of Shipping was the general manager of the London and North Western Railway Company at North Wall Station, a very capable railway official but a gentlemen who could naturally know nothing as to the directions that ought to be taken to protect a ship at sea.
These were the circumstances on October 10, 1918, when early in the morning a German submarine was sighted off the Kish lighthouse. This did not make any difference to the sailing of the "Leinster." She was not warned or told not to sail, and she accordingly started, with 770 souls on board of whom no less than 500 were soldiers. When she got about twelve miles out—I am not quite sure that I am right as to the distance—she met the steamship "Ulster" on her way from Holyhead to Kingstown. It is interesting to note that subsequently the commander of the "Ulster" stated that in the whole course of the journey from Holyhead he had not sighted a single patrol boat. Within three minutes of the "Ulster" passing the "Leinster" the latter was torpedoed by a German submarine, presumably the one which had been sighted off Kish. The "Leinster" was not sunk, but her wireless installation was so badly damaged that she was only able to send out the signal: "Torpedoed, torpedoed, torpedoed," which fortunately was heard by the "Ulster." I will ask your Lordships to think what would have happened if the submarine had risen to the surface a few minutes before. The submarine would probably have got the Ulster "and the "Leinster" by right and left torpedo with the result that 1,500 souls would have perished instead of 500. As it was there was no destroyer near the submarine which had a clear way. She maœeuvred into position to launch another torpedo, and this she did, and the "Leinster" sunk, and 770 souls, or as many of them as still survived, were struggling, in an angry sea. There they remained for an hour and a half. A destroyer came to the rescue, and fortunately 200 of them were saved.
At the time this happened questions were asked both in this House and another place, and a demand was made for an inquiry. Dr. Macnamara, who replied on behalf of the Government, stated on

497
October 15 that the Admiralty were entirely responsible for the safety of cross-Channel boats carrying a large number of passengers. He also stated that were it not that an Inquiry would involve the time and attention of those fully occupied with the work of protecting the Mercantile Marine, the Board of Admiralty would wish nothing better than that the carrying out of this duty should be investigated in the most minute manner. Subsequently on the 24th he again stated that the Admiralty would court a public inquiry, but that the proposal could not possibly be acceded to as the information laid before such an inquiry would be of the greatest possible value to the enemy. None of the reasons which then operated against the granting of an Inquiry have any effect now and there is no reason why it should not be granted. I have therefore to ask His Majesty's Government if, under the altered circumstances, they will agree to one being held.
I think that I have shown that the precautions which were taken by the Admiralty to safeguard the passengers between the two countries were in no degree adequate. When I asked a Question with reference to an inquiry last November I also asked my noble friend Lord Somerleyton what arrangements would be made as to the granting of pensions. He replied as follows—
"With regard to the second question, I am glad to be able to answer it entirely in the affirmative. The widows and children and other dependants of the officers and members of the crew of the "Leinster" who lost their lives when the vessel was torpedoed will, as a matter of course, be granted pensions and allowances in accordance with the War Risk Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine."
I was perfectly satisfied with that assurance. I thought that all that could be done for these poor widows and children would be done, and I was very much astonished to hear that in two instances pensions had been refused. Those were the cases of a superintending engineer of the company who was drowned (Mr. Ferber) and of Mr. Lewis, the shore steward.
It was stated that no compensation could be given to the widows of these men. I communicated with the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Walter Long, who was kind enough to see me on two occasions with reference to the matter. I was accompanied by Mr. Watson, the chairman of the company, and also by Dr. Macnamara, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty,
498
and Mr. Leak, representative of the Board of Trade, were present. On the second occasion there was also present Sir Norman Hill, Chairman of the War Risks Association. I was informed that it was impossible that pensions could be granted to the wives of these two men because they were not on the books of the "Leinster." What was the position of these two men? They occupied a similar position to that of staff officer whose duties are to see that the engines of the various ships of the Fleet are kept in proper order. Similarly Mr. Lewis was obliged to cross first by one ship and then in another for the purpose of supervising the catering and the linen and the various arrangements on board. It seems to me that it would have been as reasonable at the time of the Battle of the Bight, when Admiral Beatty was obliged to leave the "Lion" when she was hit and to go on a destroyer, to say that, if unfortunately that gallant. Admiral had then been killed, his widow would not have been eligible for a pension because he was not on the books of the ship to which he transferred himself.
I really can hardly believe that the Government, or the noble Earl who replies for the Government, can defend the position which has been taken up by the Board of Trade in this matter. I am told that they have already broken through the rule in one instance, where a pension was granted to the widow of an officer of a Cunard vessel. But, at any rate, I understood, in the conversation which I had, that if it was found undesirable on the ground of creating a precedent to break through this rule, a compassionate allowance would be granted in the case of the widows of these two men. The Board of Trade now say they have no money with which to do it—and this at a time when thousands of pounds are being squandered daily on unemployment allowances. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell me that this question has been reconsidered and that the widows of those two men who died, killed by the Germans in the execution of their duty, will not be refused a pension on a mere technical ground.
The third question to which I wish to refer is the attitude taken up by the Government in replacing the ships of the Company which have been lost since the beginning of the var. In 1915 the "Connaught" was taken possession of by the Government,

499
and in 1917 this ship was sunk in the Mediterranean. The undertaking which was given when the "Connaught" was commandeered was this: His Majesty's Government undertook in the event of her loss to pay whatever sum was necessary to replace her by a vessel suitable in all respects to carry out the postal contract, and also to be responsible for any adverse effect which the requisition might have on the mail contract. After the vessel was lost a further undertaking was given. As it was not possible, owing to the exigencies of war, to allow the construction of the vessel to commence (and I would ask special attention to this) His Majesty's Government agreed that priority would be given for her construction over that given for any other vessel privately owned or owned by a railway company designed for a service similar to that of the mail steamers; and they also agreed that the Company should not be prejudiced in respect of the Post Office contract service.
How has that undertaking been carried out? Instead of the "Connaught" there has been provided a ship called "The Duke of Connaught," which takes about five hours to cross the Channel, with the result that travellers almost invariably miss the connection with Dublin by the night mails to the South and West. And, as far as giving priority to the rebuilding of a new "Connaught" is concerned, not only has that not been done but I am informed (and I will ask the noble Earl to inform me whether I am correct in the information I have received) that a priority has been given to the London and North Western Railway Company for five vessels, and that one of these vessels, the "Curraghmore," is already finished, and four more vessels will very soon be ready for service. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to explain how the Government justify this breach of their undertaking.
Then there is the wider question of the communications between England and Ireland, and that is chiefly in reference to the arrangements made with the Post Office, by which the mail steamers leave Kingstown at a very much earlier hour than they previously did. I believe the Post Office justify this on two grounds. In the first place, the trains now take twenty minutes longer from Dublin to Kingstown than they formerly did, and this is not a very good justification, as under the new arrangement the trains
500
reach London at 5.30 instead of 6.10; and in the second place they are desirous of delivering the Irish mails by the first post in the morning. I never get my Irish letters till 11.30. I have made inquiry of Irish people living in different parts of London and I am told that this is the case with them also; their letters are not delivered until half-past eleven. This causes the gravest inconvenience in several ways. In the first place, any one living in Ireland beyond Dublin (I take my own instance) takes two hours longer to reach London than formerly, and in a long journey of sixteen hours this makes a considerable difference.
But this is of comparatively small importance compared with the other point, which is that under the old arrangement the mails were delivered over nearly the whole of Ireland in time for a reply to be made next clay. Now the mails are not delivered till the train for England has departed, and thus there is a difference of twenty-four hours in the reply reaching London. This must cause the greatest inconvenience to people engaged in business and correspondence between the two countries. I have made inquiries both from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and from the London & North Western Railway Company, and they both assure me that they are perfectly ready to resume the old times of sailing and starting from Holyhead if the Post Office would only agree. I hope the noble Earl will tell me that the Post Office are willing to make some arrangement to this effect.
I have tried to put the facts before your Lordships as to the neglect of the Admiralty in safeguarding the ships, as to the shabbiness of the Government in granting pensions to the widows of those who have been killed, as to the construction of new steamers, and as to postal arrangements. Had I taken longer I might have been able to make even a stronger case, but I venture to think that the facts I have put before you are such as to deserve consideration from His Majesty's Government. I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.
Moved, That an Inquiry be held into the circumstances attending the sinking of the R.M.S.S. "Leinster."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the

501
noble Lord in putting his Question has travelled over a great deal of ground and dealt with matters which affect various 'Government Departments, but as his main criticism is directed towards the policy of the Admiralty, and the precautions, or lack of precautions, for which they were responsible, which led to the loss of the "Leinster," I think it will be convenient for me to answer the Question; and as the noble Lord has warned me in advance of some of the points he intended to raise, I shall be able to give him the answers with which I have been supplied from the other Government Departments concerned. The noble Lord has moved for an Inquiry to examine into the whole case—
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Into the sinking of the "Leinster" only.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I quite under-.stand. This Motion I am unable to accept, not because there is any information which it is necessary to withhold now that the war is over, but because I think there is no information which cannot be given without the necessity of instituting an Inquiry which would single out this particular loss from many others which unfortunately occurred during the war. I hope to be able to-day to give my noble friend much fuller information than has hitherto been possible, and I trust that he may feel, when he has heard what I have to say about this subject, that it will not be necessary to press his Motion for the establishment of an inquiry.
Before I go into that Question, however, perhaps I had better clear on one side the points which the noble Lord has raised affecting other Government Departments. First of all, there is the question of the widows of two officers belonging to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, Mrs. Ferber and Mrs. Lewis. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that these two officers were on board the "Leinster" in a capacity which makes it impossible to bring their dependants under any existing Government schemes for pensions or compensation. As the noble Lord probably knows, there are two schemes. First, the War Risks Association which is a fund administered and contributed to by the State and the shipping companies for the payment of compensation to the dependants of all the officers and crews who are borne on the ship's books. Second,
502
there is the Injuries in War Compensation Scheme, which is designed to cover the servants of any Government Department who may have lost their lives while travelling on duty. Neither of these two officers can come under either of these two schemes. They were servants of the company travelling on the company's business,
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a particularly hard case—all exceptional cases are. I personally should be extremely glad if some means could be found for paying compensation to their dependants. I am informed by the Board of Trade that great I trouble has been taken to ascertain whether any exceptional measures could be taken in order to provide compensation in these two cases, but up to the present moment without any success. I have not been acquainted with the matter before, and if the noble Lord will accept my assurance—he will understand that I cannot give him any promise—I will make it my business personally to inquire further into these two cases to see whether it is possible, since they cannot be brought under any existing funds, for some exceptional measures to be taken to meet these two cases.
The next point which the noble Lord raised had reference to the replacement of the "Connaught." It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the City of Dublin Steam Packet. Company was given an assurance by the Shipping Controller—he will understand that this is not a matter which concerns the Admiralty—on June 9, 1917, as follows—
"When it can be put in hand the construction of the vessel to replace the 'Connaught' will be given priority over any cross-Channel boat of similar speed, etc., built for private, i.e., non-Government, use on the England-Ireland service."
I am informed that the Shipping Controller considers that this promise has been adhered to, and the company's solicitors were informed on May 5 of this year that the promise had not been broken either in form or in substance. My noble friend, therefore, has been, I think, misinformed as to priority being given to the London & North Western Railway Company. I am informed that the London & North Western Railway had in April of this year no boats on the stocks or building other than it had when this undertaking was given to the City of Dublin Company. If, therefore, they have ships building at the present time they must be ships begun before this undertaking was given to the City of

503
Dublin people. It must be added that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company could have given orders for proceeding with the building of their new boat, if they had chosen to do so, after January 7, 1919, this being the date when private shipping companies were informed that they could once more proceed with shipbuilding.
One point raised by the noble Lord concerns the Post Office, and has reference to the existing service between Kingstown and Holyhead. It is true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that whereas this service left Dublin at 8.10 in the evening in 1918 it now leaves at 7.5; and whereas it arrived at Euston at 6, it now arrives at 5.30 I am informed that the reason for this change is in order to ensure that the service will connect with the first delivery in central London; but during the months of May and June the train was on an average twenty-two minutes late and on six occasions failed to connect with the first delivery. It is clear that if the train were re-timed to arrive at 6 o'clock in the morning—which is what I understand the noble Lord to desire—the connection would rarely be made unless there were greater punctuality (which there is no reason to expect); and it is felt that there is greater advantage to the community in starting the service earlier from Dublin so as to connect with the first post in central London, than by delaying its arrival for half-an-hour and thereby missing the first delivery.
I come now to the main point of the noble Lord's case—namely, the criticism he has raised against the Admiralty for the steps they have taken in the protection of the steamers on the mail route between Dublin and Holyhead. I fully accept, of course, on behalf of the Admiralty all responsibility for whatever measures were taken for the protection of shipping on this route as on all others. Needless to say, I accept no responsibility whatever for the loss of any particular ship. In spite of all the precautions which the Admiralty have taken ships unfortunately have been lost. What I accept responsibility for are the steps taken to ensure the least possible risk at the time. I think I ought to explain that in dealing with the submarine activities of the enemy our policy naturally fell into two parts—an offensive part and a defensive part. The public generally are apt to forget altogether the offensive measures
504
which were taken for the protection of shipping. It is generally imagined that the only measures of protection were of a defensive kind, and if they were not such as to satisfy the public at any moment it was thought that the Admiralty were neglecting their duty. I have no hesitation in saving that if it were not for the offensive measures taken concurrently we should not have come through as successfully as we have done. Our offensive policy consisted in attempting to harass, and if possible to destroy, any submarine either on its operating grounds or on its course to and from them. For this purpose large numbers of small vessels, comprising "P" boats (a special type of anti-submarine vessel produced during the war), older destroyers, sloops, submarines, trawlers, drifters, yachts, and motor launches, were employed and in the later stages of the war United States submarine chasers were brought over in large numbers. All these vessels were equipped with the latest devices for detecting the presence of submarines, and for destroying them when brought within the necessary range. Those measures were being taken continuously in the Irish Sea as in all the other waters round our coasts, and to those measures is due to a large extent the immunity which I will endeavour to show in a few moments by giving the figures of the actual losses which have taken place.
The second branch of our policy, the defensive side, consisted in the convoy system of protecting our over-seas trade. This system necessitated the employment, as escorts for the convoys, of all the faster and more modern destroyers which could be spared from the essential forces operating with the Grand Fleet, and rendered it quite out of the question to spare any vessels of this type for regular escort of individual vessels on cross-Channel routes. Even so, although they were reinforced by a flotilla of United States destroyers, we had not at any time a sufficient number of these destroyers to contend with the heavy and arduous work thrown on them in the Atlantic. I would beg your Lordships to remember that at this time a fresh strain was put upon us by having to provide escorts for the protection of the large number of troops coming across from the United States; and the escort of cross-channel traffic was carried out across the English Channel only in the case of troop and ambulance transports. Then also, in what I call the defensive branch of our

505
operations, for the purpose of evading enemy submarines instructions were issued by the Admiralty to the masters of all British vessels with regard to zig-zagging, use of high speed, keeping a good look-out, use of armament, smoke screens, and so on, all of which our experience during the war proved to be of value.
As to the application of these methods to the case of the "Leinster." At the time this vessel was torpedoed the following craft were stationed on the Holyhead-Dublin route, in addition to a large force of trawlers and drifters employed further north working from Lame in pursuance of the first part of the policy to which I referred—namely, hunting and harassing the submarine—at Holyhead, under the command of the captain of H.M.S. "Patrol," a most capable officer, there were ten older destroyers, one "P" boat, six U.S. chasers, eighteen motor launches, two rescue tugs; and at Kingstown, under the command of Commodore Kingstown, there were twenty-seven trawlers and drifters, one yacht, four motor launches.
At the time of the accident these forces were employed as follows. Of the Holyhead boats five destroyers were at sea working in positions which had been ordered; five destroyers were in harbour refitting, coaling and resting; the one "P" boat to which I have referred was at sea off the Skerries, three U.S. chasers were at sea working south from the Isle of Man and three U.S. chasers were in Carnarvon Bay; the motor launches were sheltering owing to the weather. Two rescue tugs at Holyhead raised steam and were sent out, bid they had to return on account of the heavy weather. Of the vessels which I have mentioned at Kingstown thirteen trawlers and drifters were at sea on the Northern and Southern patrols and in the Bay of Dublin, fourteen trawlers and drifters were preparing to relieve some of these or were refitting or resting or out, of action owing to influenza, one yacht was in the harbour, having just returned from sea and four motor launches were in harbour owing to the weather.
I know that these facts are not interesting given as I am obliged to give them, but I merely mention them in order to give all the information at my disposal with regard to the forces which were available at Kingstown and Holyhead and where each one of these ships actually was on this
506
day. This statement is given so that it may be clear what the vessels on this route were doing at the time of the accident. As soon as the "S.O.S." was received with the information that the "Leinster" was torpedoed, all vessels at sea which could be communicated with closed to the scene to save life and to hunt the submarine. All vessels in harbour that could raise steam were also sent to the spot for the same purpose. There are two points which I want to emphasise in connection with the facts which I have given. The first is that of the various means at our disposal, none were of themselves infallible, and the second is that the cumulative effect of all these operations, offensive and defensive combined, was the means which prevented the designs of our enemies from being fulfilled. In the public mind it was generally assumed that if a vessel was escorted it was safe and that if a vessel was not escorted no adequate protection had been provided for it; and it is against these two erroneous views that I want to say one word. As was proved in the case of the "Justicia," which was torpedoed in the midst of her escorts, because a ship was escorted it was not necessarily safe, and that method was not, in itself, infallible.
Again, I want to show, by quoting to your Lordships certain figures, what was the combined effect of all those measures that were being taken. The following figures for the first nine months of 1918 clearly show the comparative safety of the Irish Sea traffic compared with that in other areas, and it may fairly be considered conclusive that the protection in the Irish Sea accorded by the Admiralty was on a scale commensurate with the submarine danger and the total forces available. During this period—the first nine months of 1918–4,456 steamers of over 500 tons gross or an aggregate tonnage of 5,499,000 tons crossed the Irish Sea. Of that 4,456 steamers three of over 500 tons were lost, and of the aggregate tonnage of five and a half millions the aggregate tonnage of these ships was 3,672 tons, bringing the percentage of loss to sailings, expressed both in numbers and tonnage, to ·067. During the same period the losses of the United Kingdom overseas trade represented 1·37 per cent., and the losses on all United Kingdom trades, including Irish, coastwise and cross-Channel traffic, were ·49 per cent.

507
I quote these figures because I think they show two things. First of all, that the consequence of the various measures, both offensive and defensive, which were taken by the Admiralty for the protection of shipping in these dangerous times, was to produce amongst all ships a very low rate of loss having regard to the danger; and, secondly, that the Irish Sea received quite as much protection as any other part of the huge area which we had to guard with the forces at our disposal. I want to assure my noble friend—I hesitate to pursue the matter any further at this stage or to give any further details—that if there is any information which has not been produced in answer to questions in Parliament on other occasions or which I have failed to give to-day, I shall be delighted to obtain it for him. Any information which will bear upon the steps which the Admiralty has taken in regard to this or any other loss which has occurred during the war we have always been willing to give, and we are now able to give, seeing that it can no longer have any benefit for the enemy.
When the noble Lord asks for an inquiry, I must point out that if an Inquiry were granted into the loss of this particular ship there would be no reason for not granting at the same time an Inquiry into the loss of any other ships which, under circumstances either similar or different, may have been lost during the war. If it were not possible to obtain sufficient information without setting up an Inquiry of that kind I should have nothing to say. I do believe, however, that having regard to the fact that considerable time has now elapsed since the loss took place and the difficulty—perhaps, in seine cases, the impossibility—of obtaining the necessary evidence from witnesses who alone could give it, no really useful purpose would be served by setting up an Inquiry into the loss of this particular ship. Any information which is desired for the public in order that they may judge how far the criticisms which have been raised against the Admiralty are justified or not we are willing to produce in any form in which it may be asked for, but, for the reason I have mentioned, we are unable to agree to the Motion and I hope my noble friend will feel, after the information I have given him and the assurances with which it was accompanied, that it is not necessary to press his Motion on this occasion.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I hope that in the few remarks I want to make on this subject my noble friend Lord Lytton will not think (and I am sure Lord Oranmore and Browne does not think) that there is any question in our mind that throughout this war, both In the Irish sea and elsewhere, anything has been left undone by the Admiralty. Nothing in gallantry has been omitted by the Navy to protect our vessels across the Atlantic or the Irish Sea or the English Channel. To suggest anything to the contrary was very far from my noble friend's mind, and it certainly is not in my mind.
Lord Lytton has the disadvantage of answering not only for one Department with the action of which he is familiar, but also for two Departments from which he has had to derive information, and I think such strictures, if they may be so described, as were made by my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne, and such suggestions as to what ought or ought not to have been done in the case of the Royal Mail steamers between Kingstown and Holyhead, arises from the peculiar position in which those ships were and the combination of circumstances which exposed them necessarily, and also large numbers of people, to very special dangers. I would rather deal with that particular point a little later. I only want at the outset to try and remove from my noble friend's mind the idea that there was any question of attacking the Admiralty, certainly not the Navy, in this matter. It would be far from anything that I should purpose to do
The first question, which relates to the Board of Trade, was as to grants to the dependants of two men which have not been granted on the ground that they were not borne on the books of the "Leinster" at the time. In fact, these men were travel ling on the "Leinster" equally with the officers and crew for the purpose of the passage and for the purposes of the company, and the noble Earl really agrees that in equity their case is as hard as that of the dependants of men who were lost in the "Leinster" and who were on the ship's books. I understand that he will do his best to devise seine method by which the technicalities of the question can be overcome. I cannot help thinking that there must be some way round, and if there is I certainly think it ought to be found and followed. I am, of course, not familiar,

509
on the second point, with the details of the arrangements as to the priority to be given to the "Connaught." She was lost in March, 1917, and I understand that up to the present date nothing at all has been done with a view to her replacement. I am informed that the company think they have been very hardly treated, that the proper facilities have not been given them, and I was disappointed when listening to the noble Earl to hear him say that the company had refused something, or they might have done something, in January 1919.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I said they might have replaced their vessel in January of this year.
THE EARL OF DESART: Was a slip placed at their disposal then?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: So I understand.
THE EARL OF DESART: That is certainly not the information which my noble friend has, or which I have. I understand that they have had no opportunity of replacing the vessel. I want to call attention to what the position really is on that point. The condition of the whole service is very serious indeed. The whole of the south and west of Ireland was served before the war by a Mail Service of two daily passages, by two North-Western lady passages, fast steamers on the Fishguard and Rosslare route, and a bi-weekly service from Cork to Fishguard. At the present moment, owing to the losses of the "Connaught" and "Leinster," the City of Dublin mail steamers are only two in number, and they are expected to perform a day and night service, and if anything goes wrong there is none at all, except such steamers as they can charter for the time. It is quite impossible that the mail service can be reliable. There is also a night boat-by' the North Wall route, and a passenger service from Fishguard to Rosslare which is not popular with passengers.
It is absolutely necessary that some relief should be given to Irishmen and Englishmen who are still travelling under, I think, unnecessarily uncomfortable conditions. No complaint was made during the war; they put up with it. But I should like to have an assurance that it is in the mind of the Government to give
510
such facilities as they can for a reasonable service to Ireland. On this point may I ask whether there is any probability of the three turbine steamers of the Great Western Railway, which were requisitioned being shortly released; any chance of that route being utilised again. It would afford considerable relief, serving as it does a great part of the South of Ireland more conveniently than the Dublin route.
With regard to the change in the times of the service and the communications to which the noble Earl referred, I, of course, do not know the details as well as he does, but I know that they do cause considerable inconvenience, and as far as I can make out, the main object, the only object, was that in London letters should be delivered by the first post. I have been in London some time, and on not one single occasion have I got letters before 12 or 12.30 in the-afternoon. That is the experience of all my friends.
As to the protection of these boats, I want rather to press this matter. They were in a very peculiar position. Under the War Office, though not requisitioned in a technical sense, five-sixths of them were requisitioned every right. Under the Post Office they had to sail, and their officers had no discretion as to whether it was safe to do so or not. They followed the same route, perfectly well-known route, known to the Germans as well as to ourselves, and I think it was a case in which particular protection deserved a little exceptional consideration. I crossed a good many times whilst. I was a member of the Irish Convention, and I do not suppose there was ever less than 600 or 700 people on board. A few of those were civilians; the large majority soldiers. There was no room to move, and though I quite recognise that a ship travelling from 21 to 22 knots is not as likely to be torpedoed as a smaller and slower ship, I was very conscious every time I crossed that if anything did happen, by collision or torpedo, there was hardly a "dog's chance" for anybody on board. That was proved when the "Leinster" was lost. Whether that might have been met by an escort, whether some different form of patrolling the route might have done something, I do not presume to say. No doubt the matter was considered, but it cannot be repudiated that an escort would have been of use. In this particular case an escort had been used. It was always used when the Lord Lieutenant crossed.

511
It was used in the Stranraer and Larne route, and on the routes of the English Channel boats. I cannot believe it could be quite as useless as is suggested. I recognise the difficulty of escorting when smaller and slower destroyers were the only ones available.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not say it was useless—it was not infallible.
THE EARL OF DESART: It was useful; and it is quite true that the smaller destroyers in heavy weather cannot keep up with a vessel going 22 knots, not because they have not sufficient speed, but because they are liable to "bury" themselves. I know I shall be answered that in very rough weather there is rather less chance of being successfully torpedoed than in fine weather; and possibly in fine weather there might have been some system of escort, which I think the noble Earl was right in saying would not be infallible, but which would have been of use psychologically—I think the presence of an escort must be of use psychologically—and also of use in picking up people. Of course, I accept entirely what the noble Earl has said, but I was informed by a man who was in the water for nearly two hours that as far as he could make out the first destroyer did not come on the scene until nearly an hour after the "Leinster" sank. That is rather a long period, and of course on such a cold day it was a very serious thing that there should have been delay. Whether there should be an Inquiry or not I have some hesitation in expressing an opinion, but I think there would be this advantage in an Inquiry, that it is very much demanded in Ireland, and the holding of it would give great satisfaction to public opinion.
The statistics given by the noble Earl this afternoon may no doubt be convincing to some people but they will not be read in Ireland, and there is no doubt of the salient facts that the ship sailed and was obliged to sail knowing there was danger—there was a submarine known to be there—and that there was apparently a considerable amount of delay before the hope of safety arrived for those in the water. Those three circumstances do raise a very strong feeling in Ireland that the reason for them ought to be known. It is quite true, as the noble Earl has said, that it is a considerable time since the loss, but the reason given at the time was that the facts could not be made known without giving
512
information to the enemy. That therefore disposes of the "considerable lapse of time" argument. I do not know that very much would be found out, but there is, as I have said, a very strong feeling in Ireland that an Inquiry is required, and it is a natural feeling, and I hope that the Government may see their way to grant it.
Before I sit down I want to ask three questions which are apart altogether from the Inquiry. Firstly, we have an assurance about pensions. I want to know whether facilities will be given as far as possible for the replacing of the "Connaught" and of the "Leinster." On that I must say one word. The position of the "Leinster" appears to b this. She was insured—not for War Risks—but could not possibly be eplaced by the insurance money in consequence of the large increase in the cost of labour and materials, and it is very difficult for the directors to embark upon replacing her unless they have some assurance with regard to the continuance of the mail contract. I understand that that contract can be terminated by six months' notice, and therefore the directors do not see their way to run the risk of building a boat of that enormous value if there is a chance of losing the mail contract. I therefore want to know whether that will be considered—of course I do not ask for an answer to-night—whether they could be given security for some longer term.
I want also to ask whether the practice of commandeering a large portion of the ship for soldiers will be continued. If necessary it must be so, but it is important to know that because it affects this company very much. I also ask whether there is any prospect of the Fishguard and Rosslare steamers being released, and thus another route made available. The present conditions for travelling are very hard for some people. During the war people were constantly being left at Holyhead or Kingstown for sometimes one and sometimes two days, and the discomfort was very great. I do not know that I can press the case further, but I think the City of Dublin Packet Company has served Ireland and England very well for a great many years. They were the pioneers of good boats and good travelling, and they have a great claim on both communities which I hope will be considered as favourably as possible.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will communicate with the authorities concerned

513
upon the points which have been raised, and let the noble Earl have an answer to them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Could not the noble Earl go one step further? Two or three points have been made quite clear, and that is that the Admiralty did all that t hey could in those seas in protecting all classes of vessels, and I think the noble Earl might have said that no Commander-in-Chief could have done more than was done, and that the services of the Admiral in question were of the utmost value to the country. They were successful in protecting a large number of vessels, but from the time the American troops began to come over it was impossible to afford more destroyers in the Irish sea. On the other hand, it is clear that the mail had to sail under the postal contract: that instead of, as Mr. Balfour suggested, serving no military purpose, she was carrying a large number of military ratings. I myself crossed over at that time repeatedly, and I know that she was crammed with troops. In those circumstances I do not know what my noble friend feels, but I would not press for an. Inquiry so far as it affects private individuals. I feel that private individuals crossed kit risk of their lives, but if they were obliged to cross they were bound to run that risk and you could not expect the Government at all times to protect the mail.
If, however, they could not protect the mail and the ship had to go, I think the question of compensation ought to be treated more generously. Would it not be possible to admit that the pensions, which have not as I understand been given on the full scale that Las been given to combatants, should be treated as the pensions of combatants? Secondly, those travelling on duty, which includes officials of the company forced to cross in connection with the mails, should be admitted to pension; and thirdly, that some consideration should be shown to the company, which was forced to run this risk in the greatest possible dangers during the whole of that period. If the noble Earl would give us an assurance that those three points will be reviewed, which I do not think would be unduly onerous on the Admiralty, then I hope my noble friend would accept that instead of an Inquiry.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Viscount will understand that I cannot
514
give him any pledge on behalf of a Department with which I am not connected, but I have no doubt whatever that the Ministry of Pensions has given a great deal of consideration to the questions that have been raised, so far as they concern pensions under the Ministry of Pensions and I know that the Board of Trade have given special considerations to the two cases which I have dealt with. The only thing I can do—and this I will do—is personally to take up with the various Departments the cases to which he has referred, and see whether anything can possibly be done which has not yet been done. Beyond that I cannot give any undertaking. I cannot say that pensions will be reconsidered, or that those who have not received them will receive them but I will undertake personally to investigate the cases with the Departments concerned
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords. I thank my noble friend very much for the very full information that he has given me, and also for his offer to give me further information if I desire it. With regard to the question of the pensions to the widows of the two men to whom they have not been given, their case has been so well and so strongly put by my two noble friends that it is hardly necessary for me to say anything more on this subject. I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to the fact that an exception has been made in the case of an officer of the Cunard Company. Legally I believe he did not come under the War Risks' Scheme, and yet a pension was obtained in respect of him. I would also point out that if it is thought undesirable to create a precedent by giving pensions to these two ladies under that scheme, that compassionate allowance should be granted. I feel certain that the noble Earl is willing to give the matter his full attention, and with the sympathy that I know he has for the case I feel confident that a pension will be granted.
With regard to the question of the mail steamers, I would again point out the inconvenience that is caused by the delay of an additional twenty-four hours in obtaining a reply in London to a letter sent from here to any part of Ireland. It seems to me that this more than counterbalances any advantage which might be gained by delivery in London by the first post. In spite of the assurance of the Post Office, I can testify from my own knowledge that letters are never delivered till

515
half-past eleven or half-past twelve. After the very full particulars which the noble Earl has given with regard to the precautions and safeguards which were taken by by the Admiralty in the matter of mail steamers—although I might criticise them in some respects, and I am of opinion that they might have been improved in certain particulars—I do not think that it would be fair for me to press for an inquiry. I therefore ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE AFGHAN ATTACK ON INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) When the communications that have passed between the Viceroy of India and the Amir of Afghanistan, of which indications have apparently been given to the Press, will be published in full. (2) Whether it is a fact that Simla has been declared a "war area" as regards the operations against the Afghan attack on the North-West Frontier.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, in reply to the first Question asked by my noble friend I can only repeat the promise of the Secretary of State for India in answer to a Question addressed to him in another place on June 30, that he proposed to lay full Papers before Parliament but was unable to name a date, inasmuch as no reply had then been received from the Amir to the latest communication from the Viceroy. That reply has since been received, on July 3, but has necessitated further correspondence, and I can only repeat the promise that as soon as possible full Papers shall be laid before Parliament. I may mention also that they are in course of preparation. With regard to the second Question there is no official information whatsoever in the India Office as to Simla having been declared a "war area" as regards the operations on the North-West frontier, but inquiries are being made.
LORD SYDENHAM: As regards the first Question, can the noble Lord give any idea when it is hoped that an Armistice will be finally arranged? As I understand it, the situation at the present time is really most unsatisfactory. I believe our men are held back but are liable to be
516
fired at at any time, and the Afghans say they have nothing to do with it, and that it is all done by frontier troops. I hope, therefore, that this state of things will be brought to an end as speedily as possible.
LORD SINHA: I can only state, in reply to the supplementary Question, that the authorities are fully alive to the unsatisfactory situation, but in the interests of the public I do not think it would be advisable for me to make any further statement.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of Forestry Commission.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint seven commissioners, to be styled the Forestry Commissioners, of whom one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be chairman.
(2) There shall be paid to not more than three of the Forestry Commissioners, in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners," such salaries in each year (not exceeding in the aggregate four thousand five hundred pounds) as the Treasury may direct.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section the term of office of a paid Commissioner shall be ten years, and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be five years.
(4) On a casual vacancy occurring owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the date on which the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have ceased to hold office.
(5) A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to delete "three" and to substitute "one." The noble Lord said: If the House were to accept my Amendment the effect would be that instead of having three paid Commissioners there would be only one, and presumably he would be the Chairman of the Commissioners. Provision is taken for a Chairman to be

517
appointed by His Majesty in this first clause, and I do not think during the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading that any statement was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the reasons why three out of the Commissioners to be appointed should be paid. It might be argued that you should pay three if these three Commissioners were to represent England, Scotland, and. Ireland, but apparently that is not the ease, because provision is taken later in the Bill, on Clause 5, to appoint three sub-Commissioners for England, Scotland, and Ireland with very large powers indeed, and upon whom would devolve the work in the respective countries of supervision. No doubt these gentlemen would be men of standing receiving large salaries. It is rather curious to remark that in Clause 5 it is only said that the salaries of the Sub-Commissioners are to be what the Treasury think fit. Those are not the exact words but I think that is what they come to.
As regards the three Commissioners who are to be paid, they are to receive between them £4,500 a year, or rather not exceeding £4,500. I suppose in practice the first three Commissioners would receive that £4,500. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would indicate how he proposes to allot that sum. I suppose there will be £2,500 for the Chairman, leaving for the other two £1,000 a year each. Of course the Chairman would have most of the work to do, and the other two Commissioners would have less re-responsibility and therefore less pay. But a sum even of £2,500 is not a very large sum to pay in these days, and when you come to only £1,000 a year for the other Commissioners the question arises whether it is really necessary to pay them. That £1,000 is only equivalent to £500 before the war, or even less. Do the Government really think that they will get men well-equipped for this work for a payment of that sort? Therefore it seems to me a question whether it is worth while having these two paid Commissioners.
I venture to suggest that in these days when every one is talking about economy, though one regrets that very few people are practising it, the Government should not suggest, for no useful purpose, that there should be these paid Commissioners in addition to a paid Chairman. There might be some reason for it as I have said if the three gentlemen to be paid were to
518
represent the three parts of the United Kingdom, but for practical purposes it seems to me that they will not do so. Under Clause 5 there will be three gentlemen who will have control of the three parts of the United Kingdom. I notice also that there are going to be set up Consultative Committees. That again will further increase the expenses by a large sum. These committees are to consist of five classes, and I see there is to be a representative of labour upon them and of the county councils. In these days representatives of labour, as the noble Earl knows, always claim that they should be paid for their time as well as their travelling expenses. Naturally we shall also have members of the county councils claiming some kind of remuneration. I notice that members of the county councils through their associations are desiring to have their expenses paid even for journeys in their own county. Where you have three bodies for all the United Kingdom the members would have to travel long distances and a large sum, it seems to me, would have to be distributed in expenses of one kind or another. Therefore I hope the Government may be inclined to cut out these two Commissioners. It does not seem to me that there is any real necessity for making any payment to any of these Commissioners, except perhaps the Chairman.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall give my support to any Amendment which I think can effect reasonable economy, and I assure the noble Lord, from my consultation with those concerned in the promotion of this Bill, that their desire is to carry out the duties imposed upon them in the most frugal and thrifty manner. But I do not think that this Amendment is one which I could accept. The Bill proposes three paid Commissioners. The Chairman will have to give the whole of his time to his office. It is proposed also—of course what I say is provisional, but this is the general scheme—that a second Commissioner should be paid who would devote his time to the purely sylvicultural side of the work, and that the third paid Commissioner should be an expert on all questions connected with the utilisation of timber, the commercial questions that arise connected with trans

519
port, with railway rates, with standardisation, and 101 questions of that character.
I would remind your Lordships that these paid Commissioners are appointed for periods not exceeding ten years, and in order to get good and well qualified men I think your Lordships would agree that it is necessary to pay them. I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's question as to the allocation of this sum between the Commissioners. Attention will, of course, have to be given to that point, but I think that unless we pay these three men we cannot be sure of getting men of standing and experience who will devote the whole of their time to the public service. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to delete "ten" and to substitute "five." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to reduce the term of the Commissioners from ten years to five. I move it on the ground that it is the usual thing in such appointments to limit the appointment to five years, for example, appointments in the Army and the Navy. It is a very useful rule that the period should not be longer, because otherwise, supposing a man turns out not to be competent, it would be impossible to replace him by somebody else except after a lapse-of ten years. It seems to me that when you are making an experiment of this kind, especially as regards these paid Commissioners, the term might very well be reduced to what is the usual practice. Of, course, I can quite see the argument that it is desirable in some cases to give permanency of office, and there would be much more to be said for that if you were only going to give a small remuneration and to get the very best men, but the Government do not propose that.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think I have already anticipated my answer to this Amendment. It is that we want to get first-class men to occupy these positions, and unless we can give a guarantee of ten years it may be extremely difficult to get men to surrender their present position.
LORD STRACHIE: You do it in the Army and Navy.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us see if that is quite true. An Admiral is appointed for five years, let us say to the Mediterranean Command, but he knows that unless there is proved inefficiency at the end of that five years he will get another Command.
LORD STRACHIE: And the Commissioners will be continued if they have proved themselves good.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, but we have to coax these men out of private life, and, in order to do that, I am convinced that five years is insufficient. They will not come for that short period at what, as Lord Strachie has pointed out, is a very moderate salary. I think the first ten years of the history of this Bill are going to be the most critical years in the establishment of the Forestry Department, and it is most desirable that the Chairman and his two principal colleagues during that period should not be subject to more than necessary change.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is no doubt a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said, but surely in considering this Amendment there is another matter to be borne in mind. One of the great disadvantages under which every public Department labours is that it is almost impossible to get rid of inefficient men. Though you have used your best endeavour to get the best man you cannot be sure you have got him, and if by chance a mistake is made in appointing these Commissioners they are there for ten years. They may ruin the operation of this Bill. There may be all kinds of complaints made, and there will be the usual official answer given that what they have done is the very best possible thing that in any circumstances could have been done, and you are unable to move them for the whole period of their office. I should have thought the better plan was to appoint a man for five years, with the power of renewal, and let it be understood that the man's chance of renewal depended on the excellence of the work that he has done in the five years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The practice of appointment for five years as an experi

521
mental stage is very common and well recognised. It is done constantly in University appointments now, and it is done by the Treasury Committee in connection with University grants, and also by the Department of the noble Earl who leads the House, the Research Department under the Lord President of the Council. They make their appointments very often for five years. The reason is at you never know when you appoint a mall whether be is not going to turn our incompetent. If he is incompetent, you are saddled with him under this clause, as it stands, for ten years. On the other hand, if he is competent, of course, he knows he will be continued for five years afterwards.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Our object is to get the best men, and we think that the ten-year tenure will help us in that direction. Lord Buckmaster wants a five-year tenure in order that we may get rid of an incompetent man. I am very sympathetic with that, but I am more keen to get a good man at the outset than frightened of the difficulty of getting rid of a bad man after an interval. Five years is no doubt quite good for a University; it represents a very tolerable rotation for a University student. In the Forestry Department we want a very much longer period.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope that the Government will accept the five years. There are many of us who regard the starting of a new and very powerful Ministry as one of the most serious matters which the Government could possibly undertake at the present moment. Nothing except an absolutely overwhelming case makes it desirable that this body of Commissioners should be created. It will require a staff probably running us into enormous expenditure, and if we were to do that permanently it would really imperil the whole Bill. If my noble friend will move that the Bill shall be experimental for five years—the noble Earl laughs—but you plant forests, and you have not to spend your whole time over them; they might then go under the Board of Agriculture, who are quite competent to see that the forests are allowed to continue after the stimulus that has been given by the Commissioners. But to contemplate that this Forestry Commission is to be perpetual and that we are to have another Board which is not under the direct
522
control of Parliament, as I understand, is really legislating with a view to a particular crisis which has now arisen in a manner which will not commend itself to those who follow us. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will see that, if he does not accept the limitation to a period of five years for the paid Commissioner, he is imperilling the whole Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Apart from what has fallen from the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I would venture to join issue with the noble Earl on the very point which he has strongly pressed—namely, that you will not get the best man unless you can offer him a ten-years appointment. I cannot recall any instance of a ten-years appointment in any branch of the Public Service. There may be some, but. I have never heard of one. Apart from that, I do not quite comprehend what class of person the noble Earl is in search of and how he thinks a man will be better secured by a promise of a ten-years appointment than by a five-years appointment with a certainty of renewal—assuming the Commission to continue and not to be dropped as the noble Viscount desires—provided the work has been competently done.
The sort of man who is likely to take a place of this kind is' not one who is making a large fortune in business and has to be lured away on pecuniary grounds. He will be a man who is earning a somewhat moderate competency, the kind of salary or remuneration which is obtained by those of the first class engaged either in processes of agriculture or of sylviculture (so far as people are so engaged), or from the scientific or commercial side in a managing capacity in some house of business. I cannot think that it is desirable to tie ourselves for a term of ten years; because, assuming a competent man to be chosen and assuming that he does his work well, he will be practically certain to be re-appointed if the work is to continue. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will consider whether he cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I hope that the noble Earl will keep the Bill as it stands. We have had several reasons put forward why the gentleman who will be appointed a paid Commissioner should occupy his position with safety for only a short time. There may possibly be grounds for that.

523
But the Forestry authority has before it, under the Report on which this measure is founded, a period of ten years of the greatest importance in which there is laid down a certain definite sum of money to be spent, and a certain definite amount of work to be done. It will be the first duty of that Forestry authority to get the very best man with the highest scientific attainments in sylviculture to carry on the work. It is doubtful whether you could get such a man unless you gave him a fair tenure of office; and it seems to me of such great importance that the best man should be obtained that I hope we shall make no alteration in the measure.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am inclinded to support the Bill as it stands; because, whatever may be the practice with regard to military and naval appointments or with scientific and University appointments, I think you will not find many instances in a Statute of limiting an appointment to ten years or to five years. Most of these executive commissions are appointed on what might be called the usual Civil Service terms when it is a case of putting their appointments into Acts of Parliament. What I am afraid of is that, when you go and seek your distinguished man and try to lure him out of his private practice, he will look at the Act of Parliament and say that five years is not good enough. I think that those who proposed this limitation of five years ought to have accompanied their Amendment (which they have not) by words which hold forth a prospect that, though the appointment is going to give power to the Government not to renew it at the end of five years, still it should be without prejudice to some hind of consideration at the end of the five years. I confess I do not know how that could be expressed in an Act of Parliament, but I think it is incumbent on those who propose the reduction from ten years to five years to bring forward some mitigating Amendment of that kind.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I assume there would be such consideration; but to make that plain such an Amendment could easily be framed between now and Report.
LORD STRACHIE: It is already provided for in the Bill. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 says, "A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very sorry to see a sharp difference of opinion over a very trifling matter. I do not think the distinction between a ten years appointment and a five years appointment renewable is as great as His Majesty's Government are inclined to think. My impression is that if you appointed a man of distinction for five years, and you pointed out to him that he was eligible for re-election, the probability is that he will assume, and rightly assume, that if he did his work properly he would be re-appointed. Therefore all the Amendment comes to is that you should retain power in the Bill—which is necessarily experimental—to change your appointment if in the course of the first five years it appeared that the gentlemen you selected, however distinguished he was, was not quite the man for the post. I do not want to press these things unduly, but may I say very respectfully to the Government that this Bill is necessarily very experimental. It is a very drastic Bill, and rightly so. It wants, therefore, very careful watching. It might easily be that the gentleman you appoint as Chief Commissioner may turn out to be not quite first-rate at his work. Remember, you are going to choose a scientific man. I speak with the greatest respect of scientific; men; I sit at their feet in all that applies to science; but they are sometimes not very good men of business; and it might easily happen that the man you appointed—although of high scientific attainments—when he came to work a great Department which required a novel organisation (which he himself has to I create) he might turn out not to be first-rate, and then it would be a pity not to be able to make a change for ten years without a personal attack on this gentleman. It seems to me that it is the safer plan to have the appointment for five years renewable, and I would suggest to the Government that they would be wise to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers and duties of Commissioners.
3.—(1) The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom, and shall exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred or imposed on, or transferred to, them under the provisions of this Act.
(2) There shall be transferred to the Commissioners the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry, and also the powers of those Departments under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, so far as those powers relate to insects or pests destructive to forest trees and timber:
Provided that the Departments from whom the powers and duties aforesaid are transferred to the Commissioners shall, if arrangements are made for the purpose, continue to exercise and perform on behalf of the Commissioners such of the transferred powers and duties as may, from time to time, be agreed between the Commissioners and the Department concerned.
(3) The Commissioners shall have power to do any of the following things—

(a) Purchase or take on lease and hold any land suitable for afforestation or required for purposes in connection with afforestation or with the management of any woods or forests, and manage, plant, and otherwise utilize any land acquired, and erect such buildings or execute such other works thereon as they think necessary;

(b) Sell or let any land which in their opinion is not needed or has proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for that purpose, and pay or receive money for equality of exchange:

(c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and generally promote the supply, sale, utilisation, and conversion of timber:

(d) Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they think fit, to persons (including local authorities) in respect of the afforestation (including the re-planting) of land belonging to those persons:

(e) Undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of any woods or forests belonging to any persons, including woods and forests under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or under the control of any Government Department, or belonging to any local authority:

(f)Establish and carry on or aid in the establishment and carrying on of woodland industries:

(g) Undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to forestry, and promote and develop instruction and training in forestry by establishing or aiding schools or other educational institutions or in such other manner as they think fit:

526

(h) Make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information, as they may think important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry:

(i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the production of timber in His Majesty's dominions:

Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this section shall be subject to the condition that so much of any profit which may be attributable to the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners and restored to the Forestry Fund.
(4) An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act., 1909, for the purposes of forestry, unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.
(5) It shall be lawful for any of the persons under a disability referred to in section seven of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, or of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act, 1845, to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the purposes of this section in like manner in all respects as they are entitled to enter into agreements for the purposes of those sections.
(6) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to delete the whole of the proviso at the end of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I do not move this Amendment in any hostile spirit to the Bill. On the contrary, I warmly welcome the Bill. I think it has been long overdue and if it is passed this session we shall be removing a great slur on. Great Britain. When I have said that, I must own that I think this part: of the clause will have a very deterimental effect on the rest of the Bill. It is proposed by this clause that the "profit which may be attributable to the grant" shall be taken away from a private person who has undertaken planting in the interests of the State. I say "the interests of the State" because it is quite clear that to induce private owners—and by private owners I do not mean only landowners but the corporations of ourlarge towns—to do the work is more to the interests of the State than for the State to undertake the expensive work of planting itself. It is much cheaper to get somebody else to "run the racket," as I may say, than for the State to put down a large capital sum and have to do all the maintenance and planting for the whole period of the growth of the plantation.
What I want to know is how you propose to define profit. It seems to me that the only way to define profit is to calculate after you have taken 5 per cent. compound interest as an amount which is not profit. I mean to say that you cannot call any sum profit until the plantation has shown a return of 5 per cent. compound interest on all the money laid out on the plantation. I think I can put it very briefly in this way. If you put your money into Victory Bonds, without spending any trouble or time in the planting of a single tree you will get 5 per cent. compound interest. I see the noble Lord opposite smiles.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite approve.
THE EARL OF POWIS: Possibly he thinks we should spend our interest. After all, I do not see any other way in which you can fairly calculate profits, except by allowing compound interest. Then I should like to know how you propose to define what is attributable to the grant. I should say profit would be attributable to the care of the person who planted, to the choice of the site, to the choice of the soil in which you planted a particular kind of tree, and to the general way in which the plantations were tended during the period of their growth. You may say profit is attributable to these things, but I cannot see that any profit of, the plantation is due to the grant of a few pounds per acre. It would be quite different, if you were acting in a joint co-operative scheme and agreed that the State should give so much (as you do in one of the subsections) towards the planting, and the owner would give the land and the work. You could then agree in what proportion you would divide your profits, if there are any, at the end. The clause says "profit which may be attributable to the grant." If the State is going to take some of the profits I say it is not a grant at all; it is merely a loan. I looked in "Johnson's Dictionary" to see what "grant" meant, and it said "bestow," or giving a concession. If you are simply going to lend money and then take back what you consider is the profit on it, I do not see that it can be called a grant at all, and I think the words of the clause ought to be altered.
There are many people in the country who are always terrified at anything which they consider in the nature of a dole for landlords, but this is not a dole to land
528
owners. It is very doubtful, in fact, whether a landowner will be able to make any profit after you have given him this grant. It is merely a cheap method of insurance for the State because the State is obliged, in consequence of the devastated nature of our forests and the lack of growing timber, to grow some timber in the public interests. By inducing private owners to plant you take the cheapest way in which you can get the timber grown. Therefore, I say that the grant is in no way a dole to the landowner. It is an effort to persuade the landowner and the corporations of our great towns to undertake a very precarious investment in the interests of the State.
With regard to the question of profit I should like to add that I think it is extremely doubtful whether anybody who plants at the present time can anticipate any profits at all, because planting now will certainly cost double, if not more than double, what it cost before the war. Labour is very much more expensive. In addition to that, most of the private planting will have to be done on areas which have been recentlyfelled, and I think the noble Lord will agree with me that most of these areas are in a most hopeless condition. They present largely the appearance of a jungle in which you might expect to find any wild animal, let alone the little squirrel which I see is referred to later on. The clearing will cost, at least in many cases, about £5 an acre, and if you double the cost of planting before the war, it will mean about £12 an acre, to which you will have to add another £5 an acre for clearing. In some cases you will have to clear not once but two or three times, due entirely to the lack of labour during the war. The Government are some of the worst offenders. Though I have not seen some of the Government forests myself, I am told there are acres and acres of pinewood with all the loppings lying about breeding every pest that is destructive of timber. I am told that in some cases on some of the Crown lands you can see the pine weevil already devastating the growing timber.
I have said this in order to show the precarious nature of the work which you are asking private individuals to undertake, and the doubt as to whether there would be any, profit at all. If the State determines to take the profit you will at once choke off all private enterprise. It becomes simply the game which many of us have heard of, but which none of us have found

529
anyone willing to play with us, "Heads I win; tails you lose. In any case it is "Heads I win" for the State, because the State will get what it wants done in the cheapest possible manner. I ask the Government to withdraw this proviso because it will not in any way help the Bill and will rather tend to stop private enterprise. If the proviso means anything, it will undoubtedly choke oft private enterprise; and if it does not mean that the State will take all the profit, I do not see that it is worth anything at all.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("Dominions") to the end of subsection (2).—(The Earl of Powis.)
LORD CLINTON: I think that this proviso will be extremely difficult to carry out in practice. The noble Earl has laid down, generally, what we understand by profits. The trouble I have in my own mind is how any private owner is going, year by year, to set out the actual cost of the work upon these few acres on which he may receive a grant. He will have to allocate to them such portion of his rates, taxes, tithe, and expenses of management, which will be exceedingly difficult to separate from the remainder of the estate. The trouble in calculating will really be so great that, while it may be an interesting operation for a firm of chartered accountants who have not too much to do, it will put such a serious task upon the private owner that the result must be that he would have to refuse the grant. That really would be a misfortune. It is to the interest of the State that a man should take the grant. It is through him that the State will be relieved of a considerable capital outlay, and therefore for the comparatively small grant which is given on reasonable terms the State may expect to have timber grown at a less cost than it could do it itself. It is to the advantage of the State that the owner should take the grant, and certainly a disadvantage that the owner should refuse it.
I think it is possible that the method of calculation may be eased to some extent if a way could be found of laying down some general basis upon which the cost could be calculated so as to avoid the complications year after year to which I have referred. I am sure something could be done, but whether it could be made satisfactory to owners is doubtful, because you would require a varying basis to suit different
530
localities. If some form of that kind could be put forward it would take away some of my objections to this proviso. The noble Earl argued whether the proviso was worth while; profits are not likely to be great if you are going to take 5 per cent. cumulative interest. The proportion which the State would advance (suggested at £2 an acre) would be almost infinitesimal to the proportion which the owner would have to spend as his first cost of planting and annual cost of maintenance. The State would get so little out of the division at the end that it really seems hardly worth while to go in for this cumbrous form. I hope the Government will consider whether this proviso should not be at all events simplified.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think, having listened carefully to the speeches of the two noble Lords, that there is some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the proviso. I quite agree that it is extremely clumsily worded, and that in any circumstances its intention would be difficult to carry out. Both noble Lords have, I think, taken the view that whatever grant is made it is made upon certain conditions as to repayment, but it does not seem to me that, under the Bill, that is necessary at all.
The Bill provides for two things—grant and loan. A loan, of course, involves an obligation to repay, but I do not see that the grant provides any obligation to repay at all, and if you struck out this proviso it appears to me that the effect of the Bill would be this. You would leave in the hands of the Commissioner power to make advances, which so far as I can see are not limited in extent, to such person as he chose to select, and that even although those grants were the cause of much private profit being made there would be no obligation upon him to repay the very money that had produced the profit. That is, as I understand, the Bill. This proviso is introduced merely for the purpose that in cases where money has been advanced, not by way of loan but by way of grant, if a profit is produced by the use of that money the profit should, in the first instance, be applied for the purpose of repaying the money granted out of the public purse. If I am right in that interpretation, I cannot help thinking that both noble Lords would agree that it is impossible to have a scheme provided by this Bill which would enable public money to be

531
advanced at the instance of the Commissioner to private subjects, to be used for the purpose of earning profit, and then when that profit is earned the public money shall not be repaid.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I cannot help agreeing with the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me that this is a provision which will bring in nothing to the Government and may deter people who are willing to plant from planting at all. When do you expect profit will begin to be obtained from planting timber? You will not get any profit before the timber has been planted something like eighty years, and you may by that time have a new owner. Suppose a public-spirited landowner determines to plant 1,000 acres; he would not plant it all at once, but would plant in sections, so as to get continuous profits as from crops, but probably the profit at the earliest would not begin until the end of seventy or eighty years, while the bulk of the acreage would still be coming on. In the meantime the land may have been sold two or three times. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any profit at all, and yet for the sake of the hypothetical profit at the end of eighty years you are going to put in a clause which will make every landowner say that he will not be bothered about planting a single acre.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I fully recognise the doubt and difficulty which have been referred to. You may have variations of tithes, rates, and taxes, and of the yield of timber, and above all there can be and probably will be variations in the rate of interest, which may upset all kinds of calculations, and finally the profit is doubtful or more than doubtful. I acknowledge the whole of that. At the same time I will point out to your Lordships that I do not think it is of any use our putting into this Bill a clause which is going to put a definite money grant into the pocket of an individual owner. That is what it amounts to. The omission of this subsection as proposed is in effect a charge upon the taxpayer, on the assumption that any planting takes place, because it prevents the taxpayer from being recouped money which ex hypothesi the State is going I to advance to him. Therefore I think on general grounds this proviso should remain in the Bill, even if the difficulties are unanswerable.
532
I do not think the difficulties are unanswerable. There is no obligation under the clause on the private owner to accept a grant from the State, and therefore when the private landowner proposes to plant, and approaches the Forest Authority for a grant, he is granted say £2, £3, or£4 per acre whatever it may be, and there and then these parties, I take it, have got to come to an agreement as to repayment. The land may change hands two or three times in a hundred years. Contingencies take place in a forest which are not contemplated in anything else in our body politic. Nevertheless it ought to be possible to draw up a working scheme. I must demur to what was said by Lord Powis and Lord Sheffield as to the obligation to repay money to the State in respect of profit earned stopping private enterprise. I cannot see that in the least. Certainly if no agreement should be reached by a private owner and the Forest Authority no grant of public money subject to repayment will be made, but that is not going to prevent private individuals from planting their own land.
I will engage to say that the vast bulk of the land planted in this country during the last fifty, eighty, or 100 years was not planted from the point of view of profit. It was planted for other reasons—for shelter, for amenity, or a variety of other reasons, and not on the strict ground of profit. The proof of that is very clearly shown by the fact that in nine cases out of ten those of us who own woods can show no accounts to prove what we spend upon them. I therefore acknowledge the difficulties of assessing profit sixty or eighty years hence, but I nevertheless press upon your Lordships how much better it is to leave that element of doubt in the Bill than to state that private or public landowners are anxious to get money grants and that they do not mean to make any repayment in respect of profit accruing therefrom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I am left in a considerable quandary as to the exact meaning of the proviso, because the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who is very competent to take charge of it, speaks continually of a grant subject to repayment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If I did that, I was wrong. I meant profit attributable to a grant subject to repayment. I did not mean the whole thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess it looks to me more like a loan than a grant as described 'by the noble Earl. But what I should like to call attention to is this, that my noble friend says he recognises all the immense difficulties that this clause will produce. Is that a good way of legislating?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He did recognise, in the most candid way, and I thought was much to be praised for it—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said I recognised the difficulties, not that the Act is going to produce, but the difficulties of drawing up an agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where is the agreement?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is no compulsion for anybody to take a grant, or for the authority to make one; therefore it must be under an agreement if a grant is made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that it will be extremely difficult eighty years from now to have the least idea of what profit is attributable to the grant. I do not understand how the word "attributable" is to be interpreted. Supposing it was alleged that unless the landowner had received the grant he would never have gone in for the enterprise. It might have made all the difference to him, whether to enter upon the process of planting a large plantation, whether he got a grant at all. I suppose you might in that case argue that the whole profit was attributable to the grant. The word "attributable" is as vague a word as you could use, and if the noble Earl and those in charge of the Bill mean the profit to be divided in proportion to the capital invested, it should be made clear.
I do not know who is going to be called upon to interpret this proviso. Is it a Court of Law or the Commissioners? or, rather, their successors, because the present Commissioners will long have been underground at that time. I cannot think the Government are well advised to put in an Act of Parliament this proviso which they themselves in their more candid
534
moments admit it is almost impossible accurately to interpret. That only means hereafter either that it would be treated as meaning nothing in particular, or else it would produce losses. It is all right for the legal gentlemen, but for nobody else.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am quite prepared to take note of what Lord Buck-master and Lord Salisbury have pointed out, that there may be some ambiguity in the use of the word "attributable," and I will make it my business to see that the expert draftsmen examine the problem, which will be recorded in Hansard. I would repeat to your Lordships that if you cut out this portion of the clause it may be necessary to cut out the earlier subsection.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am very glad that the noble Earl has made that statement. I agree that the wording as it stands is difficulty to work out, though I have no doubt an arbitrator would work it out. The noble Earl has put his finger on the real point. This is not a Bill merely to dispose of £3,500,000 of public money. We know from the Report that within forty years it will be £15,000,000, and in the end, as I calculate, about £40,000,000, having regard to the fact that all the calculations here were made on pre-war prices. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable a body of Commissioners to make grants to persons engaged in forestry. They can make loans, but that is another thing. They can also make grants. I do not like this Bill for other reasons. I think it is quite inadequate, but the noble Earl is at least trying to save us from the reproach of having it go forth to the world that an enormous sum out of the already depleted Exchequer of this country is to be given in grants to landlords who are profiting by having their forests developed by the State.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It seems to me that this question is one involving very great difficulty. We have heard the arguments advanced from this Bench, and those presented by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I confess that I entirely agree that it would be impossible to strike out this proviso and put nothing in its place, because it would be altogether improper to allow grants of almost unlimited amount

535
to be made without any kind of check upon the volition of the Commissioners, and with no sort of provision as to the amount of the grants or what is to happen if profits are earned.
I fancy that the real difficulty in this matter arises from the condition of England in the matter of forestry as compared with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. What is called afforesting on anything like a considerable scale can hardly be carried out in any part of England, except in one or two areas quite well known, mostly on Court property where planting can be carried out on a large scale. What I take it is expected and required in England is that there should be not only to a certain extent an increase of the planted areas, but also very much more, an improvement in planting on something like a commercial scale the woods and coverts which are already in existence. Therefore you can hardly hope in England to have anything like a large forest policy. That, I take it, is the meaning of this system of loans, and even more of grants. A great many of them very likely will be concerned with quite small areas in order that there may be, even in those parts of England which cannot be called woodland, a substantial supply of timber on which the country can fall back in case of need. That being so, it may be that a system of grants is necessary.
It would have been far preferable, I think, if grants could have been avoided altogether, or if they had to be made that the whole expense should have been undertaken by the State, and all the profits, if any were earned, should also accrue to the State. This is a sort of semi-nationalisation of timber, and in practice I have no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to carry out. On the whole, after having heard the debate, I am inclined to think that, although the effect of this rather mysterious formula in the proviso will be to a certain extent discouraging, your Lordships will be wise not to try to turn it out of the Bill unless a substitute can be provided, which so far has not been suggested. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined against the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powis.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I cannot think the legal advisers of the Government can have thought over this somewhat sketchy proviso. The noble Earl in charge
536
of the Bill talks of negotiations between the Commissions and the individual. The negotiations must take one form. As I understand the proviso, the Commissioners must insist on the condition. What is the condition? It is a personal condition. The man who takes a grant must bind himself—that is the effect of the legal language—and his heirs to pay that sum back by way of profit which some sixty, seventy, or eighty years hence is ascertained. Is there anybody in his senses who would burden his heirs with such an arrangement as that? Alternatively, the noble Lord seems to think this might be a charge upon the land. The words of the section do not so provide, but if they did so provide I, as an old lawyer, and an old real property lawyer, should deprecate them vastly. The burdens upon land, the burdens that run with the land, the encumbrances upon the land which make the land uncommercial and not negotiable, are far too many already. Add another one to them and you will find the greatest difficulty in disposing of your forest. I cannot help thinking that this proviso has not been thought out, but is merely an idea thrown forward as a sketch.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: There is one thing which has become apparent, and it is this. Although it may be possible for some one to understand this proviso, there are few of your Lordships who have succeeded in putting the same interpretation upon it. I hope that my noble friend will meet the draftsmen, and that when it conies up on Report we shall have a clause which any ordinary person who will have to plant trees in the future may have some chance of understanding.
As far as I understand, it really comes to this, that it is intended to have two forms of loan, one a form of loan which there may be a possibility of repaying, the other a loan which it is thought there will be no possibility of repaying and which for some reason or other is called a grant. And a proviso is put in, apparently to satisfy the conscience of the taxpayer, which no one can possibly understand. Surely it would be much better, if it has to be repaid, to call it by its proper name. A grant is a grant, and is something which has not to be repaid. It is a very great mistake to have the proviso in this Bill, and unless it is made intelligible it would be much better to take the whole matter out of the Bill.
THE EARL OF POWIS: May I ask the noble Earl to answer my question with regard to what the Bill means by profit?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That, after what has been said by noble Lords opposite, I refuse to embark upon. I have a perfectly clear idea in my own mind of what profit is. I know, in the case of my own woods, after a term of years whether there has been a profit. Accordingly, if there had been a grant or loan at the plantation of these woods thirty or forty years ago, I should know how much of the money should be attributable to my own capital, to my own land, to my own services rendered, and proportionately how much would be attributable to the State. But I think I have made the noble Lord a reasonable proposal. It is that I should consider very carefully what has been said in view of the multifarious difficulties which have been mentioned, and if, humanly speaking, it can be made clear it shall be made clear. From the point of view of procedure it would probably he desirable for the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment, and not for the House to exclude these words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Prevention of damage by rabbits and vermin.
4.—(1) Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants are being or are likely to be damaged by rabbits or vermin owing to the failure of an occupier of land to destroy sufficiently the rabbits or vermin on the land in his occupation or otherwise taking steps for the prevention of such damage, the Commissioners may, after giving to the occupier and owner such opportunity of destroying the rabbits or vermin or taking such stops as aforesaid as in the opinion of the Commissioners is reasonable, authorise in writing any person to enter on the land and kill and take the rabbits or vermin thereon, and the Commissioners may recover from the occupier summarily, as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by them in connection with the action so taken.
(2) Any person acting under an authority given by the Commissioners under this section shall, if so required, produce his authority, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(3) The person entitled to kill rabbits or vermin on any common lands shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be the occupier of the land.
(4) For the purpose of this section the expression "vermin" includes squirrels.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "any," to insert "officer of the Commissioners." The noble Lord said: This is really an Amendment of Lord Bledisloe's, although my noble friend, who is not present, proposed to insert the word "competent." I intended to suggest to my noble friend that it was not going far enough to give the power to "any competent person," and that it would be better to entrust the power to any officer of the Commissioners. I think what my noble friend had in view is that you should not have some men turned loose into a wood who had no idea of catching vermin or rabbits without at the same time doing harm to winged game. But "competent" would admit the village poacher, I think. He would certainly be the most competent man to turn into your coverts to destroy rabbits, and I think we ought to see that the person empowered should be an officer of the Commissioner:, and not anyone taken haphazard by them simply because they thought he was the most effective man for catching rabbits and destroying vermin. It is right that only responsible people should be allowed free access to coverts, otherwise a great deal of damage would be done to pheasants which, of course, do no harm whatever to the woods.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("any") insert ("officer of the Commissioners").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely it would be a mistake to say that none except those who are officially employed by the Forestry Commission shall be entitled to destroy vermin. The Forestry Commission will not have trappers and gamekeepers all over the country. There will be occasions when there is a spinney or a copse with too many rabbits in it, and they will choose the nearest man that they could find who is competent to destroy the rabbits. To say that they must employ one of the permanent staff of the Commission is needlessly to obstruct the machinery of the clause. I think we must assume that they are not going to employ a man who is poaching for pheasants or injuring the timber. They have to employ him in writing, and under the Statute the owner of the land is entitled to make that man produce his authority for going on the ground. That should be sufficient safeguard. I think, therefore, that the Amendment ought not to be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to secure some small measure of protection for an animal which, I cannot help thinking, must many times have endeared himself to your Lordships' affections. As the Bill stands any person who has squirrels upon his land may, at any time, no matter what the character of his land may be, have some other person put upon his land to destroy these squirrels, and, when they have been destroyed, have the pleasure of paying for the cost of killing them. It is perfectly reasonable that, if the Commissioners are going to plant forests, they should have all necessary powers for the purpose of securing those forests against the unnecessary ravages of noxious animals. That I understand, and it may be that a forest of the Commissioners will be one of the most dreadful things on the face of the earth. It will have no form of life in it, and it will be girdled round with barbed wire, perhaps six feet high, in order to keep out the deer. I think I saw a picture of such a forest once; it was in an illustration of Dante's "Inferno."
That may be appropriate for a Government forest, but when you come to private land it surely is rather serious that a man should be at liberty to have animals to which he may be much attached upon his property destroyed because somebody has decided that trees or plants are liable to be damaged by rabbits or vermin. I beg your Lordships to notice the extraordinary area that the clause covers—"trees or plants": any tree, any plant liable to be damaged by rabbit or by vermin owing to the failure of the occupier to destroy; and then, vermin being deemed to include squirrels, you may send in somebody to kill squirrels. Surely that cannot be what the Government intend if it really be designed to protect forests, I would ask them why they do not send in people to kill the roe-deer and black game which are just as dangerous to forests as squirrels.
Lord Bledisloe assures me (and I accept his assurance) that the squirrel is a much maligned animal, and does not do half the mischief he is said to do. I do not know anything about that, but I know that he is a most delightful animal to watch; and I cannot look forward with satisfaction to an England which is completely destroyed of everything which makes like pleasant. I think that is coming; but for the
540
moment I should like to curb the activities of the Government Departments with regard to the destruction of squirrels, and I beg your Lordships to help me in my small Amendment that is designed to preserve an animal which I believe all will say incorporates more than any other animal the very spirit of English woodland life.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I also have put down an Amendment to leave out this subsection. On a small estate my father was a great planter of trees, and a great planter of choice conifers. He, and I since, have always encouraged squirrels. I have never found any serious mischief done by them. I doubt very much, unless it be very small trees, that they can possibly damage the leader of a conifer; because I cannot see how they could stand on a piece sufficiently stiff without at the same time finding there too stiff a place to bite. What I have known them do freely is to bite off the ends of branches, little things about 6 or 9 inches long—a matter which does not harm at all. It is possible that they have barked lime trees, but not so as to do any serious mischief. I have known them eat cherries, but they were cherries from which they drove the birds and which the birds would have eaten if the squirrels had not done so. It may be that they have some power (unknown to me) of destroying young larch forests. If it be so, it is easy for the owner of the larch forest to prevent that; he has only to put a comparatively small area of bare land between his neighbour's squirrels and his forest in order to keep it safe from the squirrels. Squirrels are not like rabbits which run long distances for that sort of purpose. A squirrel is one of the most beautiful objects in English natural life, and I cannot help thinking, if we were to look into the matter, that we should find on balance that he performs some good purpose which we shall lose if we destroy him. I hope very much that your Lordships will omit this subsection.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to tender myself as a witness to character on behalf of the squirrel. I have had the same experience as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. During a number of years I watched very carefully, having often heard that the squirrel bites off the

541
leaders of the coniferous trees, and the young branches. I have constantly gone backwards and forwards to see whether the squirrels—which I am happy to say are abundant where I live—have done that, and I do not remember one case during recent years in which I have ever found any harm done by the squirrel. Squirrels are, as noble Lords have said, one of the most agreeable denizens of the woods, and a constant amusement when we see them. I can say the same thing with regard to lime trees. I have never known squirrels do any harm to lime trees. I therefore hope that your Lordships will deal in an indulgent manner with these charming creatures.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I regret to appear as an enemy of natural life, particularly of so beautiful and pathetic a specimen as the squirrel. But the squirrel is a nuisance and a danger. So far as my experience goes, the squirrel is a forest pest which ought to be removed. What is more, I defy Lord Phillimore to find any authority on forest protection which has a good word to say for the squirrel. Lord Bryce paid a great tribute to the æsthetic value of the squirrel, but he did not say what good the squirrel would do. He will destroy a number of coleoptera and he is a voracious eater of certain larvae. That is all to the good. But the good he does is not compensated for by other forms of forest nuisances which he commits. When it is said that he does not move about—
LORD PHILLIMORE: He does not move so far as the rabbit.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On the contrary, I think the squirrel is a quicker migrator than the rabbit; certainly I do not think that rabbits could have spread over the Midlands of Great Britain quicker than the squirrel has done. The squirrel cuts the leaders of all forms of conifers; he smashes up the seed pod in a reckless manner; he kills young fledglings; he will dig up acorns that have been planted to seed a young oak wood; and I hope your Lordships will not be misled by the appeals to sentiment and mercy which have emanated from Lord Buckmaster and others. I would add in general defence of this clause, to which Lord Buckmaster took rather wide objection, that the words are taken verbatim from the Corn Production Act; they confer no new power; all the
542
powers in this clause exist to-day. The only reason that it is put into this Bill is that the powers now belonging to the Board of Agriculture with respect to killing vermin shall be transferred to the new forest authority. The only difference is that in this case the word "squirrel" is introduced, which was not the case in the Corn Production Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have always been led to believe that the squirrel is an obnoxious animal; but I view with a certain amount of regret the idea that we are going to have squirrels exterminated.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: You cannot exterminate them; it is impossible to do it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has not yet tried. The real difficulty of the clause is its great width; because it is the early words of the clause, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has called attention, which make it so drastic. The words are "Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants. …" That is any trees. The noble Earl might have a large wood in which he liked to have squirrels and rabbits and as they belong to him altogether with the trees one might imagine that they would be left alone. But under the powers of this clause it will be possible—although the landowner does not mind a few trees being injured by the rabbits or squirrels—to send in officers of the Commissioners to shoot every rabbit and squirrel in the wood. Surely that cannot be intended. I can understand the Government desiring to protect the Government trees or trees for the growth of which they had advanced a loan, but not trees belonging to a landowner which he likes to have destroyed. Surely he may be allowed to do it if he likes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Under the Corn Production Act he is not allowed to have his own corn and roots destroyed. This clause applies that provision to trees. It is an existing law.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that very drastic indeed; it seems to justify what I said just now that you run the risk of exterminating these animals altogether. The officials of the Forestry

543
Department might come into anyone's garden, or wood, or anywhere else, and kill every animal which came within the mischief of this clause. It is too late, of course, to amend the early part of the clause, but I certainly should have thought that if a landowner likes to have his trees injured he should not be interfered with unless a great public evil will result. I have never heard that suggested, and I should not think it was likely; it cannot be put on the same footing as the production of food which certainly in war time was a very serious matter. But I think a man who is interested in natural history and natural life—like Lord Phillimore or Lord Bryce—might be allowed to keep his squirrels even if they did damage his trees a little.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I would like to ask the noble Earl whether these Commissioners will have power to enter Crown lands, forests, parks, and open spaces, because, if so, as one who has done a little in connection with open spaces, I should certainly enter my protest. In America they encourage every kind of life is public parks. There is a park near Washington where they encourage beavers and every animal that is not noxious. The Government can hardly have considered how they are going to turn the whole of the British Isles apparently into a sort of dreary waste in which we shall see no wild animals of any kind or description. I can hardly imagine that they seriously intend that we should have no squirrels. Life would become almost unbearable if we could not see the squirrels and rabbits. Recently I visited a friend's house and there were twelve rabbits on the garden lawn, with any number of flowers growing. I said, "How can you allow rabbits here? "My friend replied, "I would leave this place to-morrow if there were no rabbits. My gardener is often saying, Why do you have the rabbits?' and I say that I would rather have the rabbits than the flowers."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must emphatically protest. The whole experience of any one connected with forestry is to the effect that by increasing the area of afforestation we enlarge our fauna. I would guarantee that if we planted 100,000 acres in Somerset we should have fifteen or twenty new birds in that part of the country. Several of your Lordships, I think, are really exaggerating a little
544
when you assume that, because powers are taken to deal with real pests, elaborate steps are proposed to invade private gardens to kill an odd squirrel or two. This is not the idea. I must assure your Lordships that, from my conversations with the people who are promoting this Bill, I am convinced that they are as anxious as your Lordships to preserve and increase the beauties and amenities of the country-side. They do not look upon this purely as a matter of giving them an excuse to go in and destroy some rabbits which are eating carnations, or squirrels which are in Lord Phillimore's trees; but only where there is a nuisance and where the proper growth of any timber is being interfered with. There is no ground for saying that we are going to make a dreary waste of the country, where there will be no live animals. On the contrary I think the country will be improved as to flora and fauna.
THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble Earl has not answered my question about Crown lands.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Not Crown lands, public lands. Under the Bill Crown lands have no privilege not accorded to the lands of private individuals and if an excessive number of rabbits are bred on Crown lands they will have to be destroyed.
THE EARL OF MEATH: And parks?
A NOBLE LORD: Regent's Park?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Earl is specially interested, we will say, in the great open spaces in Surrey. The fact that a rabbit is bred on common land ought not to secure for it privileges which are not accorded to a rabbit bred on private lands. He is mischievous whether bred on public or private land, and this clause provides, as in the Corn Production Act, the proper way of determining who is to be responsible for killing pests on any land.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I greatly regret that, having regard to the attitude of the Government, I shall be compelled to put your Lordships to the trouble and inconvenience of a Division. I have only to ask in conclusion, when the noble Earl asks us to regard a Government Department in controlling these matter as anxious to

545
preserve and encourage the beauties of our country-side—What has happened during the last two years on the countryside? We have had bird's nests torn out of the hedges by country boys who thought they were, destroying sparrows. They did not know a sparrow from a chaffinch. When I am told that a Government Department is going to encourage wild life I can only say that past experience does not justify the observation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It certainly was not the Forests Department.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, at the end of subsection (4), to leave out "squirrels" and insert "such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, which is down in the name of Lord Bledisloe, seems to be a very good proposal. It places it in the power of the Commissioners to determine the animals or birds that from time to time should be included. I think it is an important provision, and if the noble Earl is inclined to accept it I will move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("squirrels") and insert ("such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine").—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I accept the Amendment, but I thought we had
LORD BUCKMASTER: It was a Government Department.
LORD SALTOUN: I hope the Government will stick to the text of the Bill. In Scotland a hundred years ago there was no squirrel in the country; now they are all over the country, and are the greatest vermin in fir woods.
On Question, whether the subsection proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lawrence, L.

Sutherland, D.

Yarborough, E.

Newton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bath, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Camden, M.

Cross, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Salisbury, M.

Haldane, V.

Saltoun, L.

Annesley, L.

Sempill, L.

Bradford, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shandon, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clinton, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Treowen, L.

Jersey, E.

Ernle, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Lytton, E.

Hylton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lindsey, E.

Esher, V.

Hatherton, L.

Morton, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Rotherham, L.

Strafford, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Denman, L.

Allendale, V.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Bryce, V.

Erskine, L.

just kept "squirrels" in. It must be an addition.
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is a dreadful proposal because it places in the hands of the Commissioners power to determine what animals or birds may be destroyed. Those of us who are fond of English country-life have suffered acutely during the war, and perhaps necessarily, in seeing what has been done to our birds during the last two or three years. They have been decimated past repair. And now the Commissioners will be able to continue this work and decide on any bird they like. I hope the Government will not accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know whether Lord Buckmaster has familiarised himself with the point. Nine out of ten birds are helpful to sylviculture, but there are certain birds which are a

547
positive and acknowledged pest. Any man who is fond of woods and forests wishes to encourage birds, and if the forest authority had 100,000 acres its desire, and its first proposal would be to order 10,000 nesting boxes of different types in order to encourage a great variety of bird life which is essential to keep down forest pests. I really do not think we need assume that the forest authorities are going to destroy birds.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I supported the Government on the last Amendment, I am "anti-squirrel." I hope the Government will not put these words in the clause because they are very wide indeed. It says that any animal or bird which the Commissioners choose to say are pests are to be destroyed. The noble Earl says that people engaged in forestry may be relied upon to desire the maintenance of these animals and birds. Can they be relied upon? You have had scientific men saying that some particular thing ought to be done, they go mad upon it, and in another few years it is discovered they were all wrong. Surely we ought not to run these sort of risks and to give an absolute blank cheque to the Commissioners to put any animal or bird they please upon the list is going too far. I hope the Government will not accept it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I will withdraw the Amendment. I do not want to provoke a discussion at this hour. Perhaps on Report stage the Government will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (4), before "squirrels," to insert "grey." The noble and learned Lord said: It is not right to trouble your Lordships with this Amendment after the last Division. I had hoped, if the House had been more evenly divided, to persuade your Lordships that no mercy need be given to an alien squirrel and that we might have some protection for our native squirrels. But the expression of your Lordships' opinion is so marked against our native creatures that I do not desire to move any protection for the alien.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Compulsory acquisition of land.
7.—(1) If the Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms any land which they consider it necessary to acquire for the purpose of this Act, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the schedule to this Act, and the Development Commissioners shall have power to make such order.
(2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house, or which at that date is the property of any local authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest.
(3) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public.
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise or recreation, unless the land to be acquired has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment, or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1.866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or the Commons Act, 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: The operative words of this Amendment are contained in the Schedule to the Bill, hut it occurred to me that I might be told when we reached that point that the matter had already been decided in the Bill itself, and I thought it better to raise this question on Clause 7.

549
The object of the Amendment is to protect owners against Government autocrats. In our zeal to make the world safe for democracy it appears to me we are creating new despots. Personally I do not dislike autocracy and I think a benevolent despot is the best ruler that could be found. But I must say that in the number of new despots we are creating daily in Government departments I am afraid we shall find there are some malevolent as well as benevolent ones.
May I point out that where land is to be compulsorily acquired by the Commissioners no appeal is allowed from their decision on the subject. Their decision is final, and as far as I can make out it may be made without even hearing what the owner has to say about the acquisition of his hind. We all agree that if land is required for the State private rights must give way, but I submit that the person to decide this summarily should not be a Government official, and that the owner should have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
As far as I can make out, there are only two objections. One is" that Government Departments like untramelled power, and the second is that it will be said there will be some slight delay in the acquisition of land if this right of appeal is given to an owner. In the case of a crop which takes eighty years to mature it cannot be a serious matter if two or three months' delay occurs on a matter as to whether the land should be compulsorily taken or not. This is an important matter where this power is going to be given to a Government Department to take land compulsorily, and I hope the Government will see their way to give this appeal to any owner who objects to his land being taken.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act").—Lord Oranmore and Browne.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If the Government are going to accept the Amendment I will not say anything, but this Bill applies not only to this country but to Ireland, and it would be impossible in Ireland to leave it to Commissioners to decide whether they should take some of the very little land which still remains to the landlords in that country, and which may not be of great value for afforestation, without any sort of
550
appeal or any power in the landlords to state their case. We have had some experience of Commissioners in this respect in this country in the last few years. In the last few years it has been in the power of certain authorities to order land to be put under tillage, which land the landlord knew to be unsuitable for such purpose, and in some cases that has been pressed with an absolute disregard of possible profit. Much of the land is now not earning any profit at all, and in this question of afforestation to leave it to what is practically a decision of one man in many cases, whether or not a particular portion of a landlord's property should be taken for a purpose which the landlord knows to be entirely unsuitable—that is a question on which the landlord ought to be heard. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will make it clear that there is some sort of appeal, without which great injustice may be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In the first place, Clause 7 is already a Statute of the Realm. It is quite clear, I hope, that there is nothing new in this clause. It is ten years old, and it transfers to the Forest Commission those duties in respect of acquiring land for afforestation. It comes out of the Development Act. Therefore I am rather reluctant to change this clause which has worked for ten years or more very well, and with which people are generally familiar. Therefore I am reluctant to add to or diminish from the actual text of the section.
What is in effect proposed by Lord Oranmore and Browne is that a Judge of the High Court shall be substituted for the authority—the Development Commissioners—mentioned in Section 7. On the whole I am of opinion that I would rather my case were decided by the Development Commissioners than by a Judge of the High Court. I do not think it is very suitable to force these things upon the High Court of Justice more than one can avoid, and my impression is that the existing authority knows very well what is the general policy and how it should be carried out, and can be trusted to deal with afforestation land as it has dealt in the past with other land. The clause cannot be read except in conjunction with the schedule, and if your Lordships will refer to subsection (3) of the Schedule I think it will be seen clearly that the order to be published by the Commissioners is to be presented to the owners, lessees and

551
occupiers of the land which it is proposed to schedule. I think that shows there can be no question that the owner will be able to state his case.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Can he appeal beyond the Commissioners?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I do not think he goes beyond the Commissioners, but it gives him a right to appear before the Commissioners.
LORD SHEFFIELD: No power to challenge the decision?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely, if he has notice he can state his case before the Commissioners. I will put it in on Report if that is not so, but I am pretty sure it must be so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not like your Lordships to come to a decision without being clear upon the point. The noble Earl has said that Lord Oranmore and Browne's Amendment must be taken as a whole, and that you must include in what he proposes to do the proposal in his Amendment to the Schedule, to substitute for the single Arbitrator a Judge of the High Court.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I carefully refrained from mentioning that, on my Amendment, because I thought it might be left to be dealt with when we deal with the Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that it is inconvenient to deal with it now, and I should not have thought it was wise to change the single arbitrator, but that does not detract from the Amendment before your Lordships, that land should not be taken without giving the landowner an opportunity of pleading his case before an impartial tribunal. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing, and as the Schedule stands without amendment the single arbitrator would not be a long process and he would be an impartial person. I should have thought, therefore, that no harm could be done by allowing the landowner to raise the issue before a single arbitrator whether the land should be taken or not. That is the reason why I think the Amendment is a good one and should not be complicated by discussing the question whether the single arbitrator should be turned into
552
a Judge of the High Court. May I say that the Commissioners, even if, as the noble Earl thinks, they are obliged to give a hearing to the landowner, are hardly impartial in a matter of this kind because they are the people who want to take the land.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is the Development Commissioners and not the Forest Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I was wrong about that. At any rate, it seems to me there should be a hearing before an impartial authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is one point which I ought to make clear. I deprecated changing this because it is the existing code of law. There is, however, one point which I have not put before your Lordships but which I think would influence you. I think within a day or two the House of Commons is going to send up a Bill dealing with the general principle of land acquisition. If your Lordships want to change the principle, had we not better do it on a Bill which deals with the whole question? Because if we do it on this Bill we shall leave it unchanged where the Land Commissioners take land, for instance, for reclamation purposes. Of course the Land Acquisition Bill will probably modify the terms of the old Development Act, which we are now discussing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "part" where that word first occurs, to insert "of a small holding under 50 acres." The noble Lord said:—I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will feel more friendly towards this Amendment than he has shown himself towards my previous Amendments. The object is to protect the small holder. I think we ought to be just as anxious and careful in these matters to look after the small man as to look after the man who is living in a big house with a big home park or demesne. Otherwise it might be said that while we were looking after our own interests we were neglecting the interest of the small man. It will be no answer to tell us that the Development Commissioners will do that. It may be said that they will look after the park, garden, pleasure-ground, or any other land which is a part of the

553
amenities of the place. I would rather hope that the noble Earl would not proceed as he indicated, but would accept my Amendment. The noble Earl does not think the small man ought to be protected in this matter in the same way as the big man has the home farm protected. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that is to be so. Justice ought to be done to the small holder in the same way as justice is to be done to the large land owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("part") insert ("of a small holding under 50 acres").—(Load Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is HO question of justice or injustice. It is entirely a question of convenience. These are the terms under which land is now compulsorily acquired, and I do not propose to vary them. If Lord Strachie's Amendment were put in, it would very likely prevent the acquisition of a great tract of land just because there were one or two holdings upon it. It might effectively cut the connection between two blocks of forest. The forest authority does not want to buy small-holdings compulsorily. The basis of their scheme is to acquire land which is not suited for agriculture. It is, however, possible that in certain cases, as I described, small-holdings might promote the afforestation of a large area, and having a small holding or two might also make it more easy to secure the permanent staff which one requires for afforestation. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no desire on the part of the forest authority to acquire these small holdings. At the same, time, I think that it would be unwise to preclude them from doing so.
LORD STRACHIE: At this time of the evening I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Arran I beg to move, in subsection (2), after "park" to insert "demesne." In Ireland the word "park" has a totally different meaning from its meaning in England. A gentleman's place there is nearly always described as a demesne. For the purpose of protection, I think it is necessary that tins word should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, after ("park") insert ("demesne").—.(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not wish to accept the Amendment, but I must say that I am sympathetic towards it, and I suggest that it should be put down to be moved when the new Acquisition of Land Bill reaches this House. It would apply not only to forestry but to all acquisition of land.
LORD ORANAMORE AND BROWNE: I withdraw it at present, but I reserve the right to bring it up again on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Establishment of Forestry Fund.
8.—(1) The salaries of the Commissioners, and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants and all expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of their powers and the performance of duties under this Act, shall be defrayed out of a fund to be called the Forestry Fund.
(2) There shall be paid into the Forestry Fund—

(a) the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section; and

(b) all sums received by the Commissioners in respect of the sale of any land or timber or otherwise received by the Commissioners in respect of any transactions carried out by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under this Act.

(3) There shall be charged on and paid oat of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, the stun of awe million five hundred thousand pounds, and the said sum shall be issued and paid by the Treasury into the Forestry Fund at such times before the first day of April nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, as they direct:
Provided that the amount to be so issued and paid in each year shall be such as Parliament may determine.
(4) The Commissioners may accept any gift made to them for all or any of the purposes of this Act, and, subject to the terms thereof, may apply it for those purposes in accordance with regulations made by them.
(5) The Commissioners shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the sums paid into and the sums issued out of the Forestry Fund in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall certify and report on the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament by the Commissioners on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be

555
then sitting, and if Parliament be then not sitting within one week after Parliament is next assembled.
The Commissioners shall also cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament an annual report of their proceedings.
(6) Payments out of and into the Forestry Fund, and all other matters relating to the fund and money standing to the credit of the fund, shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Treasury may, by minute to be laid before Parliament, direct.
(7) The Treasury may from time to time invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Forestry Fund in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust funds.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "on au estimate to be laid before it by the Treasury." The noble Viscount said: I will not take any time in moving this Amendment. I think possibly that it may be convenient to move it in the words "on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury "instead of" to be laid before it by the Treasury." I think that would be more accurate. It is obvious that this secures the object of having a Minister responsible to Parliament, and also responsible for the estimate. I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, at end insert ("on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or, in Scotland, sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and as respects Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts:

556

(b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily:

(c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory, and the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the carrying out of the purpose for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the Commissioners:

(d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

(3) The draft order shall be published by the Commissioners in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed, and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
(4) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if portions only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the Commissioners, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other persons interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the Commissioners the portions only of the buildings so required, if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and, in such case, the Commissioners shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them and make compensation for any damage ssutained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: moved, in (2) (a), after "Any question," to insert" as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which covers somewhat the same ground as the one already moved, and which I withdrew but I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will understand that on this subject also I reserve my right to move the Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, after ("question") insert ("as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On the Report stage I shall also point out that a

557
still more convenient stage will occur when the Land Acquisition. Bill is before your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Duke said: I shall probably be told in regard to this Amendment to wait until the Land Acquisition Bill is before this House, but I would point out that in this particular instance forestry specially affects the question. There is a great possibility of danger to agriculture itself. Obviously there may be injury to game interests if certain land is taken but that is comparatively a small matter. As regards sheep farms, however, it is a serious matter. Apparently there is nothing under this Bill to prevent the Commissioners acquiring any portion of a bill farm, planting the lower ground with trees, and practically making", that hill farm useless except for sporting purposes, because if the lower part is taken away it would be impossible to maintain permanent stock on the farm. It is most undesirable that there should be any conflict between agriculture and forestry, and I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment as one which is fair and reasonable. Unless this Amendment is put into the Bill there are great dangers of abuse and of great injury to agriculture, and especially to sheep farming and sheep breeding.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, lines 24 to 29, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This raises a very wide and very controversial issue as to worsement and betterment, and I am afraid that I do not see my way to say anything further to the noble Duke than I have already pointed out to one or two of my noble friends, that I am reluctant to change the existing code of law in respect of afforestation alone if we have to change it let us change it in respect of all the different branches and objects for which land is compulsorily acquired. I suggest that this point of worsement should be discussed on the Land Acquisition Bill which the learned Clerk at the Table informs me is already in possession of your Lordships. I think that is a much more fitting and convenient opportunity.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I point out that this particular question
558
affects the Forestry Bill, and does not affect any other Bill. There is no possibility of the particular land that I referred to being taken except for afforestation. As I have pointed out if you take the lower ground of a bill farm and plant it the rest of the ground will have to be turned into what is called waste ground which may be some use for grouse shooting but will be of no use for anything else. Therefore this particular matter applies specially to this Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: There is another point of view. If you start planting trees you may seriously deterioriate the value of property by cutting oft the view from a house, and if you I ask advantage of any benefit which may accrue you should also pay for any detriment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is a great deal to be said for what the noble Earl states. I have only argued the question not on merits but on procedure. It would be much more convenient to discuss it on the Land Acquisition Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: If the noble Earl wishes, I will bring it up again on Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think that will be preferable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after (2) (d), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) The owner, lessee or occupier of any mines or minerals lying under any land purchased or within such a lateral distance therefrom that the liberties hereby granted can be made available for the working thereof shall for the purpose of working the same be entitled to enter on any land so purchased and there to use any existing and to sink, erect, make and use any new shafts, machinery and other works, and for that purpose, if necessary, to remove any timber or other trees or any other things growing or being thereon and to lay and use light rails over the land so purchased and to do all such other things thereon or therein as if such land had not been purchased but so that in exercising such liberties no more damage than is reasonably necessary be done to such land, trees, or things, and that reasonable compensation be made for any damage actually caused, and if any question stall arise in respect thereof the same shall be determined by the arbitrator."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order that when land is compulsorily taken for afforestation full power over the surface shall remain for the development of minerals. Unless that is done that, will cease in those areas. Some of the most likely land which the Commissioners will take for afforestation will be hill or mountain and heather lands, such as is met with in the coal areas of South Wales, Staffordshire. &c. The area taken for planting will probably be very large, as no doubt it will thus be more economical to work, and I wish the Commissioners all success in doing it. But, in doing it, we do not want to stop the development of the minerals. It may be necessary to sink a shaft or make a tramline or put up a spoil heap on the land compulsorily taken, and I do not think this reservation which I propose would very much affect the Commissioners in their work, for it would not entail a very large acreage. I know that only a few acres are needed for this purpose.
I have only mentioned coal, but my new clause covers all minerals, such as ironstone, tin, and lead. Some of the areas taken by the Commissioners may be over leased coal or over undeveloped coal, and it is most necessary to reserve full powers for the working and getting away of the minerals. If a shaft is sunk in the future in a wood belonging to the Commissioners either the owner of the minerals or the lessee would have to pay for the destroyed trees and other damage done. Although it is rather hard to put an extra burden upon them, I think it is inevitable, and this is covered by my new clause. I hope the Government will see their way to accept what I think is a very important addition to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 10, after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: As soon as this appeared on the Paper this afternoon I thought it was an extremely technical matter, and I should very much prefer to have an opportunity of discussing it with those who advise me. I rather think that the case is already met. I cannot conceive that there should be an oversight, that nobody should have drawn attention to such a matter for the last ten years, and that an owner should reserve the mineral rights of land compulsorily taken
560
and yet not have power of access or development for those rights. It would surprise me very much to learn that this was not already provided for somehow. I trust, however, that. Lord Dynevor will consent to repeat his Amendment on the Report stage, and I should then be able to give him a considered reply.
LORD DYNEVOR: Of course, I shall fall in with the wishes of my noble friend. But I may point out that I have taken very eminent counsel's opinion on the point, and he informed me that it was necessary to reserve the rights.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have also taken the opinion of a very eminent counsel, and he cannot make out what Lord Dynevor means.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4) from "An order" down to "otherwise." The noble Duke said: I do not wish to press this Amendment, although I think the provisions of the subsection are very objectionable and absolutely unnecessary from the forestry point of view. I think, however, that my noble friend might give some explanation of why this subsection has been inserted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The reason is simply that we are re-producing verbatim from the Statute ten years old. I cannot charge my memory why it was put in in 1909 or 1908, but that is the reason why it is here.
Schedule agreed to.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why the Annual Report of Proceedings under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, for the year 1918, has been issued only to members of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this omission seems all the more remarkable seeing that a provision was put into the Statute requiring the Proceedings to be

561
laid before both Houses. It seems that there must be some neglect in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I can only say that I believe the fault lies with me. I was really unaware till this afternoon that I was responsible. When a matter is laid before the House, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, I understand that I ought myself to put a Minute upon it as a reminder to the Department that it ought to be printed and circulated. I regret to say I was unaware of it, that I did not put a Minute on the Order and that I believe an Order is on the Minutes of the House asking that it should be at once printed and circulated. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for calling my attention to it. I am afraid it was my omission.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Orders.
ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  [From Minutes of July 10]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.