Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

20 articles on this Page

IMINERS & COAL TAX.

Detailed Lists, Results and Guides
Cite
Share

I MINERS & COAL TAX. Mr. Ritchie Asked to t Remove Impost. CHANCELLOR'S DISCOURAGING RESPONSE. I A deputation of the miners' representatives in conference in London yesterday waited upon Mr. Ritchie (Chancellor of the Exche- quer) at the office of the Treasury to urge upon him the removal of the tax on coal. Tne deputation was introduced by Mr. John Wilson, M.P., of Durham, and the speakers were Mr. Hugh Boyl (Northumberland), Mr. Alfred Onions (South Wales), Mr. W. E. Harvey (Derbyshire), Mr. W. Parrott (Yorkshire), and Mr. Robert Smellie (Scotland). Mr. Wilson said their object was to urge the abolition of the coal-tax. All the mining districts were represented, and all were still as strenuously opposed to that tax as they were at the time of its imposition. Sinoe the tax was imposed there had been large reduc- tions in the colliers' wages, and many pits were now working short time, owing largely to reduced exports, which he attributed mainly to the coal-tax. Mr. H. Boyl followed, as the representative of Northumberland and the North of Eng- land. Mr. Onions, representing the miners of South Wales and Monmouthshire, who was the next speaker, said that the districts he represented exported about 47 or 48 per cent. of the whole of the coal exported from the United Kingdom. Moreover, about 46 per cent. of the total coal output of South Wales and Monmouthshire was for export. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in receiving a similar deputation two years ago, said it was intended that the coal-tax should fall on the foreigner, not upon the miners, and that if he thought it would fall upon the miners he would be disposed to re-consider his posi- tion. In South Wales. down to the end of last year the South Wales miners' wages rate was regulated by a sliding-scale, so that the only factor in determining their general wage rate was the average selling price of coal. After the coal-tax came into operation the colliery owners adopted certain methods whereby the shilling tax did not come with the average selling price that determined the general wage rate. At first they were of opinion as workmen that by so doing the employers were violating the agreement under which the men were working. The opinion of eminent counsel was taken, and counsel were of opinion that the employers were not in that matter violating the agreement. It seemed to him that every ton of coal that was exported abroad, and upon which a shilling tax was paid, prejudicially affected to that extent the men's wages. He calculated that they must be suffering, roughly speaking, to the extent of about 4 per cent. in the wages rate as the result of the operation of the coal-tax. Since the imposition of the tax South Wales had suffered a reduction of 30 per cent. in wages, Scotland 311, Northumberland 35 per cent., and Durham approximately 30 per cent. All these were coal-exporting districts, and the districts that were non-exporting had only suffered a reduction to the extent of 10 per cent. They came to the conclusion that the tax, in addi- tion to keeping their wages low, had proved prejudicial also in other respects. The increase in the exportation of coal was not so much last year as in previous years, nor so large as it would have been if the coal-tax had not been imposed. The American strike had for a time given a large impetus to the coal trade. The export to the United States and British North America for the first quarter of 1891 was 66,934, while in the first quarter of 1902 it was 40,642 tons, or a decrease of 26,292 tons. For the second quarter there was a decrease of 12,600 tons. For the third and fourth quarters there was a material increase owing to the American strike, which affected the exports from this country last year by something like a million tons. Furthermore, if there had not been excep- tionally low freightage our coal exports of late would have shown up still less favour- ably. He had information that some con- tracts. more particularly in some parts of France, had recently gone to German firms because of the operation of the coal-tax. He could privately supply proof that one con- tract of 100,000 tons from March, 1903, to March, 1904, previously held by a British firm, had gone to Germany, and he knew of another instance of 3,000 tonB of fuel, which for eight years had been supplied by a British firm, which had also found its way into Germany as a result of our coal-tax. There were some parts of the South Wales coalfield, more par- ticularly in the western district, that were now wonting very short time, which was also mainly attributable to the operation of the coal-tax. Mr. Onions proceeded to quote statistics to prove that there had been a large falling off in our exports of coal to Holland and Belgium. These figures and the whole facts, he maintained, not only proved that in South Wales the miners were suffering a direct reduction of wages as the result of that tax, but also that our trade for the same reason was being considerably restricted. (Hear, hear.) As the depression deepened and we were on the decline, he believed that the unfortunate effects of the coal-tax would be more acutely felt than at present, and that we should sooner or later find thousands of miners thrown idle. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Harvey (Derbyshire) said there was no division amongst the miners of the country upon this important question, and they were becoming alarmed, startled, and surprised that an industry involving so much capital and an army of 800,000 men should be at all endangered by any Government or any Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. Neither capitalists nor miners in the coal trade feared foreign competition if they could enter the market on equal conditions. (Hear, hear.) He con- tended that the income-taxpayer was well able to pay out of his abundance. Mr. Ritchie: Not always. Mr. Harvey: Well, as compared with our men, who are only earning about 25s. a week. Mr. Ritchie: Where do you get evidence of that? Mr. Harvey said that many of the men were getting even less than 25s. a week; indeed, considering the fact that men had to work short time, there were many miners who were not earning above 13s. or 14s. a week. These people had the right to claim first considera- tion from the Government surplus. Mr. W. Parrott (Yorkshire) feared if the tax were not removed that some collieries would have to stop, and the result would be to swell the ranks of the unemployed. They did not condemn Mr. Ritchie for the tax being put on, but they wanted him to have the credit and honour of taking it off. (Laughter and" Hear. hear.") Mr. Robert Smellie (Sootland) said in Scot- land their employers had told them again and again that the imposition of the coal-tax had brought down wages. He believed the average earnings of miners would not exceed 27s. a week. They claimed that that was not sufficient to keep a man and his family. THE CHANCELLOR'S REPLY. I The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said something had been said about those enga-ged in getting coal being unanimous upon this subject, but if he might say so without offence, this was just one of those matters upon which there was likely to be unanimity. Then it had been suggested that he should have the "honour and credit" of taking off this tax. He was afraid the "honour and credit" he should receive at their hands, if he were able to do it, would be a good deal more than counter balanced by feelingB of a different kind, which might proceed from others who rejected a reduction in taxation, and would not be able to get what they wished. Some of the speakers had patriotically said that while the war lasted they were content, having regard to the necessities of the case, to bear the burden which they asserted had been put upon. their shoulderB, but that now the Government might fairly consider the pro- priety of taking off this impost on coal. Well, they had many competitors, and he had heard the argument in that room more than once that other taxes which were put on at war time might now be taken off, or mate- rially reduced, but as the deputation were aware, the burden of indirect taxation had been very greatly increased since the time the coal-tax was put on. The war lasted very much longer than was expected, and increas- ing burdens were placed on the people, and largely on the consumer. There would be very considerable disappointment if some- thing were not done for the consumer when anv surplus came to be dealt with. Even if a case could be made out for the reduction of this tax, on the ground that the war had come to an end, the expenditure in conse- quence of the war had by no means ceased. He thought that would be demonstrated when he laid the financial condition of the country before the House of Commons. So far as he could gather, gentlemen who had spoken had not alleged that.the export of coal had fallen off. What were the figures of exports ? He found that in 1898 the quantity of coal and other kindred material exported was 47,827,000 tons, in 1899 it was 55,&38,000 tons, in 1900-1 which they all recognised to be a bumper year-the exports were 57,850,000 tons. The tax was put on in 1901, and the exports that year were slightly reduced as compared with 1900, being 57,352,000 tons, but in 1902, which was the last year they had the figures for, the quantity was 60,045,000 tons, and even if he were to assume, which f« could not, that one million tons were due to the condition of things in the United States, even if that quantity were deducted, then the exports would show a very large increase over what he called the "bumper" year of 1900. Mr. Onions: May I ask you to consider the first nine months of 1902? The Chancellor of the Ezchequer: I have not got the figures for the first nine months. It would be of no use to make such a com- parison. Mr. Onions said his point was that for the first nine months there was a reduction, but. that when the effects of the American and French coal strikes came to be felt, then an impetus was given to the coal trade which turned into an increase what would otherwise have been a decrease. The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to point out that the increase was extremely large. He had had some figures taken out which showed that the average quinquennial increase of exports since 1897 had been con- siderably greater than those in the two pre- vious quinquennial periods. It was said that this increase had been caused by the reduc- tion of freights. Everybody knew that there was a great boom in freights two years ago, and that shipowners were making great profits. To whatever the reduction might be due, if the result of the operation was to enable more coal to be exported and more men to be employed, of course it would be to the miners' advantage, even though that advantage was secured to some extent by the fall of freights. With regard to employ- ment, so far as the figures in his possession showed, the number of persons employed in coal-mining in 1902 was greater than in 1901 by 2 per cent., and the average number of days on which collieries were open was greater in 1902 than in 1901. In 1901 the number of days worked per week was .12. and in 1902 it was .22, showing that i¡¡"-I\ w'-e .10 greater number of days Worked in the latter than in the former year. With regard to wages he found that in no part of England were wages lower in 1902 than in 1899. Taking the wages of all classes of workmen in coal mines, he found that in 1899 in the United Kingdom the wages ave- ra,ged 29s. a. week, whilst in 1902 they averaged 30s. 4d. Figures from different dis- tricts showed:— 1899 1902 ¡ s. d. s. d. Northumberland 27 5 27 8 Durham 28 3 28 3 Yorkshire. Lancashire & Mids. 31 1 33 3 South Wales and Monmouth 24 8 28 2 West of Sootland 32 11 30 11 (A falling off.) Fife 29 7 27 2 (Again a falling off.) If they took into account the falling off in the employment at the present time as shown by the Board of Trade returns, which gave the number of the unemployed now as 5.5, as compared with 4.5 at the same time last year, and if they took the wages which were being earned in several other branches of employ- ment, his conviction was that miners would see that they had not much to complain of aa compared with other trades. The deputation had asserted that the miners' position would have been different if it had not been for the coal-tax. He very much doubted it. He felt perfectly certain that, apart altogether from this impost on coal, they could not have expected, it was impossible to conceive, that the prosperous state of things of 1900 would have continued. All he could hope was that the great prosperity they enjoyed at that period was made use of for the purpose of laying by something for the rainy day. The right. hon. gentleman con- tended that in a few instances the foreigners paid the tax. Everyone knew that a shilling a ton on coal was a, stupendous profit, and he ventured to thinK in ordinary times it would be impossible for collieries to be kept open if the colliery proprietor had to pay that large sum in duty. Mr. Ritchie added:—I think I have shown that there is nothing in the con- dition of the trade which would justify me in holding out to you hopes of a thing which I am very much afraid it will be impossible for me to give you. The condition of our national expenditure, apart altogether from war, is increasing so much that the future does not seem to me to hold out much hope of any considerable reduction of taxation. Of course, you will be entitled, when the ques- tion of reduction of taxation comes, to be considered along with other taxpayers, but I wouiu be sending you away with an altogether wrong impression if I were to hold out to you any hope that I could under existing cir- cumstances do what you have come here to ask me to do. I am Satisfied that what I said at the commencement of my remarks is abso- lutely true: that if I were to refrain from giving such relief to the consumer as it may be in my power to give I cannot tell yet what the position will be. I am perfectly sure for me to propose to Parliament to take off this shilling a ton on coal would not only be a proposal which would be unacceptable to the House of Commons, but unacceptable gene- rally throughout the country. Mr. J. Wilson, M.P., in thanking Mr. Ritchie for so courteously receiving the deputation, said the right hon. gentleman's statement as to wages was a startler to them as prac- tical men. He supposed the figures included the salaries of the officials, staffs, of the col- lieries, &c.. men who were earning R-500, £ 600, or JE700 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No, it does not include them. Mr. Wilson, M.P., said it was eaey to take an average, but he and his colleagues thought the test should be taken of the lowest paid men. The deputation then withdrew. The special meeting of the coalowners* conference called for to consider the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer's reply to the depu- tation. subsequently passed a resolution in favour of further considering the matter at a future date before the introduction of the Budget, when it could be fully discussed, and such measures taken as would lead to the abolition of the tax, and in. the meantime to hold meetings of protest against the tax throughout the country.

fDEFINITION OF SMALL COAL…

: GREAT FINGALL CONSOLIDATED…

LONDON AND GLOBE CORPORATIONI

IPONTYPRIDD CADET CORPS TO…

Advertising

OUR _LEGISLATORS.

AFRIKANDER LOYALTY. I

Advertising

"Cochfarf's". I" 7 :- .- -…

Advertising

COMMERCIAL RETALIATION.I

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

I Mainly --About -People.…

.BAROMETRICAL INDICATIONSI

THE COAL CRISIS. I -

Advertising