On the other hand, champions of gas, like Sir Dugald Clerk and Lord Moulton, hold that electric power stations and gas works must be run in combination, and that the direct burning of coal either for domestic or industrial purposes should be forbidden by legislation. Next is the matter of distribution, which must also be considered with reference to existing facilities. The Electric Power Supply Committee said:

* * *

If the supply of electricity were being commenced ab initio it would be found best for generation and distribution to be conducted by one and the same body. In present circumstances, however, our view is that distribution, especially in the case of the larger towns, should generally be left in the hands of present distributors, unless they wish to transfer it. The majority of the committee are of opinion that municipalities and other local authorities should distribute electricity without seeking to make a profit for the relief of local rates. * * * We think it undesirable to hamper industry by overcharging consumers of electricity for the benefit of other rate payers.

This committee, however, gave its chief attention to the question of Government control. In common with the other committees that had already considered the matter, it proposed a board of electricity commissioners, but it developed the idea in more detailed form. Its recommendations are therefore important, and they are reproduced in full:

That a new body, to be called the electricity commissioners, should be set up, to whom should be transferred the existing powers of the Board of Trade, Local Government Board, Local Government Board for Ireland, and Scottish Office relating to the supply of electricity, and to whom large additional powers should be given for regulating and encouraging the generation and distribution of electricity.

That the electricity commissioners should, subject to an appeal to Parliament in certain cases, have general control over the generation and distribution of electricity in the United Kingdom.

That the existing system, under which electricity is separately generated for small areas, should be abolished.

That the electricity commissioners should, after local inquiries, divide the United Kingdom into districts technically suitable for the economical generation and distribution of electricity.

That in each electrical district a district electricity board should be set up, which should purchase all generating stations of authorized distributors, whether local authorities, companies, or power companies.

That the district electricity board should be responsible, by themselves or their lessees, for the future generation of electricity in their district and for the establishment of new generating stations and proper systems for the main transmission of electricity in their district.

That existing electrical undertakings should if they so desire, retain their power of distributing electricity within their local areas, but should purchase electricity in bulk from the district electricity boards or their lessees, due provisions being made for controlling the profits of distributors so as to insure a cheap supply of electricity to consumers.

That district electricity boards should make no divisible profits.

That district electricity boards should be financed, in whole or in part, by funds raised with Government assistance, except where it is shown to be desirable and practicable to finance the boards locally.

That largely extended powers should be granted for, inter alia, (a) the use of overhead wires, (b) wayleaves, (c) acquisition of water rights.1

The report of the Committee of Chairmen approved the proposal for a central body of commissioners. It disapproved, however, the idea of a district organization, and suggested a more centralized system with full jurisdiction over both generation and distribution and with the finances under parliamentary control. It also proposed that the office of operating director be established. As already stated in the text, the Government did not accept these suggestions.

OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE.

It is estimated that under favorable conditions from three to five years will be required to put the new plan into effect; but it is not to be expected that so revolutionary a change can be carried out without unanticipated delays. Hostility on the part of existing electrical undertakings did not subside with the introduction of the Electricity (Supply) Bill; and it is perhaps significant that the shares of electric companies were but slightly depressed on the Stock Exchange.

If, as is hoped, the manufacturing interests can be supplied with an abundance of cheap power, the productivity of labor can be certainly increased, to the benefit of all. On this point the following quotation from the Subcommittee on Electric Power Supply indicates the possibilities:

In the United States the amount of power used per worker is 56 per cent more than used in the United Kingdom; if we eliminate workers in trades where the use of power is limited, or even impossible, we shall probably find that in the United States the use of power, where it can be used, is nearly double what it is here. On the other hand, not only are the standard units of wages higher in the United States, but living conditions are better. There is little doubt that in the United States the average purchasing power of the individual is above what it is in this country, and that is largely due to the more extensive use of power which increases the individual's earning capacity. The best cure for low wages is more motive power. Or, from the manufacturer's point of view, the only offset against the increasing cost of labor is the more extensive use of motive power. Thus, the solution of the workman's problem, and also that of his employer, is the same, namely, the greatest possible use of power.

WATER POWER.

The development of the water-power resources of the United Kingdom, hitherto unattempted, is now recognized as a matter of industrial importance. Coal is no longer cheap, the demand for electric current is insistent, and there appear to be no great obstacles in the way of utilizing a source of wealth that is now running to waste. The first step was the appointment by the Board of Trade of a Water-Power Resources Committee on June 20, 1918. This committee retained several engineers, who carried out preliminary surveys of selected areas in Scotland and North Wales, and issued an interim report on February 10, 1919. Further investigations are under way in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and more reports are to follow. In Scotland alone, according to the interim report, there are nine water privileges capable of supplying twice the present use of current for power, traction, and lighting in all Scotland. This current could be readily transmitted to the industrial centers of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, and the Clyde Valley. Further possibilities are pointed out in the manufacture of carbide or in other electrochemical or metallurgical processes. Finally, these schemes are declared to be individually and collectively "well within the limiting cost for development on a sound commercial basis."

In North Wales there is a power capable of developing 4,400 continuous horsepower. In the Lake Country, Devon, and Cornwall there are opportunities for development, and in many other parts of the country there are small water powers that could be made to serve local needs.

As to the immediate steps to be taken, the committee has yet to make a comprehensive statement, but it submits the following:

There are two outstanding factors which have been prominent in arresting the wider development of water-power schemes on a large scale in this country, namely, (a) the costly, protracted, and inefficient system of obtaining the necessary authority by means of a private bill; (b) the multiplicity of interests to be reconciled. With regard to the former, the committee is of opinion that if the rights necessary for the development of all water powers above a certain size 'were secured by the State, as and when required, many of the difficulties experienced in the past would disappear and preliminary waste of capital be obviated. With regard to the question of multiplicity of interests, there is no doubt whatever that the powers now vested in numerous departmental boards and other bodies concerned with different aspects of the water problem require thorough revising and coordination. Many of the existing interests are, or may be, opponents of water-power developments, and if proper use is to be made of the valuable natural asset represented by the potential water-power resources of the United Kingdom, the need of a simple, inexpensive, and expeditious procedure for adjusting the claims of the several interests is vital. There is no question that a river system and its drainage area must be taken as a unit and dealt with as a whole in regard to all the water problems incidental thereto. * * *

At the present moment the committee does not express any opinion on the question whether unity of control could best be effected by extending and coordinating the powers now possessed by departments, etc., or by the appointment of a new statutory authority or authorities with executive or only coordinating and advisory powers. The committee wishes, however, to emphasize the importance of the question, and to point out that it is a reconstruction problem which will undoubtedly require to be specially dealt with in the immediate future. The main aspects of the question are being examined in detail by the committee. In addition the development of water powers for electricity supply purposes has a close bearing upon the recommendations of the Board of Trade committee on electric power supply, and will require to be considered in relation to any legislative proposals to give effect to those recommendations.

It is to be noted that the Electricity (Supply) Bill contains no reference to the development of water-power resources, but it has been announced that the Government will introduce a bill for the development and control of water power for industrial purposes.

COAL.

VITAL IMPORTANCE TO BRITISH INDUSTRY.

The importance of coal as a source of power is well known to all who are familiar with the development of British industry. An abundance of accessible and cheap fuel and the extensive use of the steam engine have served to make Great Britain a great manufacturing nation. In 1913, the last normal year, the output of its coal mines was 287,000,000 tons, representing the labor of 895,000 men underground and 215,000 above ground. These figures are, respectively, larger than those of earlier years. Coal exports in 1913 amounted to about 76,000,000 tons, leaving nearly three-fourths of the output for domestic consumption. Half of this domestic supply is consumed for heat, three-eights for lighting, and one-eighth for power.

With a sufficient source of power available there has been less incentive than in some other countries for the development of electric power undertakings on a large scale or the substitution of water for coal as the primary source of power, and too little regard has been manifested for the introduction of improved methods and facilities for the extraction and transportation of coal. The time

has now come when a change is imperative, and in the preceding sections of this report attention has been given to two important aspects of the situation.

One of the subcommittees appointed by the first Reconstruction Committee in July, 1916, had to do with the matter of coal conservation. This committee, as it later became, in turn appointed several subcommittees, that on electric power supply having been already dealt with in this report. Others were the Geological Subcommittee, which submitted an interim report under date of February 15, 1917, dealing with the development of new coal fields and the extension of those already being worked; the Mining Subcommittee, which submitted an interim report on November 7, 1917, proposing the establishment of a Ministry of Mines and Minerals, and a final report January 11, 1918; and the Carbonization Subcommittee, which reported January 18, 1918, on the gas and coke industries and fuel economy in iron and steel manufacture and in power production. All these reports are included in the final report of the Coal Conservation Committee.

INCREASE IN COST.

Coal is no longer cheap, measured by present standards. The cause is the increased cost of production. The Mining Subcommittee said in its final report:

The cost of producing coal had been steadily increasing for many years before the war. Among the causes contributing to this increase may be enumerated a more or less steady rise in wages, a reduction in the annual output per person employed in the mines, an increase in the number of surface workers employed, the necessity for working to an increasing extent deeper and thinner seams, the higher cost of materials, legislation, and local rates.

Since the outbreak of war, the cost of production has very materially increased. Practically every item of cost has contributed its share to this increase. Wages have been raised to a relatively high level, being upon an average fully 40 per cent over the wages ruling in July, 1914, irrespective of the war wage of 1s. 6d. per day granted in September, 1917. The cost of timber, iron, steel, and other materials required at the collieries has greatly increased. The percentage of increase in the cost of these materials has ranged from 100 per cent to more than 300 per cent, and this increase can not be said to have reached its limit. The great reduction in the number of persons employed, due to recruiting, has also had an important effect upon the cost of production.

As to the future, the cost of materials is expected to remain relatively high for some years, and the wages of labor are certain to remain at a higher level. The subcommittee, therefore, was safe in its prediction: "Having regard to all the circumstances likely to exist, it appears reasonable to assume that the cost of producing coal will be higher than it has been even after the abnormal conditions due to the war have passed away." Hence the need for elimination of waste, introduction of improved methods and appliances, relief from burdens that have been imposed by vested interests, and better organization of the industry.

PROPOSED MEASURES OF REFORM.

From the subcommittee's report it appears that much coal is wasted or lost at the mines through excessive consumption for power, failure to recover coal from refuse, the practice of casting back

small coal, spontaneous combustion, waterlogging, and defective methods of operation. As to the remedy, it is suggested:

While we consider it necessary that the proposed Ministry of Mines and Minerals should have adequate powers of intervening to prevent permanent and avoidable loss of coal, we think the end in view might to a large extent be attained voluntarily and as the natural result of cooperation among the colliery proprietors of each district. If the interests of all the collieries in a district were consolidated the intervention of the proposed Ministry of Mines and Minerals for the purpose of preventing loss of coal would in many cases be unnecessary. Not only would combined drainage schemes be introduced where required, but unnecessary barriers would be worked out, and the best methods of working the seams in the district would be experimentally ascertained and generally adopted, so that loss from working abnormally thick seams, and from leaving top and bottom coal, and perhaps also from the order of working contiguous seams, would be reduced to a minimum without intervention or compulsion.

The mechanical equipment of the mines has been improved in recent years, according to this report, but it is declared that laborsaving appliances might be used to a greater extent, and the installation of coal-cutting machinery and face conveyors is recommended. It is further suggested that mechanical means of hauling the coal might be substituted for horses if the haulage arrangements underground were more carefully and adequately organized. Upon the attitude of labor toward the introduction of labor-saving appliances, the report says:

Where there is any unnecessary restriction of output, this should be removed, and if such restriction is in any degree due to a feeling of insecurity on the part of the workmen and a belief that if they put forth a special effort to increase production they will suffer a reduction in their wage rates, a strong effort should be made to remove any justification which may exist for such a belief. * * *

Reference is sometimes made to the hostility of labor to changes in methods of mining and more particularly to the use of mechanical appliances underground. We do not regard this impression as well founded. Labor does not appear to have an interest in objecting to anything that has for its object the affording of greater facilities for the bringing of its production to bank, or to anything that tends to make work less arduous. Investigation of particular cases where difficulties appear to have arisen rather suggests that in these cases_the_human factor has not been sufficiently considered in the changes introduced.

Land owners have profited richly from the coal industry through rents and royalties. In some instances they have shortsightedly stood in the way of the development of successful undertakings.

It not infrequently happens that where small properties intervene so as to hinder or prevent the regular working of coal in their vicinity the owners take advantage of the situation of their property to extort exorbitant terms for the right to work their coal. Moreover, other cases have been brought to our attention where considerable quantities of coal (in one case amounting to 2,000,000 tons) will be permanently lost unless it is worked by the lessees of the adjoining workings, but the difficulties of obtaining a lease are at present practically insuperable. Either the land belongs to a large number of small proprietors in a town, or to joint owners who can not agree among themselves, or the owner can not be found, or refuses to treat, or asks prohibitive terms, or is unable to make a title; and for one reason or another the coal remains unworked. We think that in all such cases the person who is able to work the coal should have the right to apply to the Ministry of Mines and Minerals for a certificate that unless he works it the coal will be permanently lost, and when, after inquiry, such a certificate is granted, the Ministry of Mines and Minerals should have power to settle the terms on which the coal may be worked. If, in such a case, the owner of the coal can