§ Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
§ Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines).
§ MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 18, after "boy," to insert "save as excepted by section eleven of this Act," said, there was an earnest desire on the part of every miner in England that female labour should be prohibited on the "bank-top" as well as under-ground. He was aware that a contrary opinion had been expressed by a Select Committee; but in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Durham the general custom was not to employ women in coal-mining, even above ground, and much demoralization would be prevented if there was a statutory prohibition of such, employment all over the kingdom. He was aware that the question of wages was mixed up with such a prohibition; but he hoped that the Committee would not allow the question of wages to influence them when decency and morality were at stake, and when women by this employment were withdrawn from the care of their families and from home associations.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Committee must be careful not to allow the arguments of a specious philanthropy to lead them from the regions of common sense, or they would be really doing an injury to the very persons they desired to serve. To say that labour outside the pits was unadvisable for women was one thing; absolutely to prohibit it was quite another; and he certainly hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It had been advocated by the hon. and learned Gen- 30 tleman on three grounds—that female labour at the pit's mouth was indecent, that it withdrew them from their home duties, and that they themselves wished to have it done away with. He must first of all protest against the statement that this question had not been thoroughly considered by the Select Committee. In fact, a great number of working miners were called before it; and though many of them objected to this employment of women, as leading to indecency and immorality, many others were of the contrary opinion, and evinced the greatest dislike to its being prohibited by law. The evidence of the Inspectors of Mines was, that it would be a great hardship to these women to prevent their labouring as hitherto, that it would deprive them of many comforts, that they were as moral a sort of women as any in the kingdom, and that the work was free from indecency. No doubt, working at the pit's mouth interfered with their home duties and associations; but as much might be said of any form of female labour, whether outside mines or inside factories, and he thought, therefore, that the Committee should be careful how they interfered in the matter.
§ MR. BROWNstated that it appeared from the Report of the Miners' Commission that the practice of employing females was degrading to the sex, and led to gross immorality. It would be desirable, therefore, not to prohibit absolutely females labouring at the pit's bank, but to enact that none under a certain age should do so, because the chief danger of moral contamination would be removed if young girls were kept away.
§ MR. BRUENsaid, that there was none of the immorality which had been alluded to observable at the mines in Ireland, and the prevention of the employment of women there would be a great hardship.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the measure could hardly deserve to be called a "Mines Regulation Bill" at all, if this question of the labour of women was not to be dealt with. From actual observation, and from the universal testimony of those best fitted to speak with authority, he was bound to say that this employment of women was degrading and disgraceful to the nation. Something at least might be done to the same purpose as the enactment of last year in the case of 31 the brickfields, which prohibited in future young women under a certain age from working in them. By that means no injustice could be done to those now engaged in the work; and the Committee might be sure that if a woman did not begin this sort of employment before 18 years of age she would never begin it at all. No sight could be more degrading than to see women in attire almost like that of men, with coalheavers' hats on their heads, smoking pipes with the men, drinking with them in the public-houses, and, he was told, sometimes fighting with them afterwards in the streets. It might be said that women were as free as men to enter into contracts; but though that was all very well in theory, the fact was, that they were sent as girls to this work by their parents, and were not free agents till they were about 18 years old, and then only till marriage; for a woman in that class was very much the slave of her husband—was his horse, his ass, his anything. The House ought to interfere in the interests of the women themselves, of their children, and of public decency and morality; and he should certainly support his hon. Friend if he went to a division, though he would suggest that the Amendment should not now be pressed; but that words should be moved in a later clause, prohibiting the employmen at the pit's mouth of women under a certain age.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had lived in South Staffordshire for many years and was well acquainted with the work referred to, and with the class of persons engaged in it, and from his own experience he could say that no young women of a better class, more straightforward in their manner, more respectable, or whose dress was more thoroughly becoming to them, could be found engaged in any other employment in the kingdom. He must therefore express his surprise at the language of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella).
§ MR. FLETCHERsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be misled by the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment, because, although he quite agreed that in some parts of Wales and of South Staffordshire women were to be found employed on the "bank-top" who were not properly dressed, still, in Cumberland, where a large number of women were 32 engaged in this industry, that was not the case. The work of sorting out the refuse from the coal was neither hard nor degrading, and it was performed under cover. The women who picked out this refuse were better adapted to the work than men were, and they earned 9s. a-week by their labour. If the Amendment were adopted, a large number of deserving women would be deprived of the means of support which was now open to them.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, who had been one of the Select Committee appointed to investigate this subject, in opposition to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, said, that the Committee had examined a great number of working miners before coming to a conclusion on this matter.
§ MR. T. HUGHESsaid, that the evidence of the working miners examined by the Committee did not bear upon the point now under discussion.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANproceeded to remark that the Committee had done their best to obtain the fullest information on the subject, and they had made a most conscientious Report. The question of the employment of women had engaged his attention for many years, and he had done his best to prevent them being employed on work for which they were not fitted; still he thought much hardship would be inflicted were Parliament to lay down the hard-and-fast law that no women were to be employed on collieries, even above ground.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that the Committee ought to feel obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds for having brought this question under their notice, because he believed that all that had been said about the demoralizing effect of this description of labour upon women was perfectly true. He thought, however, that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) should be accepted—namely, that no girls or women under a certain age should be employed in this sort of labour; for upon them it undoubtedly had a demoralizing effect. If the Amendment was now pressed, and in its present form, he was afraid that the object of those who favoured it would be defeated; and he thought it would be far better to move in the 3rd sub-section of the 11th clause words providing that 33 women under 20 years of age should not be employed at the pit's mouth.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he agreed with the last speaker that considerable inconvenience would result from discussing this Amendment on the earlier clauses of the Bill, when it could be much more appropriately debated on Clause 11. He, however, felt bound to state, at the same time, that he was entirely opposed to carrying much further the interference with women's labour. It might be quite true that in some places this description of labour was of a demoralizing character, but, at the same time, he did not think that it was as demoralizing as many other descriptions of female labour. The best course that could be adopted, in his view of the matter, was to leave the employment of women to be regulated by the improved feelings of our countrymen. It had been shown that in certain districts women were less employed in this sort of labour than in others, and that might, perhaps, arise from a higher sense of duty on the subject in those districts, though he believed the chief cause was that it happened that other descriptions of employment could be had by the women there.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he hoped that, as the Amendment had already been discussed at considerable length, it would not be withdrawn, but that its principle would be at once determined by the Committee.
§ MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he thought it absurd to object to the Amendment as an interference with freedom of compact, for the clause as it stood interfered with it as regarded labour below ground. Eye witnesses reported that this labour was very degrading, and his own limited observation led him to agree with them. He should like to hear the evidence of a working miner on this point.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he regarded the Amendment as too vague. The kinds of labour to be prohibited should be defined, or otherwise the prohibition might apply to lighting fires and cooking dinners.
§ MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) was anxious to hear the opinion of a working man on this point; but why did he not consult the women whose employment was proposed to be taken away? He (Mr. Bright) hoped the Government would be firm on 34 this question. He deprecated legislation which, at a time when women were properly seeking new fields of employment, would render it more difficult for them to earn a living. There might, perhaps, be sufficient reason for prohibiting women from working below, but he had heard no sufficient reason for extending prohibition to labour above ground.
§ SIR JOSEPH BAILEYalso opposed the Amendment, on the ground that there was a variety of light labour which devolved on women and boys. He would be no party to taking the bread out of the mouths of these poor women. By adopting the Amendment there would arise the necessity of doubling the population in the mining districts, and that would be the cause of great economical troubles.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn; but if that was not allowed, he should vote for it, preferring total prohibition to the present demoralizing state of things. Parliament had interfered with many trades in which women were only too anxious to be employed, and when attempts were made to shorten the hours of labour of dressmakers, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), who now came forward as the champion of women, never raised his voice, while he and his friends also opposed the Factory Acts.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he must protest against the idea that any woman who wore soiled clothes must necessarily be immoral. So far as his experience went, immorality was principally confined to women who wore smart clothes. He had lived in a mining district all his life, and he had no hesitation in saying that the wives and daughters of colliers and miners were as well able to take care of themselves and their honour as any other class of women in the country. It was said that they wore men's clothes, but the fact was that, as a matter of propriety, their trousers were lengthened to their ankles, and occasionally they put on a man's coat to protect them against the rain.
§ LORD ELCHO, when in communication a few years ago with working miners, said, he found that they had a picture of a woman dressed as had been described; but though they raised this point it did not appear to be one on which they laid stress. Mr. Dickinson, 35 the Colliery Inspector, having seen nearly all the women in his district, had reported that they unanimously wished to be let alone.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped leave would be given to postpone the Amendment until the clauses relating to work above ground were reached, otherwise the question would have to be discussed again, while the present clauses related exclusively to work underground.
§ MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). Considering the enormous number of women employed in various ways, he was convinced that in order to protect themselves they must form combinations like men, and arrange matters for themselves. They would never be in a satisfactory condition until they attained the independent position which workmen had already reached.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to leave husbands and wives in an independent position, and should therefore vote against the Amendment. It was undesirable that women should be employed in such ways; but instead of laying down a hard law, it was better to trust the matter to the growing feeling of the times, and leave women free to accept or reject. He understood that during the last few years the views of working miners on this point had been somewhat modified.
§ MR. RICHARDsaid, the most conclusive evidence of the feeling of the colliers themselves in reference to the question was evidenced by the fact that representatives of the miners of England, Scotland, and Wales met some time ago at Manchester, and passed a resolution to the effect that they viewed with abhorrence the employment of women in mines. That meeting expressed an earnest hope that the Government would bring in a measure to prevent any female being employed in a mine.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PEASE moved as an Amendment in line 18, page 1, to strike out "ten" for the purpose of inserting "twelve." His Amendment, he said, would exclude all boys below 12 years of age from going under ground, and its effect would be to keep boys at school for two years longer than the Bill proposed. That additional schooling would render 36 boys ten times more valuable than they would be if they were allowed to be employed under ground at 10 years of age, for it was well known that the labour of boys at that age was practically worthless in comparison with the greater age. In the mining district which he represented it had been the practice not to employ in mines boys who were under 12 years of age, and anyone acquainted with the subject would know the reasonableness of that practice. If the Committee, had any regard for the mining population, they ought to take care that boys under 12 should not be employed in mines by adopting the Amendment proposed.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Pease.)
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it would be necessary for the economical working of thin-seam, mines with which he was acquainted, that boys between the ages of 10 and 12 should be employed. He would not sanction the working of any mine which would be injurious to human life; but in the seams to which he referred there was an absence of deleterious matter, and the coal which was obtained from them was particularly well adapted for the production of the very best iron for which England was famous. Moreover, the opinion of the men themselves was in favour of this employment of the boys, and in 1870 two Petitions, signed by nearly 3,000 of them, were presented to the House to that effect. In fact, both masters and men were agreed on the subject.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the Amendment, on the ground that a boy between the age of 10 and 12 would not have strength enough for the work, and that the boy was anything but a voluntary agent in the matter.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that if a boy was to be prevented from working under ground in a thick-seam mine, much more ought he to be prevented in a thin-seam mine. The men knew what was good or bad for their children; they were the persons who would suffer if their children were not to be employed, and if they were willing to make the pecuniary sacrifices which would be entailed on them from the non-employment of their children, it was not for the House 37 of Commons to prevent them. Now, the 40th resolution of the Conference was to the effect, that children under 10 should be prevented from entering the mines for purposes of employment.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHopposed the Amendment. In most points to which the clause applied, parents were unanimous in favour of it as it stood. He had himself presented numerous Petitions from the neighbourhood of Halifax—and the men, almost everyone of them—had petitioned in favour of the clause, for the simple reason that the thin-seam collieries could not be worked without employing those boys. The evidence of that most experienced Inspector, Mr. Dickinson, before the Mines Committee was also to that effect. It was said that the thin-seam colliery was the most dangerous to the child. He believed the contrary to be the case, because the distances were comparatively short, and the loads light.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he did not see why the Argument of the noble Lord would not apply equally to a boy of eight. It was a question of strength, and until a boy was 12 years old he had not the requisite strength for this work. A boy of 12 ought also to have laid a good foundation in learning; he ought to have acquired at least "the three R's." He believed that many hon. Members, if they spoke candidly, would say that they acquired pretty nearly all they knew by the time they were 12; at all events, they laid the foundation of what they knew before that age. He should support the Amendment, believing it better to prevent boys from going into a mine at all until they were 12 years old, and had received a good education.
§ MR. BROWNsaid, he wished to point out that the clause as it stood would add materially to the number of accidents by falls in the shafts, because it would double the number of boys going up and down these mines. It was very difficult to make this legislation fit into the half-time system, and he would quote the opinion of the Committee of 1867, who recommended that no boys should be employed in coal mines under the age of 12.
§ MR. RICHARDsaid, he should also support the Amendment, and in doing so represented the view of the great body of miners employed in his district, who were ready to relinquish the wages 38 of their children up to the age of 12, in order that they might have the benefit if a good education. He maintained—from a letter he had received from an intelligent minister, who had visited many coal mines, and who said he abhorred the idea of employing boys of 10 under-ground—that this early labour stunted their physical growth, blunted heir moral perceptions, and did more than anything else to demoralize the mining population.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the discussion showed the extreme difficulty and perplexity of the question. The Select Committee proposed that in all cases the age of children employed in mines should be 12 years, and, feeling the difficulty with regard to education, they made no recommendation on that subject. The Bill was framed in accordance with the Report of the Committee, and in 1870 complaint was made, on the one hand, that no means of education were afforded to children, and on the other hand that children in certain cases would be deprived of a very lucrative employment. Meanwhile, deputations waited on him from Yorkshire and Lancashire, representing both masters and workmen, and he found that the feelings of the working population engaged in the thin-seam mines were entirely in favour of the employment there of children between the ages of 10 and 12. He knew that too much weight must not be attached to the selfish interests of parents; but he had made inquiry from the Inspectors as to the effect of employment in these mines upon the health and education of children, and could assure the Committee that the Reports he received were by no means unfavourable to such employment. It was difficult to apply one hard-and-fast line to various kinds of mining labour, and he came at last to the conclusion that it would be a fair compromise to exclude children under 12 from employment under-ground among nineteen-twentieths of the mining population, allowing such employment among the remainder as provided in the Bill. He was aware that the miners generally were in favour of the limit of 12 years. But surely the parents mainly to be consulted were those whose children would be allowed to work under this Bill? They comprised only one-twentieth of the mining population, and were in favour of the lower limit; but ample 39 security was given that younger children should have a sufficient amount of education. Both employers and men, he believed, were, on the whole, satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and he hoped the Committee would make no change in the clause.
§ MR. RYLANDSsupported the Amendment. In the greatest portion of the mining districts children under 12 years of age would not be employed; but in certain small portions of the coal districts the clause would give power to the Home Secretary to authorize the employment of children between the ages of 10 and 12. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about a hard-and-fast line, but there was a hard-and-fast line imposed by nature. Whatever might be done with regard to its mental education, a child of 10 could not be taken and put into a coal mine without sustaining physical injury. He hoped the House would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he spoke with reluctance upon a matter in which he had some personal interest; but when hon. Members declared that the employment of children in the thin-seam mines tended to their physical and moral injury he thought that some proof should be furnished of the truth of such a statement. Hon. Gentlemen should remember that children were now employed between the ages of 10 and 12, and he asserted that as regarded the thin-seam mines these children were as well-developed, mentally and physically, as those in any other parts of the country. He said so as the result of inquiry, and not of personal observation; but no interest in the world would lead him to support the employment of children between 10 and 12 in these mines if he thought that he was thereby preventing their physical and moral development. If they were not so employed, it was supposed that they would remain at school till they were 12 years old; but in the West Riding, where the thin-seam mines were situated, the whole country was dotted over with manufactories, and if the children did not go into the collieries at 10, they would inevitably go into some factory. Of the two, he thought mining labour more healthy than factory labour. In the thin-seam collieries the labour was of a light kind; the corves of coal were ex- 40 ceedingly small and light, and suitable to children. If labour were to be stopped at 10, let the question be fairly argued. He had seen the Petitions which had been referred to, and the parents of the children, who were the petitioners, all expressed a desire to have their children with them in the mines, so as they might be brought up to the labour they would have to follow in after life. The Home Secretary, too, saw no reason to object to such an arrangement, and why, then, should others interpose? He hoped that in thick as well as in thin-seam mines machinery would soon be invented to supersede to a great extent the employment of children; but the Committee ought not to interfere and extinguish this industry unless they were satisfied that physical and moral injury resulted to the children.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had really argued in favour of the Amendment, for though he wanted to employ children 10 years old in mining, he had expressed a hope that the time would come when such labour could be altogether superseded by machinery. If inventors were to be stimulated into producing such machinery, that stimulus would best be given not by permitting the employment of children at 10 years of age, but by preventing their employment until they were 12. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were such as had been used on every occasion when it had been proposed to restrict the employment of women and children. He hoped the Committee was not prepared to immure children of the tender age of 10 years in mines, where the weakest went to the wall, and where only the healthy and the strong could survive.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he was sure that the sympathies of the Committee were in favour of making children's labour as light as possible. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to suppose that that was a proposal, for the first time, to employ children of 10 years old in mines, whereas the clause, even as proposed, made a great and sweeping change, for in 19 cases out of 20, children between the ages of 10 and 12 now immured in coal mines would be disinterred. That was a great stride in advance, and all that the Bill proposed was to allow certain exceptions. Originally, miners, as a body, were in favour 41 of the limit of 12 years; but on reconsideration, and on representations made by owners and by parents who were interested, it was thought that the compromise contained in the Bill as to the thin-seam mines was a fair one.
MR. C. SEELY(Nottingham) said, he thought it would be better to let the clause stand as it was, and then when they came to the 5th clause they might limit its operation to a certain number of years.
MR. SAMUELSON, in opposing the Amendment, said that the only argument for it appeared to be that if children under the age of 12 years were not employed in the seam mines the expense of working those mines would be increased.
§ Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 136: Majority 51.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines).
§ MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH moved as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out "No boy of the age of twelve and under the age of thirteen years, and." The object of the Amendment was to render the Bill similar to the Factory Acts, under which no child under 13 years of age was allowed to work full time.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken as to the effect of his Amendment, which was unnecessary, for it would be better to leave this point to the discretion of the school boards, who would have power to compel boys between 12 and 13 years of age to attend school during a certain number of hours per week.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved in sub-section 1, line 20, after "of," to insert "the shift or group of workmen commencing to leave;" in same line, to leave out "leaving;" in line 21, after "of," to insert "so commencing to return;" and in same line to leave out 42 "returning." He wished to show that the time during which the boys should be employed under ground should be calculated from the hour when the group or shift of workmen with whom the boys were employed commenced to leave the ground to the hour when the group or shift arrived at the surface.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to point out that in some instances in the North of England, while the workmen left the surface at four o'clock in the morning, the boys did not begin to descend until six o'clock, and came up again earlier than the workmen. While fully admitting the difficulty of properly defining the time when the boys were to commence or to leave off work, he regretted he could not accept the Amendment as it was at present worded.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the practice in the North of England. It would be almost impossible to carry out this Act if every individual boy was ticketed when he went down the pit and when he came up.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid, that the clause related only to boys, and had nothing to do with men. There would be great difficulty in arriving at the average time. The time should commence to run when the first boy started from the surface and end when the signal was given for return. There would be no difficulty in arranging it so.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that a most important point. If the clause was left as it now stood, or if the average was taken, it would be impossible to say when an offence had been committed by employing boys beyond the time allowed. He therefore thought the clause should be postponed, in order that suitable words might be inserted.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped the time would be accurately defined by Parliament, otherwise the embarrassment of mine owners would be increased.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, the Home Secretary need not fear that while some boys were being brought up others would be kept at work, because all the boys insisted upon stopping work at the same moment.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he believed that unless the Act prescribed the time at 43 which the work should begin or end, parents, or workmen hiring boys, might be tempted to keep them at work beyond the ordinary hours.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsuggested that the words of the sub-section should run thus—
The period of employment to be deemed to begin at the time of the shift or group of persons so employed commencing to leave the surface, &c.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as more men were employed at a time of full work than when work was short, the period occupied by lowering and raising was of uncertain duration, and it was impossible to define when either of these operations should cease; but they might fix the time at which the lowering and raising should commence.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, that if a portion of the clause was omitted it might work well. The object should be to prevent annoyance through technical arrangements.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he feared that they were attempting to reconcile two impossible things.
§ MR. CANDLISHsuggested that the Amendment should be now adopted on the understanding that it should be remodelled on the Report.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the framers of the Clause had intended the time to count from the hour of leaving the surface to the hour of regaining it. He thought the clause as it stood was clearer than the Amendment, but was willing to discuss the matter elsewhere, and accept any feasible suggestion.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsuggested a modification of Clause 6, so as to calculate the time in the way just stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CAWLEYdoubted whether the proposed Amendment of the clause would accomplish the object in view.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, considering the penalty of imprisonment which would attend the owners and workers for the acts of subordinates, felt bound to go to a division, unless the Home Secretary undertook to alter the clause at another stage.
§ SIR JOSEPH BAILEY, on the contrary, hoped that the Home Secretary would adhere to the words of the clause.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not undertake to alter it, unless satisfied that it would be for the better. He denied that imprisonment would attach to persons except for personal and wilful acts.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would recommend the acceptance of the Home Secretary's offer.
§ MR. R. SHAWsaid, he thought that the time should be counted from the hour of leaving the surface till the signal was given to cease work.
MR. BRUCEobjected that boys might in that case have to wait an hour or more at the bottom of the shaft while coal was being hauled up.
§ MR. HILDYARDsaid, he was willing to abide by the decision of the workmen's representatives.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought his own Amendment, framed by representatives of masters and men, was, after all the best.
§ MR. RYLANDSthought the clause should be postponed, with the view of enabling his hon. Friend the Member for Durham to propose a clause which would be satisfactory to all parties.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the question was surrounded with great difficulties, and on the whole he thought the suggestion of the Home Secretary was the best—namely, that the clause should remain as it was upon the understanding that on the Report the right hon. Gentleman should propose an alteration of it in conformity with what appeared to be the wish of the Committee.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, it would be impossible to individualize each boy, and in the result serious penalties might fall on the mine owner.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that when the Bill had been in operation 12 months many of the difficulties might be better met.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYhoped that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Vivian) would not press the question to a division, but would leave the question to be dealt with on the Report.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would gladly adopt any form of words which would remove doubt upon the subject. He, moreover, thought the Inspectors should not institute prosecutions against the owners of collieries without laying before the Secretary of State the grounds of prosecutions, and it would be expe- 45 dient to add to the clause words to that effect.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was anxious that a more specific form of words should be adopted.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that after the declaration of the Home Secretary he would not persist in his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Educational provisions with respect to boys).
§
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH moved that, after the word "employed," in line 34, the following words should be inserted:—
Attend a school which the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education having recognized as giving efficient elementary education to the children of the district, or if there be no school in the district which has been so recognized, or no school so recognized in which there is room, then any elementary school in the district.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he saw no objection to the introduction of the words, and would consider the matter before the bringing up of the Report.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Another Amendment made.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEproposed verbal alterations which would provide that no girl or woman under 20 should be so employed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that this section was introduced on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Mines, to the effect that with respect to women and children employed on the surface the provisions of the Workshops Act should apply. There were many sorts of labour from which he should wish to see women and children exempted, but he held that all these questions should be dealt with as a whole. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was also of opinion that this matter, if 46 taken up at all, should be dealt with as a general question.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PEASEproposed, in line 12, to leave out "eight," and insert, 'ten," so that the age of children employed above bank might not be under 10.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he believed, as a matter of fact, that no children of the tender age which his hon. Friend had in view were ever employed.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he should support the Amendment on the ground that if the word "eight" remained part of the clause an invitation would be given for the employment of children of that tender age.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.