HC Deb 17 August 1887 vol 319 cc863-97

Clauses 60 to 62, inclusive, severally agreed to.

Clause 63 (General provisions as to summary proceedings).

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

I have put down the following Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "months" and insert "weeks." The sub-section, if amended as I propose, would read— Any complaint or information made or laid in pursuance of this Act shall (save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act) be made or laid within three weeks from the time when the matter of the information or complaint arose. I have put this Amendment down at the request of some of the colliery managers. If an interval of three months were to elapse after the subject matter of the complaint arose before information were laid, it might be very difficult to ascertain what had occurred three months before. Especially would it be difficult to obtain the evidence which would be required, and which would be most valuable—independent scientific evidence. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Of course, if it is opposed by those who are but acquainted with the working of mines, I should not press it, but I have been asked to move this, as I say, by managers of the Cumberland mines.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 5, leave out the word "months" and to insert the word "weeks."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'months' stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I quite sympathize with the objects of the managers the hon. Member refers to, to whom vicarious responsibility attaches under this Act, but it certainly seems to me that three months is a period quite short enough.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I beg to move an Amendment in line 7, after the word "arose." I wish to add "such complaint or information may be made or laid by a common informer." The object of this is that there may be open to those who cannot be injuriously affected by anything which has happened, to give evidence supporting complaints upon which summary decisions may be taken. I will not detain the Committee longer than is necessary to state the object of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 7, at the end of the sub-section to add "and such complaint or information may be made or laid by a common informer."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think the hon. Member's Amendment is unnecessary, unless it were meant to over-ride a limitation such as that in Clause 66. The words "common informer" are not applicable. Anyone can prosecute, and the only offence in which consent is necessary to a prosecution is a case in which there is vicarious responsibility, where the owner, agent, or manager, is made responsible for what is done by someone else—in a case where the person prosecuted has done nothing wrong himself, but can be prosecuted for the fault of another.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

My hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has moved this Amendment at the request of the miners. It is a subject which has often come before our conferences, and, no doubt, so far as the phraseology is concerned, it is objectionable. It is open to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, no doubt, is an authority upon this point. At the same time, the object aimed at was to give a power of prosecuting in the case of managers and others. The right hon. Gentleman sympathizes with the object we have in view in this Amendment, and I do not know whether he may not find it possible to deal with the matter in some other way. If it is possible, I have no doubt he will do it.

MR. MATTHEWS

But under Section 66 any person may prosecute another who has committed an offence under the Act. Clause 66 introduces a limitation against the prosecution of owners, agents, and managers, for offences which they have not committed themselves—that is to say, vicarious offences —offences committed, by some person in the colliery, for whom the owner, agent, or manager is made responsible. In such a case Clause 66 imposes a restriction. If the hon. Member wishes to object to that—and I am not sure that he does—the proper place to raise the objec- tion would be on Clause 66. For instance, if an owner does not provide an ambulance, or a stretcher, or splints, or bandages, such as we have provided earlier on that he shall keep at the mine, he has committed an offence himself and can be prosecuted by any person. On the other hand, if a workman commits a fault he can be prosecuted himself; but the owner, agent, or manager may also be prosecuted for his fault.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I would point out that Section 66 provides that a prosecution shall not be instituted except by an Inspector, or with the eon-sent in writing of the Secretary of State in cases where the offence committed is not committed personally by the owner, agent, or manager, but by somebody under him for whom he is responsible. Now, what I want to secure is that, with regard, at any rate, to all other cases, it shall be possible to prosecute on the evidence of a common informer. Is there any objection to the introduction of these words—any solid objection? It does not appear to me that they could do any harm.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

If there is anything in the proposal as contained in the clause it will apply as much against the employer as against the workman.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

I think it will save time if I point out that there is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard) to leave out the clause and insert a clause which I need not read, which suggests the very thing which is sought to be brought about by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Gentlemen behind me. There the question is properly raised as to whether it should be left in the hands of any person deputed by workmen, or by any workman ordinarily engaged in the mine, to bring an action—I believe that is the limitation put on it— to prosecute any owner, agent, or manager, even for an offence that is not personally committed by them. I think my hon. Friend would serve his object better by withdrawing the Amendment, and taking the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Normanton.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I beg to move the following Amendment, standing in the name of the late Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. T. Blake). At the end of line 12 to insert the following sub-section:— Any person may give evidence as a witness by virtue of this Act upon oath, or upon affirmation or declaration, to speak the truth signed by him. Any person who shall give false evidence upon oath, affirmation, or declaration as aforesaid, shall be guilty of, and may be convicted of, perjury, and may upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without bard labour, for any period not exceeding two years. The object of this is to permit evidence to be given either on oath, affirmation, or signed declaration. Unless there is any objection to this on the part of the Government, I shall not delay the Committee by attempting to argue the matter. I will simply move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 40, at end of line 12, to add the following sub-section;—"Any person may give evidence as a witness by virtue of this Act upon oath, or upon affirmation or declaration, to speak the truth signed by him. Any person who shall give false evidence upon oath, affirmation or declaration as aforesaid, shall be guilty of, and may be convicted of, perjury, and may upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding two years."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MATTHEWS

Either these words express what is the existing law of the land as to judicial oaths, or they do not. If they do, they are unnecessary; and if they do not, they are improper in this Bill. This is not an Oaths Bill, but a Coal Mines Regulation Bill. It is not a Bill for dealing with oaths in any way. If any limitation is to be made in the law as to judicial oaths, it should be done in an Act of Parliament dealing with that matter.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The Amendment does not propose to alter the law, but merely to simplify the practice. At the present moment, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, if a witness under this Act required to give his evidence upon affirmation, he would have to satisfy the person to whom he applied to be allowed to make that affirmation that he was a person upon whom an oath would have no special binding effect on his conscience. I do not wish to go into the whole argument involved in the case which hon. Members will remember was argued before the Court of Appeal; but I shall certainly press this Amendment to a Division if the Government do not consent to it. With a number of men in the position of those for whom this legislation is intended, it is absurd to put upon them the necessity of entering into the discussion of a technical and metaphysical question as to whether a particular form is or is not binding upon the conscience. I regret that the Government should show any hesitation about this at all.

MR. MATTHEWS

I cannot consent that the law shall be one thing in a criminal inquiry with regard to coal mines, and another thing in every other inquiry.

MR. BRADLAUGH

It is not intended to make it one thing in an ordinary inquiry and another thing in the case of coal mines; but it is intended to clear up what is now doubtful. I have had occasion to bring before the House several times the conduct of magistrates, I County Court Judges, and Coroners, who placed different and contradictory constructions on what was meant by the present state of the law. I will not continue the argument. I was anxious to ascertain the opinion of the Government on the matter, and I shall certainly press for the opinion of the Committee.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I shall support this Amendment, because I wish to see the general law bearing upon the taking of oaths altered.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

All we have to do is to recognize conscientious objections which are not religious; but we ought not to upset the whole system of the general law with regard to oaths.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Everyone at present can affirm if he can succeed in. convincing the presiding Judge, whoever he may be—if he can "satisfy" the Judge, according to the Affirmation Act of 1869, that "an oath has no binding effect on his conscience." It is only to obviate the necessity for a subtle argument between the Judge and the counsel as to a collier or anyone else about to give evidence, that I wish to insert these words. My desire is to put a stop to disgraceful squabbles on the subject of the oath.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 109: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 394.) [2.20. P.M.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 64 (Appeal to Quarter Sessions).

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out, in line 15, the following words: — By which conviction, imprisonment, or a fine amounting; to or exceeding one-half the maximum fine is adjudged. I wish to leave out the limitation in the section, and to enable any person who feels aggrieved by any conviction made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. I am not, however, disposed to press the Amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it should not be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 15, to leave out from the word "by" to the word "adjudged," both inclusive, in line 17.—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

As I understand there is a strong objection entertained to this Amendment in certain quarters, I will not therefore undertake to press it till I hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has to say about it.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I think the hon. and learned Member, by his Amendment, would extend the right of appeal beyond that contained in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The hon. Member will find the principle as to these appeals laid down in 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 19. This section gives the right of appeal where imprisonment or a fine amounting to or exceeding half the maximum fine is imposed, the object being to stop appeals in cases where trumpery fines have been inflicted.

MR. WOODALL

I should like to have heard the opinion of some hon. Members below the Gangway upon this subject. I have been assured that there is a strong feeling amongst the miners that there should be an appeal allowed in all cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 65 (Parent or guardian liable for misrepresentation as to age) agreed to.

Clause 66 (Prosecution of owners, agents, and managers for offences).

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

This clause tends to make the law equal—employers and employed. I think it is right so far; but I wish to make an exception in favour of the manager of a mine. The manager may be an employer, or he may be himself employed; but whether or not he holds a position of great responsibility. The condition of the whole of the mine practically depends upon him. His position is analogous to that of the captain of a ship. He, or the under manager, has to come in contact with the workmen and has to issue orders of all sorts, some of which may be distasteful to the men, although warranted by the circumstances of the position. The danger I want to provide against is, that where there are a great many young men, as there always are in a mine, they shall not be allowed to bring frivolous complaints against the manager merely, you may say, for the sake of having a lark. I trust hon. Members below the Gangway will see that there is nothing in this proposal which is detrimental to the interests of the miners, but that they are only precautionary, in order to avoid such an evil as I have pointed out.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

What Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving?

COLONEL BLUNDELL

All the Amendments I have here affect the same point. My object in moving them is to prevent a manager from being at the mercy of a common informer who may lodge frivolous complaints against him.

MR. MATTHEWS

But which Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving? Because I agree with one of them—namely, that which would put the under manager in the same position as the manager. The third Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, however, that in line 29, which says leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent or manager," I object to. These Amendments are totally different in effect.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

I was about to move the Amendment in line 28, "before 'manager,' leave out 'or.'" But I will not do so. I will move the Amendment in line 29.

MR. MATTHEWS

Then I will ask leave to move the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment in line 28.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 28, after the word "manager," to insert the words "under manager," and so similarly throughout the Clause.— (Mr. Matthews.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I beg to move to leave out the word "not" after "Act," in line 29. The clause says— No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent or manager of a mine for any offence under this Act not committed person, ally by such owner, agent or manager, &c. I move to leave out the word "not."

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 29, after "Act," leave out the word "not."—(Sir John Swinburne.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' not' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I cannot conceive that the hon. Baronet is serious in moving this Amendment. The effect of it will be this—that no prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, or manager for any offence under this Act, committed by himself, unless he is prosecuted by the Inspector or with the consent of the Secretary of Stats. But in cases where an offence is not committed personally all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute. He is liable for the wrong of another man, and all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

I beg leave to move, in line 29, to leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager." I think a manager who may be employed should be ex- empted from the possibility of being attacked by a common informer for something he does in connection ordinarily with his office as manager. I trust this Amendment will be fairly considered on its merits. I bring it forward in the interest of the safety of the men in our mines, believing that the safety of our mines depends on the managers. There are, as I say, many young men who will be delighted to bring complaints against the manager merely for a lark, and I wish to protect these persons from anything of that sort. I would make them responsible for anything they do personally, and my Amendment would leave them liable to prosecution, if a prosecution is approved of by the Inspector as representing the Secretary of State.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 29, to leave out the words "not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager."—(Colonel Blundell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think I must emphatically decline to agree to this Amendment. I think it is only reasonable that every workman in a mine should have a right to prosecute the owner, agent, or manager, if he does anything personally that is wrong. I think all these four persons—that is to say, the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, require some protection when they are subjected to that extremely harsh rule which is quite exceptional in connection with coal mines, and which does not exist in any other branch of our law—that is to say, that they are made criminally responsible for action that they do not themselves know of. That criminal responsibility has been attached to them for reasons of public policy which I need nut now go into. It is a very harsh law, and when it is introduced there must be a kind of guarantee with regard to it. When a man has done wrong himself and the men suffer, I could not consent that he should not be liable to prosecution by any workman.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MATTHEWS

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in page 40, after line 37, to add— No prosecution shall be instituted against a Coroner for any offence under this Act, except with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State. The object of this Amendment is to exempt Coroners from prosecutions. I move this in consequence of representations I have received from Coroners, who are a useful body of men; but they have pointed out to me that under Clause 49 they are required to do a number of things, such as sending notice to the Inspector of the district; to adjourn inquests under certain conditions; to advise the Inspector of defects in and about a mine; not to allow certain persons to be sworn or to sit on the jury, and so on. For neglect of the duties contained in Section 49 he would be liable to prosecution under that Act; and, seeing that these gentlemen occupy a dignified and responsible position, I think it only desirable that before they shall be prosecuted in such a way the consent of a Secretary of State should first be obtained in writing.

Amendment proposed, In page 40, after line 37, to add the words "no prosecution shall be instituted against a Coroner for any offence under this Act, except with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State."— (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Clause 66, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

I beg to move that the clause be struck out, on the ground that, so far as prosecution is concerned, we as workmen will, under this clause, have no power whatever. It appears first of all that every owner, agent, or manager is to be exempted unless he commits a personal offence. It is a well-known fact that the owner, or agent, or certificated manager, is not always there, and very often delegates his authority to another person; and we think the workmen over whom the person so delegated has authority should have the power of prosecuting the manager in the same sense that the manager has power to prosecute the workman if he commits any offence under this Act. I therefore beg to move the omission of the clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 126 Noes 72: Majority 54. — (Div. List, No. 395.) [3.10 P.M.]

Clause 67 (Report of result of proceedings against workmen).

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I have two Amendments on the Paper—to leave out, in line 41, "within 21 days of the heaving of the case," and to insert "annually, on or before the first day of January;" and also, in line 42, to leave out "thereof," and insert "of all proceedings so taken during the then preceding year." I will not, however, move these Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 68 (Summary proceedings for offences in Scotland).

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out all the words after "be"—that is to say, to leave out the words— Constituted of two or more Justices of the Peace, sitting as Judges in a Justice of the Peace Court, or of the Sheriff or some other magistrate or officer for the time being empowered by law to do alone any act authorised to be done by more than one Justice of the Peace, and sitting alone or with others at some Court or other place appointed for the administration of justice. Then I propose to insert the words "the Sheriff." The effect of this will be to render the Court of Summary Jurisdiction "the Sheriff," instead of the Justices of the Peace us proposed in the clause. It is thought bettor that such inquiries should be conducted by the Sheriff, and not left to the local Justices.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman move to strike out all the sub-section after the word "be?"

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

I do.

Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 4, to leave out all the words after the word "be," and insert the words "the Sheriff."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

I entirely approve of the altera- tion. Complaint is made in Scotland that certain classes of prosecution for mining offences might be heard before the Justices, and the desire was to have them universally held before the Sheriff or paid magistrate.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'the Sheriff' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock, &c.)

The object of the Amendment I have to move—namely, in line 33, after "provisions," insert the following section:— (6.) In any inquiry in Scotland as to the cause of death or of serious injury, any relative of any person whose death may have been caused or who may have suffered serious injury by the explosion or accident with respect to which the inquiry or inquest is being held, shall be at liberty to attend and give evidence, and either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent, examine any witness, is to procure for relatives of any person killed or injured liberty to attend and give evidence, either in person or by counsel, and to examine witnesses, at an inquiry in Scotland. It seems that doubts were entertained as to the right of relatives to give evidence or examine witnesses at Coroners' inquests; but the Act of last year removed those doubts. We want now the same advantages in Scotland, which, if not originally given, at least are emphasized in Clause 49, Section 8. I admit that the Amendment may be subject to improvement; but I wish to give the right to relatives, where persons are seriously injured or have suffered death, to be present at inquiries either before the Fiscal or at a special inquiry, such as was held in the case of the Daphne, when Special Commissioners were sent down to institute an investigation. We desire that the relatives of persons injured or killed in this way in Scotland should have the same right that the relatives of such persons have in England, and I sincerely hope the Committee will endorse this Amendment. I think justice demands it.

Amendment proposed, In page 41, line 33, after "provisions," insert the following sub-section:—" (6.) In any inquiry in Scotland as to the cause of death or of serious injury, any relative of any person whose death may have been caused or who may have suffered serious injury by the explosion or accident with respect to which the inquiry or inquest is being held, shall be at liberty to attend and give evidence, and either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent, examine any witness."—(Mr. S. Williamson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Might I suggest to my hon. Friend what I think will carry out his intention, and, at the same time, not render this clause open to certain objections which it would otherwise be open to? If he were to provide that his Amendment should apply to any public inquiry held under this Act in Scotland, and make it applicable to all kinds of inquiry provided under Section 46 of the Act, I see no objection to it; but I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire, in a small referential clause of this kind, to import into the law of Scotland the whole system of Coronors' inquests. That could not be done according to a decision that was given the other day, as the Committee will see. If my hon. Friend will do what I propose, probably the Committee will see its way to accept that or some similar clause. I move that after the word "Scotland" in the Amendment the words "under this Act" be inserted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "Scotland," to insert "under this Act." —(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I would suggest another Amendment, to carry out the same idea. In the third line, which refers to "the inquiry or inquest," I would propose to leave out the words "or inquest."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "or inquest."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' or inquest' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I would point out that this would carry the appearance of relatives at inquiries under Clause 46.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed Amendment, as amended, be agreed to. "

MR. TOMLINSON

I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) quite understands what he has done. In Clause 46, after full consideration, it was deliberately decided not to give: relatives a right to appear at inquiries under it. The Amendment now proposed would have this result—that if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in England, the relatives of the injured persons would not have the right to appear; but if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in Scotland, those relatives would have the right to appear. The inquiries which would be held under this process would, therefore, be held in two ways.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I am quite alive to the fact that that would he the effect of the Amendment, and it is in view of that that I give my support to it. Might I point out that in Scotland we have no Coroners' inquests, and that, therefore, we have not the opportunity of having representatives of persons killed present at the inquests, with power to give evidence or to examine witnesses, as you have in England under the Common Law. Under these circumstances, as it is not proposed in this Coal Mines Bill to alter our whole system of procedure in these cases, it seems but reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded for the relatives of persons killed or injured to appear at the Secretary of State's inquiry. If this were not conceded, there would be no opportunity in Scotland for these people to appear at all. There would be no opportunity of appearing at such inquiries as were held in connection with the Blantyre colliery accident, or the upsetting of the Daphne. It is most important that persons should have the power of appearing in that way in carrying out inquiries in the interests of the public. I venture to submit that, inasmuch as this would be the only opportunity where such persons would be permitted in Scotland to attend an inquiry, to give evidence or examine witnesses, it would be throwing the whole process out of balance if the Amendment were not accepted as I propose. If the hon. and learned Member will reflect that in Scotland there will be an opportunity afforded for persons appearing at inquiries under this Amendment, as will be afforded in England, he will see that it is desirable to admit this proposal.

MR. TOMLINSON

I am not objecting to the Amendment, but I am pointing out how it will work. I am pointing out that by striking out the words "or inquest," and introducing the words "under this Act," may in England defeat the object of the inquiry.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

This Amendment would practically be an anomaly. We rejected a provision of this kind on Clause 46, which it was sought to apply to Great Britain generally. It was proposed to give the relatives this right in all cases; but the Committee refused to assent to the proposal on the ground that the inquiry was not one at which anyone had a right to appear. The provision applies not only to such cases as the Daphne, but to cases of inquiry where there has been no death. Therefore the hon. Member proposes that anyone should have a right to appear at these inquiries in this country; but that in Scotland they should have that right, though the two inquiries—the inquiry in Scotland and the inquiry in England —may be exactly identical in form. The hon. Member may be sure that if relatives are permitted to appear as a right it may make a great difference as to the course of the inquiry. If you give them a right to appear they will in all probability employ counsel, and go into the whole matter, as if the inquiry were an inquiry into a question affecting conflicting parties. As a matter of fact, however, the inquiry—and it was so decided by the Committee—would be a matter merely for the enlightenment of the Home Secretary, who will be the dominus of the whole proceeding. I have been concerned in several inquiries during the short time I have been Secretary of State, and my knowledge of the course which has been adopted with regard to them is that these persons are always allowed to attend; but that power is vested in those conducting the inquiry to stop them when they are irrelevant. When they are stopped in this way the Court can proceed to another part of the investigation. That would not be possible if an appearance was put in by these persons as a right, and they had the power of employing counsel and calling witnesses in the ordinary way.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

In order that something of this kind might be moved, I withdrew an Amendment I had on the Paper at an earlier period of the evening. It was put down to establish something like the Coroner's inquest in the case of fatal explosions in Scotland. When I withdrew my Amendment I understood that there would be brought forward, perhaps by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) at a later stage of the Committee, something to provide for this want, which admittedly exists in Scotland. Now, with regard to this particular suggestion, it seems to me that the inquiry would not be at all on the same footing as inquiries carried on in England, because inquiries carried on in England are on oath. Every witness is sworn; but, unless I am mistaken, the inquiry directed by the Secretary of State would be under some authority not competent to administer an oath. Therefore, the amount of importance and solemnity attaching to the inquiry in Scotland would not be at all the same thing as appertains to the inquiry in England. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he sees his way to make any Amendment in the clause by which this want that I refer to would be supplied?

MR. MATTHEWS

There is power to administer an oath at these inquiries; but really we have discussed this whole question before, on Clause 46, and the proposal now submitted was negatived.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

There is one effect of this Amendment that I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend, and which it would be necessary to provide against if the Amendment were carried. According to the Amendment, the relatives of injured parties would have power to appear at an inquest. There might be claims to attend on the part of a vast number of parties, and I think if the proposal were accepted it would be necessary to limit it in some manner or other. I think that a limitation of this kind should be accepted—namely, that no more than one person should be allowed to attend as representing the relatives of the whole of the injured persons. There should only be one person with a right to appear by counsel to examine witnesses in the interest of the injured persons.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

I have read the words of Section 8 in Clause 49, and I do not see why all these evils should exist in Scotland which do not arise in England. The words in Section 8 are not the ipsissima verba of the Act of last year; but they are words put in by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If these words are applicable to England, why not give us some similar words for Scotland? There is nothing in this Act bearing on the rights of relatives to attend at these inquiries in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is persistent in his objection to this Amendment, let him add these words after the concluding words of my Amendment— "subject, nevertheless, to the order of the Court."

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand this Amendment refers to any inquiries under this Act. In the Amendment moved on Clause 46 it was proposed that at such inquiries the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, or any of the workmen of the mine, or any relatives of any person killed or injured, should be at liberty to attend and examine witnesses. That Amendment was negatived, and, being negatived, cannot be raised again.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

Allow me, with all deference to you, to point out that after Clause 46 was dealt with we came to Clause 49; and, in so far as the acceptance of this Section 8 of Clause 49 was concerned, the Committee overruled what was done on Clause 46. And I am simply pleading that Scotland should have the same right and justice that England has got under Clause 49 and under Clause 46.

THE CHAIRMAN

This proposal affecting every inquiry under this Act does not refer to Clause 49, but to Clause 46. It is, therefore, inadmissible, having been negatived on Clause 46.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I certainly am under the impression that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) withdrew an Amendment in order to allow this point to be discussed, and we have been looking forward to the right to discuss this matter under existing circumstances. I ask you, Sir, with all respect, whether the words which the hon. Member now proposes do not convey additional matter, which exempts them from your ruling?

THE CHAIRMAN

No.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

Before you put the Question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he will introduce some words on Report, which will do justice to the relatives of these people in Scotland? I think it is only fair.

MR. MATTHEWS

In consideration of the number of cousins in Scotland I will give my best attention to the matter.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I really must protest—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. CONYBEARE

This Amendment, as I understand, is solely applicable to Scotland. Does not that exclude it from the general application of Clause 46?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! What is universal includes a particular application.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

I think we had better let the clause pass.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 (Saving for proceedings under other Acts) agreed to.

Clause 70 (Owner of mine, &c. not to act as justice, &c. in proceedings under this Act).

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

The clause says— A person who is the owner, agent, or manager of any mine, or a miner or miner's agent, or the father, son, or brother of such owner, agent, or manager, or of a miner or miner's agent, or who is a director of a company being the owner of a mine, ‥‥ act as a member of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of offences under this Act. Well, I think that is scarcely wide enough. I think that a son-in-law or father-in-law are much more likely to be influenced than other relatives in cases of this kind. A man may have a son-in-law who is engaged with him in business; and I think it, therefore, desirable that we should extend the principle of the clause so as to include such relationship as this. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to consider the point before the next stage of the Bill?

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 71 (Application of fines).

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I beg to move as an Amendment to this clause, in line 27, to leave out the words, "and shall be carried to the Consolidated Fund," in order to substitute— Paid over to the Treasurer for the time being of any special or permanent fund, approved by the Secretary of State, established for the relief of sufferers by mining accidents, where the offence was committed, and where certain fines were inflicted. I wish to insert these words because I. had considerable difficulty, in a case which occurred in 1885, in getting fines paid over to the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. I applied to the Home Secretary, and I found that the money had been paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and I was told in this House, both in answer to Questions and in private interviews, that it was quite impossible that this money could be paid over to the Miners' Fund, as it had gone into the Consolidated Fund. One of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends on the opposite side took it into his head to write a note, asking if it could not be paid over; and I discovered, to my astonishment, a short time afterwards, that the money had been paid over to the hon. and learned Member for Durham who sits on the other side of the House (Mr. Milvain). I think that there ought to have been no doubt on the matter, and on that ground I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 42, line 26, leave out "and shall be carried to the Consolidated Fund," in order to insert the words—"paid over to the Treasurer for the time being of any special or permanent fund, approved by the Secretary of State, established for the relief of sufferers by raining accidents, where the offence was committed, and where certain fines were inflicted." —(Mr. Joicey.)

THE CHAIRMAN

I have very grave doubts whether this is an Amendment which the hon. Member can move, as it proposes to deal with money which goes into the public funds. A private Member cannot move to apply public money to private purposes, however small the sum and however valuable the object maybe.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

But I would point out that this is not money which has ever been public money. It is money which will have to be dealt with in the public funds ultimately, but until it is handed over to the Consolidated Fund it is not public money.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

On behalf of the Exchequer I would like to say a word on this matter. I would remind the Committee that at this moment the law of the land is precisely that which is proposed to be done by this Bill. The 68th section of the existing Coal Mines Regulation Act provides— That, except as aforesaid, all penalties imposed in pursuance of this Act shall be paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and carried to the Consolidated Fund. Therefore a proposal of this kind is one which seeks to alter the existing law of the land. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Member must see that the Government cannot consent to what he proposes.

MR. JOICEY

Under one of the clauses of the old Act the Home Secretary has power to hand over the money to some fund, and the reason this course was not adopted in this case to which I have referred was that it had already gone into the Consolidated Fund; but my view is that this money should go to the benefit of the sufferers in mining accidents. I believe the feeling of the Committee is with the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will find some way of settling the matter.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

It appears to me that this Amendment is in the wrong place, and that it should come earlier in the clause.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

We are always led into some difficulty or another when the words of an Amendment are not exactly before us. I appreciate the hon. Member's view, but I would call his attention to the fact that at the present moment the Home Secretary may direct the fines paid to be transferred to the relatives of the persons injured. All that my hon. Friend asks is that it should be obligatory on the Home Secretary to pay over this money to such persons as he thinks proper. It only goes into the Exchequer when the Home Secretary thinks it desirable that he should do so. We who take an interest in these miners' funds know what an enormous number of people they keep off the rates and maintain in comparative comfort; and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he sees that these funds are doing so much good, will let this money go directly into them, especially when the money arises from fines in connection with accidents.

THE CHAIRMAN

I said I had grave doubts as to whether this Amendment was admissible; but if it is admissible now it will be admissible on Report. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he decided upon considering this matter and bringing it up on Report.

MR. JOICEY

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say what he is prepared to do?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I am not in a position to say at present; but I will consider the matter.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

If it were accepted it would be necessary to leave out the words— A Secretary of State may (if he thinks fit) direct such fine to be paid to or distributed among the persons injured and the relatives of any persons whose death may have been occasioned by an explosion, accident, or offence, or among some of them. I think, however, the proper time to consider this matter would be upon Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clauses 72, 73, and 74, severally agreed to.

Clause 75 (Interpretation of terms).

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton). I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Mr. Matthews) says as to this Amendment, having regard to Clause 20. I must say I entertain some grave doubts as to the practicability of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 43, after line 18, insert the words "'part of a mine' includes every section having a separate intake and return air course."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones,)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N. W.)

I hope we shall have ample discussion on this important clause, as we are a good deal in the dark as to the absolute effect it will have. I trust some Member of the Government will give us the opinion of the Government, and also that we shall have some expression of opinion from the labour Representatives. It is not my wish to waste time or to trifle with the Committee; but really, when Amendments are before the Committee involving such very serious interests as I believe this does, it is more than a pity to let them go without having the subject dealt with thoroughly, and threshed out in all its bearings. With reference to this matter of separate intake and return air course, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if it is not a fact that difficulties have arisen in the working of mines, and in regard to the whole system of ventilation; and whether it is not better that we should introduce some provision into the Bill dealing with the matter?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

I am not aware of any clause where these words occur.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I refer the Government to Clause 20. I think "part of a mine" is used in one other section.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

No doubt it is necessary to define the words in Clause 20, and we will put these words in the clause on Report if we find we can do so without any inconvenience.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

Why defer it until the Report stage when there is no practical difficulty in making the Amendment now?

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I think it would save the time and labour of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State if I were to point out a very substantial difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment. Clause 20 provides that— Where two or more parts of a mine are worked separately, the owner or agent of the mine may give notice in writing to that effect to the Inspector of the district, and. thereupon each such part shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a separate mine. I do not know whether it would be really the effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton); but it seems to me the effect would be that every separate ventilating district would be compelled to have a separate manager and separate organization; that is the conclusion I draw from the Amendment. If that is so, the Amendment is perfectly impossible. I moved the Amendment, but I did so simply because I wanted guidance.

MR. MATTHEWS

I equally want guidance. Clause 20 is a clause to my liking.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

The effect of the Amendment seems to be this—that every ventilating district will by these words be constituted a separate mine.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I beg leave to move to insert, after "person," in line 33, the words "holding a first-class certificate, and." Agents are made superior to managers, and therefore there is a strong feeling that agents should hold first-class certificates.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 33, after the word "person," to insert the words "holding a first-class certificate, and."—(Sir John Swinburne.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think the hon. Baronet must be aware that the agent is in all cases the person who looks after the finances and business arrangements of the mine. He is not in mines generally a skilled person in mining; his duty is to look after the administration of the mine financially. I do not think it is desirable, or necessary, or expedient to require that he should be a person holding a first-class certificate in mining.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. In the district to which I belong, men have acted in the capacity of agents, and also in the capacity of general managers. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shakes his head; but I can give him half-a-dozen names in a moment.

MR. MATTHEWS

It cannot be so.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

The right hon. Gentleman says it cannot be so; but all I can say is, that it is. This is the evil I endeavoured to point out yesterday— namely, that gentlemen under the guise of agents really act as general managers. Certainly we ought to avoid in any way relieving these agents from responsibility when they act as general managers, as, I maintain, many of them do. I may say, further, that in a number of collieries nothing can be done even by the managers themselves in the way of opening up the collieries without direction from the gentlemen who act as agents. The miners in South Wales have been objecting to this for a very long time. We have men supposed to be managers, but who, nevertheless, are obliged to take their orders from persons called agents. If parsons who act as agents are not capable of obtaining a certificate of competency in mining, certainly they ought not to be allowed to act as general managers.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

Perhaps I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the person acting as agent under this Bill is the person who, on behalf of the owner, has the power and care of directing the management of the mine. Now, if he is the person who is to have the care and direction of the mine he ought to be a person who is possessed of a first-class certificate within the meaning of this Bill. We know very well that the person who now acts in the capacity of agent is the person who has the complete care and control of the mine. The manager simply takes his instructions or directions from the agent, and without the agents' sanction he has very little power to cause any alterations to be made in the mine. If that is to be the understanding under the Bill we are now considering, I think it is very desirable that the agent, being the person who on behalf of the owner has the care and direction of the mine, should be possessed of a first-class certificate. The Home Secretary is not strictly accurate when he says that the agent simply attends to the finances of a colliery.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) is a little mistaken in this matter. The agent under this Bill is not the manager of a mine—the manager is already provided for. The agent is the man who stands in the place of the absent proprietor or owner. Take my own case. Many years ago, before I was a partner, I had the practical control of a number of mines. I was then acting as agent for the firm to which I afterwards belonged.

MR. MATTHEWS

I think hon. Gentlemen opposite might just as well insist upon the owner having a first-class certificate; the agent really takes the place of the owner. Of course, it is under the orders of his employers that the agent acts. If an employer gives a manager improper orders the manager ought to refuse to obey them; he is no more subject to the agent than he is to the owner. The agent is appointed simply because the owner, like the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), cannot manage every one of his mines, and he puts an agent in his place.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

I am very sorry our experience in this matter is so adverse to that of the right hon. Gentleman. If I am compelled to I will give an illustration. I do not want to give names here; but let me say that a complaint was made against the management of a mine in one of our daily papers in South Wales. The matter was taken up by the person who was recognized as the general manager, and the newspaper had to make a public apology; but a few months afterwards an accident occurred in the mine under the general management of this gentleman. I attended the inquest in order to ascertain what position this gentleman held, and I found he shielded himself behind the term of agent and not manager. We know, however, that he was general manager of five collieries. We contend that he was not a proper person to fulfil that important position unless he held a first-class certificate of competency.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

This is an important matter, and I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or else the words of this clause are most unhappily chosen. The words are— 'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person having on behalf of the owner the care or direction of any mine or any part thereof. Now, what is the care or direction of a mine? Surely the care or direction of a mine means something more than the financial position to which the right Gentleman referred; it implies something more than the mere receipt of the revenue. Apart altogether from the words of the clause, I can boar out what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is not at all an unusual thing for a very eminent engineer to have control of two or three collieries. He has a manager appointed to each individual colliery, and the manager of each individual colliery is bound to conform to his general directions, and even to his particular directions if he so wishes. The head viewer or agent, as he is termed and known as throughout the district, may be a very good man or he may be a very incompetent man; and it is, therefore, certainly undesirable that a properly qualified man should have to submit to the directions of one who is not a competent man in. mining matters. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not think I am pressing this matter in any captious spirit. I think that, as a rule, agents are men who have all the qualifications that are necessary. In some instances, however, that happy state of things does not exist; and I do not see any reason why a person who occupies the position of agent, a person who has the care and direction of a mine, should not possess a first-class certificate. But I am willing to submit to a compromise. If the right hon. Gentleman will strike out the words "care or direction of any mine," and substitute some other words showing that the agent merely occupies a financial position, the difficulty may be met.

MR. MATTHEWS

Will the Committee accept these words— 'Agent,' when in relation to any mine, means any person acting as representative of the owner and superior to a manager.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

That does not meet the case.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Abraham) says that that does not meet our point. Of course, it is known that the owner is superior to the agent, and that the agent is superior to the manager. What we desire is that the agent shall not interfere with the management or direction of the mine.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

We have not considered what provisions there are in this Bill in which agents are mentioned. Take Section 17. There we find that the owner, agent, and manager are spoken of together. It appears to me that if this proposed Amendment or definition is to be of any value at all, we must carefully consider what are the powers given to the agents in the preceding part of the Bill. "What possible harm can there be in the requirement that the agent shall have a first-class certificate? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has met us by observing that you might just as well require the owner to take out a certificate. A very good thing too. Every owner should know something practical about the colliery from which he derives his fortune. But what I was going to say is this. According to what I recollect of the many provisions of this Bill, the agent, whatever definition you may give of him, is in a position of superiority in many cases to the manager. The agent is able to give orders. It is part of his duty to give orders to the manager. Supposing an agent knows nothing about the working of a mine; supposing he is not able to take out a certificate, he may give orders which a manager may be compelled to carry out, but which may be orders of a most ridiculous kind, involving probable disaster, or jeopardizing the lives of the miners. If the manager is bound to obey the orders of the agent, it appears to me the agent ought to be qualified to give orders of an intelligible character, and such as a manager may feel himself called upon to carry out.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must point out that this discussion is rather running in contravention of what has been already settled. The relations between the agent and the manager are defined in Section 21. Section 21 says— Every mine shall be under a manager, who shall be responsible for the control, management, and direction of the mine, and the owner or agent of every such mine shall nominate himself or some other person to be the manager of such mine. And it provides that— A person shall not be qualified to be a manager of a mine, unless he is, for the time being, registered as the holder of a first-class certificate. The relations of the manager to the agent are, therefore, completely settled.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

So far as I know, the agent in the North of England would in every case hold a first-class certificate, or could immediately pass an examination entitling him to such a certificate. There would, therefore, be no practical difficulty in putting this provision in force so far as I am aware. At the same time, let me point out that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not at all meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorgan (Mr. W. Abraham) and others who have spoken in this debate—it would not at all alter the position of the agent. What we really want to accomplish will have to be met in another way — namely, by omitting all the words after "person" in line 33, and making the definition read— 'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act. Whether that is an Amendment which will be accepted or not I cannot say; but it is an Amendment which would prevent an agent sheltering himself behind his subordinate—the manager.

MR. MATTHEWS

Let me once more appeal to the Committee. Does anyone doubt that the owner is superior to the manager? I should think not. The manager must obey the owner's orders; but he must see that the orders of the owner do not contravene the Act of Parliament. Anyone can understand that the owner may be a child or a woman, or be a gentleman of great experience and knowledge like the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease); the agent is simply appointed to represent the owner. Hon. Members must not lose sight of that—the agent is the person the owner puts there to stand in his shoes and do all he would do. Clause 21 points out clearly the distinction between the manager and the owner or agent. I submit that the words that I have suggested would meet all the difficulties of the case. If anyone does anything in the mine contrary to the Act, the agent is liable to a criminal prosecution. The agent has the inherent power which belongs to every owner—he is simply the representative or double of the owner when the owner cannot be there. I beg the Committee to take a practical view of this question.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

With the object of saving time, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider these words? I understand he is prepared to agree to the omission of the words "care and direction of the mine."

MR. MATTHEWS

Certainly.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

Let me point out one or two double inaccuracies in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. As a matter of fact, of course an owner who is a perfect layman never thinks of interfering with the management of a mine; but he very often appoints a person known throughout the whole district colloquially as agent. That person may have the care of half-a-dozen mines; but he may not be a person holding a first-class certificate. He gives directions in matters of detail in connection with the management of the mines to the managers who are under him. Anyone who is acquainted with the coal trade in the North of England will bear me out when I say that the appointment of such a person is anything but satisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman will, however, reconsider these words, there is an end of the matter.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

I must say, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he is mistaken in regard to the duties of an agent. The managers of the mines in Staffordshire have met on several occasions, and urged, in the strongest possible manner, that agents are practically superior managers. The managers think it very hard indeed that these men should be placed over them, to give them directions when they are not compelled to hold certificates, as the managers themselves are. There is no evil so strongly felt in Staffordshire as this. I must urge on the Committee, supported as I am by practical men, the necessity of agents who, in Staffordshire at all events, manage mines holding first-class certificates.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says—and says very truly—that the owner of a mine may be a person perfectly incompetent to judge of the management of the mine. He says that the owner may be a child, a woman, or a baronet; but the agent takes the place of the owner. If the right hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 21, which has been so frequently quoted, he will see that the agent may appoint himself to be manager of the mine. If he does appoint himself to be manager of the mine, then, of course, it will be necessary for him to qualify by taking out a first-class certificate. But a man may appoint himself not merely to one mine, but to any number of mines. He may be the nominal general manager of a large number of mines; and in regard to each particular pit, he may have under him a second-class certificated manager. That is perfectly admissible under the Bill. Now, what is of great public importance—and of importance to all those who work in each of these pits—is that the agent, who has, at any rate, to a certain extent, control over the second-class manager and the first-class manager, should himself be in a position to judge of the work, and of the completeness and character of the management of each of the pits under him, and the only guarantee that you can have that the agent shall be properly qualified to judge of the management of a manager, whether he be first or second class, in any colliery or pit is that he shall be himself a certificated man of the first class. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, to say nothing of the question of promotion, it does appear to me to be reasonable that these men who are over certificated managers should themselves necessarily be holders of first-class certificates.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

It think it would be unwise to limit the agency to a man who holds a first-class certificate. It is necessary at times to have a man as agent who possesses a complete knowledge of the whole of the working of a mine. A man may have a first-class knowledge of mining, and yet not hold a first-class certificate. I believe there is a good deal of work independent of the actual working of a mine for an agent to do. I am one of the largest proprietors in the North of England; and I think that, as a rule, you will find the agent is a first-class certificated man, and that it is only where you get an exceptionally clever commercial man that he would be appointed agent. I think that, under such circumstances, it would be very unwise to prohibit owners from appointing any but first-class certificated men.

MR. BURT

I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will meet the case, and therefore I recommend my hon. Friends to accept it.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

I understand that on Report the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is prepared to alter the clause, so that it will provide that an agent who has the care and direction of a mine shall hold a first-class certificate. If that is the understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I suggest that the clause should read— 'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, moans any person appointed by the owner as his representative in respect to a mine or any part thereof, and superior to the manager appointed in pursuance of this Act.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

If that is proposed, what is the use of such a definition? You do not require such a definition—it is pure surplusage.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

If the agent is to be superior to the manager, what is he to be superior to him in regard to if not for the purpose of this Act? If the agent is superior to the manager for the purpose of this Act, then all the other words may be dispensed with. I think it should be made clear that an agent is not to have control of the mine unless he is duly qualified.

MR. MATTHEWS

He will not have control of the mine any more than the owner. The agent will have the power of the owner, neither more nor less.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

In what way will he be superior to the manager?

MR. MATTHEWS

Just as the owner is, neither more nor less.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

In the direction or management of the mine, or in a commercial sense?

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

Could not the words "representative of the owner" be omitted?

MR. MATTHEWS

I will adopt the words suggested to me by the Chairman himself—namely, "as such representative superior to the manager." I have always understood the agent to be the alter ego of the owner, as a man who has all the privileges of the owner, and no more.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I beg to move the omission of the entire definition—namely— 'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person having, on behalf of the owner, care or direction of any mine or any part thereof, and superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act. I propose to do away with what appears to be a perfect absurdity in defining the word "agent." "Agent" is perfectly well known to the law. It means a person acting on behalf of the owner in respect to what this Act deals with. What on earth do we want to define the word "agent" for under these circumstances? By introducing needless definitions we run the risk of having fine points raised which need never be raised at all if you were content to leave the thing as it is.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 32, to leave out from the word "agent" to the word "Act," in line 35, both inclusive.—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question put, "That the words 'agent when used in relation to any mine, means any person,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 54: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 396.) [4.25 P.M.]

Amendment proposed, In page 43, line 33, leave out "having on behalf of the owner care or direction," and insert "appointed as the representative of the owner in respect."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

Question, "That the words 'having on behalf of the owner care or direction ' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'appointed as the representative of the owner in respect' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 34, after "and." insert "as such." —(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' as such ' be there inserted."

MR. CONYBEARE

I am entirely in the dark as to what is to come after this. I should like to know how the matter really stands. If I am permitted, I will propose to make it clear that the agent should not directly interfere with the management of the mine.

THE CHAIRMAN

I will read how the clause will run when amended— 'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person appointed as representative of the owner in respect of any mine or any part thereof, and as such superior to the manager appointed in pursuance of this Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 40, leave out the word "sixteen," and insert the word "eighteen."—(Mr. Pickard.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think we exhausted this subject many weeks ago. Sixteen is the age of a boy we decided, and I trust this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the Committee will be allowed to get on with Business.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 (Application of Act to Scotland).

Amendment proposed, In page 44, line 10, leave out the words "the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer." and to insert the words "the auditor of the Sheriff Court of the county, or district of a county in which any inquiry takes place." — (The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer' stand part of the Clause."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I understand this Amendment is moved to meet the object with which I moved two Amendments earlier in the discussion on the Bill, and which I withdrew on the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). I must take it upon his authority that this Amendment adequately meets the object in view.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'the auditor of the Sheriff Court of the county or district of a county in which any inquiry takes place,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Before this clause is agreed to I should like to ask why the term "public elementary school" needs to be defined at all in. line 21?

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I think that this definition appears in all Statutes.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

There is nothing about public elementary schools in the Bill.

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes.

MR. ARTHURO'CONNOR

Where?

Clause, agreed to.

Clause 77 (Application of Act to Ireland) agreed to.