§ Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
§ Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines).
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 21, to leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve"), said, it had not been his intention to move any Amendments in the Bill, having been prepared to accept it as it was, however imperfect he thought it; but yesterday he received, to his astonishment—and he might almost say to his dismay—a Paper entitled "Amendments suggested by Coal owners and Coal Mine proprietors," which seemed to him to strike at some of the main provisions of the measure. He confessed that he had hardly believed that there could be gentlemen in posses- 1870 sion of coal mines who were prepared to resist a measure of that character coming from the House of Commons. Nevertheless, he was determined to take the advice once given to him by the late Duke of Wellington, who said—"Depend upon it that no point is good for defence, unless it is equally good for attack;" and therefore, under the circumstances he had stated, he now meant to propose some Amendments of his own in the Bill, with a view to make it more after his own heart. He had not, however really believed that there was any serious intention of introducing such Amendments on the part of the coal owners as he had referred to; but he found from the Notice Paper that morning that an Amendment was to be proposed and supported by no less a person than the noble Duke the leader of the Conservative party in that House. Therefore, he now desired to substitute in clause under notice the words "12 years" for "10 years" in regard to the age of boys working in coal mines. When the Factory Acts were passed, children under 13 years of age were not to be exposed to a greater amount of labour than 5, or at most 5½ hours, under what was called the half-time system. In the present Bill, a principle totally the reverse of that was adopted; and children of the tender age of 10 years were to be called upon to sustain the amount of labour that was imposed on adults. The clause, indeed, said that no boy under the age of 10 should be employed, or allowed to be employed, belowground in any mine; he (the Earl of Shaftesbury), however, wished to raise the limit from 10 to 12, so that no boy under 12 should be allowed to descend a mine and be subjected to 54 hours in in the course of a week. He repeated that the half-time system under the Factory Acts applied to children under 13; but in this Bill there was no provision at all of that sort, and children between 10 and 12 years of age, if they descended the mine, were to be subjected to the same period of labour as adults. There was no doubt that the employment of children in factories was very arduous, because it required constant attention, was carried on in a heated atmosphere, and the children had to be continually on their legs; but let them contrast that with the labour they were going to impose on children of 10 years 1871 of age, and upwards, in coal mines. They were to descend at 7 o'clock in the morning into the solitude and darkness of the mine, and to remain in an atmosphere which was in most cases exceedingly oppressive; indeed, the children themselves described it as half-suffocating—and there was no doubt it was productive of great injury to their health. It would seem that no one had read the evidence taken on that subject in 1842 by the body of Commissioners sent out under a Royal Warrant. Mr. Austin, the Commissioner in North Lancashire, gave a most deplorable account of the children employed in mines—
'I wish,' said one of the mothers, 'you could see them come in, tired as dogs, and throw themselves on the ground like dogs. We cannot get them to bed.Mr. Franks, Commissioner for the East of Scotland, wrote—George Wright, aged 12, says—'Works with father, place wet; water comes up to my knees; work very distressing, being 300 fathoms from coal to pit bottom; makes me very sick.' Poor miserable object,says the Commissioner. Hundreds of similar instances might be quoted. [Earl GRANVILLE: That was 30 years ago.] But the system still prevailed exactly as it was then. True, they had removed the women and the girls; but the work now carried on by the boys was precisely what it was in former years, and the condition of the children was now precisely what it was in 1842. He only mentioned these things to show the kind of labour to which they were dooming children of tender age, and that it was the duty of Parliament not to suffer that children of tender years should be subjected to such heavy toil, until their strength enabled them better to bear it. It was pretended, as he understood, that in some mines the seams were so thin that they must have children only 10 years old to work them. That was just the old story that was urged in 1842; and he maintained that it was not a valid argument. Things might easily, he believed, be so managed as to admit of the seams being worked by persons of larger growth; but the coal owners would not do that, and left the thin seams as they were, saying they must be worked by these very young children. He had himself been down into some of those mines, and could tell their Lordships that nothing more 1872 miserable could be conceived than the conditions under which the children worked there. They never stood upright—everything was done on all-fours, or else lying on their backs. Was that a state of things to which they were to reduce boys of 10 years of age, and keep them 54 hour a-week at such intolerable labour? The Commisssoners in their Report in 1842 said—There is, however, one case of peculiar difficulty—namely, that in which all the subterranean roadways, and especially the side passages, are below a certain height. By the evidence collected under this Commission, it is proved that there are coal mines at present in which these passages are so small that even the youngest children cannot move along them without crawling on their hands and feet, in which unnatural and constrained posture they drag the loaded carriages after them; and yet, as it is impossible by any outlay compatible with a profitable return to render such coal mines—happily not numerous nor of great extent—fit for human beings to work in, they never will be placed in such a condition, and consequently they never can be worked without inflicting great and irreparable injury on the health of the children.There were many things to be considered in that matter; but he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) maintained that the grand and paramount consideration was the lives, the health, the morality, and the welfare of those children; and if the mines could not be worked except by exposing such young children to such enormous suffering, the mines ought to be shut up. But let the law forbid the working of those children in that manner, and the employers would find some other means of working the mines. The desire for profit was so strong in the human heart that it would be easy to devise a hundred other modes of working those mines, other than by imposing such cruel tasks on boys of 10 years of age. But they were going further, and requiring that those children should have 20 hours of education per week, in addition to their intolerable toil. With regard to that he would give them the opinion of an Inspector of Schools. He said in one pit 27 collier boys attended night school out of 80—the whole number at school. Could they wonder if, after toiling so long during the day, under circumstances so disadvantageous, they had no spirit or strength left for receiving their education? And what were the comments of the Inspector in reference to the remarks of teachers as to the causes of ignorance and irregular attendance at school? In one case, he said the mining 1873 parents were regardless of the welfare of their children; and that the boys themselves had no relish for school after being confined as they were in the mines. In another case, the Inspector of Schools, in his Return, said—The boys attend badly; they are so drowsy after their work that it is difficult to gain their attention. When at school they are anxious to improve.Why were these children to be treated differently from others employed in factories? He could conceive of no reason, and should therefore move the substitution of 12 for 10, merely surmising that if their Lordships resisted the Amendment, they would be standing in the way of the claims of humanity, and acting inconsistently with the spirit of modern legislation.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the noble Earl opposite had referred to legislation which took place 30 years ago; but the state of things in 1842 was very different from what it was at present. He deprecated the personal allusions which the noble Earl had made to him and to the Amendments which were to be moved; and he thought it would have been well if the noble Earl had made himself more acquainted with them, for if he (the Duke of Richmond) understood the speech of the noble Earl aright, it was to the effect that the noble Earl moved his Amendment not because of anything contained in the Bill, but because of certain other Amendments given Notice of by the noble Duke himself dealing with other parts of the Bill. The reason was extraordinary, for the noble Earl seemed to infer that if these Amendments had not been placed on the Paper, he would not have concerned himself for the welfare of the children. As regards the Amendment, he (the Duke of Richmond) would refer to the assertion of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who had had great experience in mining property, that the children employed in thin seam mines were not less developed than children employed in factories, and that the falls of coal were light and easily managed by children.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, no one would fail to sympathize with the object the noble Earl had in view, but he had utterly misunderstood the drift of the Bill. It was a mistake to suppose the Bill would allow 10 hours' work a-day and give 20 hours' instruction in the week beside. 1874 The noble Earl appeared to have taken no notice of Clause 5, which should be read with Clause 4; and, so read, provided that no child under 12 should be employed in mines, except under certain circumstances prescribed, by Clause 5, and subject to certain provisions for their education laid down in Clause 8. The exceptions referred to thin seam mines, which were few in number, in which the fall of coal was light, and where the work was not continuous. The subject had been much discussed in the other House; it had been the subject of a compromise between those interested; and he hoped the settlement come to would not be disturbed by the pressure of the noble Earl's Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYprotested against the assumption made by the noble Lord opposite and noble Earl, that this was merely a question between the employers and the children. There was another important question which related to the consumers of coal. He had been informed by the manager of one of the largest collieries in the country, that the effect of this Bill would be to diminish the output of coal by 18 per cent—that was, it would increase the cost of coal by 18 per cent; and coal being now at 35s. per ton the price would be raised to 42s. when the Bill was passed. Surely, that was a sufficient reason for not weighting coal with any heavier weight, such as the restriction of the noble Earl would put upon it. He was afraid the noble Earl, in his wide philanthropy, had not sufficiently considered the probable sufferings of a large class—the poor people who would suffer from the high price of coal during the coming winter—a far larger class than the one he desired to benefit. It was desirable to impose reasonable limits on the labour of children, but such an end must be reached gradually, and we must not show a cruel kindness which would do more harm than good.
§ LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that the rise in the wages of miners recently had been only 10d. per ton, but the masters had raised the price 5s.; and he observed that a large coal owner had declared—and he had heard it with some surprise—that the Bill would add to the expense of working coal, and the owners would take care that the consumers were made to pay for it. He hoped that the noble 1875 Earl would withdraw the Amendment. As the Bill was altogether a compromise between the employers of labour and the miners, he trusted no serious Amendment would be made upon it, though he did think it would be very desirable to raise the age from 12 to 13 years.
LORD DUNSANYreminded their Lordships that, though the rise of wages might have had little direct effect upon prices, it had a large indirect share in that increase, because it had made the colliers idle, many of them working eight days in a fortnight, instead of eleven.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, in reply to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), that his Amendment would have hardly any effect upon the quantity of coal raised, the number of thin seam mines being very few. However anxious their Lordships might be to attend to the interests of the consumer, yet if it could be shown that the mental, moral, and physical welfare of children depended on a certain restriction, that restriction must be made, even though the mines were thereby closed altogether. He was confident, however, that means would in any case be found by the owners to work the mines. As the Bill was a tentative one, he would, however, withdraw his Amendment, merely premising that their Lordships would not expect him to pursue the same course with his other one.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines).
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
A boy under the age of thirteen shall not be employed or be allowed to be for the purposes of employment in any mine to which this Act applies below ground, unless a surgical certificate has been given by a person qualified to give surgical certificates for the purposes of the Factory Acts, to the effect that the boy has the ordinary strength and appearance of a boy of the age required under this Act, in the case of such mine, and that he is not incapacitated by disease or bodily infirmity from working for the times allowed under the provisions of this Act.The provisions of this Act as to the registration of school certificates, and as to the forging or counterfeiting of and other offences relating to school certificates, shall apply to a surgical certificate under this section.1876 The noble Earl said, the provision would be some protection to the child, though it might be but a scanty one.
THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the proportion of boys employed under 12 would be infinitesimally small, and that there was no machinery in the Bill for carrying out the system of examination; and the certificates, even if obtained, were not very valuable.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYreplied that, though the certificates might be at fault in respect to the age, they would show whether there was any bodily infirmity to incapacitate a boy for going down into the mine.
§ Clause negatived.
§ Clause 6 (Employment of male young persons in mines).
THE EARL OF MORLEYin moving in page 2, line 11, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); in line 12, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); and in line 13, after ("shall"), to insert the word ("no"), said, the object was to make the lauguage of the clause as nearly as possible the same as that of a similar provision in the Metalliferous Mines Bill.
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 2, line 15, to leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-six"), as the maximum number of hours during which youths under the age of 16 should be allowed to work underground per week. He claimed the support of noble Lords opposite, on the ground that it was the original proposition of Her Majesty's Government. If 54 was retained this difficulty would arise—The number of hours per day was restricted to 10, which for five days would give 50 hours. Four hours, therefore, only would remain, and he was advised that it would be impossible to work a mine for so short a period. Thus the sixth day would be altogether lost. He therefore thought it right that 56 should be inserted in place of 54.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it would be impossible for the Government to guarantee the acceptance of the Amendment by the other House of Parliament. Fifty-four hours a-week were nine hours a-day for six days, and it was notorious that now a great many men throughout England were working for that time. The clause, moreover, re- 1877 ferred to young persons under 16 working underground.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the great mass of the mining population were very anxious that 54 hours should be distributed over the six days of the week, which was nine hours a-day. The House of Commons had sent up to their Lordships a great remedial measure, and, beating the Government, had declared that 54 hours ought to be the limit of toil imposed upon children under 16. Would it be becoming, therefore, that their Lordships should stand out in opposition to the humane feeling of the House of Commons? Their Lordships would do more to create disaffection in the mining population by such a course than by any other which they could adopt. Two hours of toil, more or less, was a thing that should not be talked of lightly. He would say that the moral effect of this House declaring that it would go beyond the House of Commons in imposing an amount of toil upon the people of this country would be the worst possible.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that this was not a question either of humanity or popularity, but simply of justice. It was not for noble Lords to urge upon their Lordships to take a popular view in a case in which the Members neither of that nor of the other House had the slightest interest. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) went on to talk of this House imposing two additional hours of work on the mining population. But that was not the way to look at the matter. The fact was, that their Lordships were asked to prevent these poor men from earning two additional hours' wages by means of their children's labour. By doing so they imposed a law upon the country which destroyed trade, and was subversive of liberty.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that this was not a question of the Members of their Lordships' House seeking to impose a maximum of work on the mining population; but that it was the duty of this House to do what was right. He doubted very much whether any of their Lordships had any personal interest in the matter, and thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was fond of assuming that he stood alone in the cause of humanity, and unless everyone agreed with him the moment he proposed any- 1878 thing, that they were oppressors, and that he was the sole guardian of the interests of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] It was no doubt right that young people should have as light a task as could possibly be assigned to them. But the case was this—They were giving the power of working these young persons for 10 a-day during the first part of the week, and it was stated that it was not worth while to open the pits for four hours' work. In fact, the pits could not be opened for the adults unless they were attended by the younger persons. Therefore, by retaining 54 hours their Lordships ran the risk of throwing impediments in the way of opening the mine at all on the sixth day of the week. He thought, however, his noble Friend would do well by not going to a division on this point, as the subject had not probably been so fully considered by their Lordships as it had by the other House.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had charged him with arrogating to himself a monopoly of humanity in that House, and he believed the noble and learned Lord said elsewhere also. He was sorry to hear that statement of the noble and learned Lord received with cheers by their Lordships. But the noble Lord was a lawyer, and he believed that a lawyer was entitled to say anything he liked, whether founded or unfounded. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) most solemnly declared that he had not arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity either in that House or elsewhere. He had seen a great deal that caused much suffering, and, by God's blessing, he had done his best to remove it; and he did not think that at the close of his life he should be told in the House of Lords by a distinguished Member of it that he arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that no person admired more than himself the great efforts which had been made by the noble Earl on behalf of humanity. As to the charge which the noble Earl had made against lawyers, he did not think it necessary to make any defence.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
1879§ Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 22, after ("of") to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys"); and in line 23, after ("of") to insert ("a signal, to be defined by the special rules of the mine, being given for"); and in same line after ("surface") insert ("after which signal the whole of the said group or shift shall cease work, and shall return to the surface without delay.") The noble Duke observed that by the Bill boys could be employed only a certain number of hours in the day; and by the clause, if a boy on returning to the surface from the pit should be delayed beyond the allotted time through coming up last the owner would be liable to a penalty. In some mines the distance from the bottom to the surface was very considerable. He therefore proposed, with the view of relieving the owner of a mine from penalties in the case of boys being detained in a mine beyond the time designated by the Bill during which they should be employed, that the boys employed in a mine should be counted in groups, so that the last who arrived in a group should, for the purpose of avoiding the penalties in question, be deemed to have arrived at the surface as early as the first of that group. He was decidedly of opinion that it would be impossible to carry out the clause as it stood.
§ Amendment moved, after ("of") line 22, to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that in many mines there were no means of giving any such signal as that proposed in the Amendment. He admitted that the clause was not perfect. The average time should be taken; and mine owners would be protected by this—that proceedings could be taken against them only by Inspectors, with the sanction of the Home Secretary, so that proceedings would not be taken in any trivial case.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that it was not right that mine owners should be exposed to the consequences of this highly penal clause at the option of a Secretary of State and the Inspector in a case where, perhaps, there was no real fault.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONurged that the clause was sufficiently guarded.
§ LORD CAIRNSalso thought it objectionable to make a regulation which could not be strictly complied with, leaving it to the Home Secretary and Inspector to enforce the penalty or not. He suggested that the time might be reckoned from the hour of the first shift leaving the surface to the hour of the first shift returning to the surface, and that all the other shifts should stop work when the first shift was sent up.
THE EARL OF MORLEYcould not accept the suggestion, for it would not compel the manager to bring up all the shifts, and there would be no security for work being stopped.
§ On Question, Whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 30: Majority 6.
§ Resolved in the Negative.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving in line 36, to leave out ("six") and insert ("eight") said, he objected to the rule that women and children employed aboveground should be allowed one and a-half hours for refreshment during every period of labour exceeding six hours. The effect would be that in case of six and a-half hours' labour one and a-half hours would be deducted for meals, leaving only five hours' actual work. Such a rule could not be essential to health with regard to work aboveground.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwas willing to accept the Amendment modified, so as to afford to any woman and child half-an-hour's interval during every period of five hours' work, and one and a-half hours' interval for every period of eight hours' work.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved in page 7, line 5, after ("agent") to leave out ("and") and insert ("or"); in line 6, to leave out ("each"); in line 7, after ("if") to insert ("he shall"); 1881 and in line 8, after ("had") to leave out ("taken all reasonable means by publication and enforcement of") and insert ("published and taken all reasonable means to enforce"). The noble Duke said, it seemed to him that the provisions therein embodied were of the most extraordinary character. He had always understood that every man was assumed to be innocent till it was proved before a competent tribunal that he was guilty; but in the clause the owner, agent, and the manager of the mine were selected for prosecution as guilty of an offence which somebody else might have committed. That was a subversion of the usual course of legislation, and rather a violent innovation. The possibility of making three different persons responsible was conferring too much latitude. If the noble Earl would turn to the Factory Acts he would find that the occupier was the only person proceeded against criminally.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the language objected to by the noble Duke had been introduced into the clause on the Motion of a former Colleague of the noble Lord. An accident might arise from the negligence, in different degrees, of the owner, the agent, and the manager; and it would be a great error if only one of those parties was held liable. He trusted that their Lordships would maintain the clause as it stood.
§ LORD CAIRNSsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that if the owner, agent, or manager were not found guilty constructively, they might go scot free. Their responsibility should be better defined. If an accident should take place from the violation or neglect of these rules, was the owner to be responsible if he found that the rules had been frustrated? Or how was he to prove that all reasonable precautions had been taken? In what method was the proof to be established? He would move the addition of certain words in order to remove difficulties that might otherwise occur in the working of the clause.
THE EARL OF MORLEYaccepted the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, on the understanding that they should be subject, if necessary, to revision on the report.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 16 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.