LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 23 August 1860)

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he rose to propose an Amendment upon one of the Lords' Amendments, which had seriously altered the Bill as sent from the House of Commons. The Commons provided that a child on entering a mine should be able to read and write, and also made an arrangement by which the child should be enabled to keep up that knowledge. The Lords, however, had altered the enactment in the original Bill, and had provided, with respect to children under twelve years of age, that it should not be absolutely necessary that they should have any education before entering the mines, and that upon entering, if not able to read and write, they should have twenty hours' schooling in a month. Such a provision was perfectly illusory, for, at any rate, care ought to be taken that the instruction should be diffused equally through the month. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words "twenty hours" in the Lords' Amendment, and to insert "three hours a day for two days in each week."

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he concurred in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Mem- 1757 ber for the Tower Hamlets. The House of Commons had carefully considered the clauses of the Bill during sixteen hours, and the whole of their work was undone by the House of Lords in sixteen minutes; and the result was not beneficial or judicious with respect to the mining interest. It also conflicted with the evidence in the reports of the inspectors, and with the experience of the working of the system of education which had been proposed in some of the Scotch mines, where it had been adopted with the best success. By the Amendment of the Lords a child not educated was to be educated by the mine-owner, but the mine-owner was not bound to keep up the education of a child who entered his mine educated. The provision appeared absurd. With regard to other Amendments of the Lords, he asked the House to agree to them, simply because he had no other alternative, and because the mining population considered the Bill an improvement on the last Act.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he hoped the Amendment would he agreed to, as it had come down from the Lords.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he was glad the Government had expressed their regret at the injury sustained by the Bill in the other House. He regretted the exclusion of iron-stone mines, and expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would appoint a Commission during the recess to inquire into that matter.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
regretted that the education clauses had not been retained as they were passed by that House after due consideration. The Bill had undergone a material change for the worse in the other House. Perhaps it would be better to leave the Bill as it had come from the Lords, but he was willing to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, though it was one of very slight importance. It would be the duty of the Home Department to keep its eye fixed upon the operation of the Bill, and if the securities taken for the education of the children employed in mines should be found not sufficient the Home Secretary for the time being would doubtless call the attention of Parliament to the subject. The question of iron-stone and other mineral mines unconnected with coal measures was one that would require investigation. He would not pledge himself as to the precise time or mode of inquiry, but the sub- 1758 ject would receive the consideration of the Government during the recess.