HC Deb 03 July 1860 vol 159 cc1330-4

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clauses 10 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19, (Notice of accidents in Mines to be given to Secretary of State).

MR. CROOK

said, that an accident might be very serious, and yet might not result in death. In Kirkless colliery a sum of £500 a year was stopped out of the wages of the men to provide for accidents, and accidents had occurred there which, though not resulting in death in some cases, had yet entitled some of the men to receive nearly £7. Now he proposed to make it necessary for the inspector to report all accidents of a definite kind. He would, therefore, omit the word "serious," and make it necessary for the inspector to report, whenever a man received such an accident that he did not return to his work before nine o'clock on the following morning.

MR. JACKSON

said, many accidents that were really of very trifling character might prevent a workman from returning to his work next morning. He saw no good in the clause.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he thought the effect of the Amendment would be that the most trifling casualties would be reported to the Secretary of State, and the object they all had in view would be defeated, for serious cases would be buried under the heap of unimportant accidents.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was merely intended to transfer a clause to this Bill which already existed in the Factory Act. He was afraid there was a disposition to think lightly of any accident which did not terminate fatally, or nearly kill the party.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, it seemed to him a very absurd thing that every slight accident should be made the subject of a report to the Secretary of State.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 and 21.

Clause 22 (Punishment of workmen violating the rules.)

MR. FREELAND

proposed to leave out the following words:— Or to be proceeded against and punished according to the Provisions of the Act 4 Geo. IV., c. 34, intituled an Act to enlarge the power of justices in determining complaints between Masters and Servants. He referred to the Petition of the wives and relations of seven colliers, in the Morning Star, of April 5, 1860, the colliers being at that time in Derby, six of whom were stated to have been convicted by one magistrate on the preceding 15th of March. They had refused to go down into a pit by a rope which, as they alleged, was unsound. A Petition was, as they all knew, an ex parte statement, and he would not therefore discuss the merits of the particular case. On inquiry he found that the law was in accordance with the statement contained in the Petition. He thought it a monstrous thing that, under the provisions of the Act of George the Fourth, which might be put in force under the clause as it stood in the Bill, one magistrate should have the power of issuing his warrant and of hearing the case, though he might be himself a mine-owner, and committing men to prison for three months. He thought that the Act of George the Fourth was an arbitrary Act, conferring powers which could not safely be entrusted to a single magistrate, and he trusted that the Committee would not confirm it by incorporating any part of its provisions in the present Bill. He hoped to see that Act repealed at no very distant day. He believed that no changes were so beneficial as those which produced among the working classes entire confidence in the impartiality with which justice was administered throughout the country.

After a short conversation the Amendment was agreed to.

MR. FREELAND

then moved that the following Clause should be added as a Proviso:— No Justice of the Peace being himself the owner of Mines, or the father, son, brother, or agent of any owner of Mines shall, if objected to at the hearing of any complaint in charge, act as a Justice of the Peace for the purposes of conviction in adjudication in any cases of difference or dispute between persons engaged in working mines and their employers, in which Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction. He quoted as Clauses having a similar object in view the 5 Geo. IV. c. 96, s. 12,—the Truck Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 37, s. 21,—the Proviso in the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40, s. 25, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 71.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he had no objection to the exclusion of the owner of a mine where the dispute might have taken place, but he could not agree that every mine-owner should be excluded at the hearing of complaints. He thought they ought to follow the precedent set forth in the Factory Act, where the parties interested in a factory in which the offence occurred were not allowed to adjudicate on the matter. He should therefore propose to amend the proviso by the insertion of words which would assimilate it to the clause in the Factory Act.

MR. FREELAND

said, his object was to prevent a person having a class interest from adjudicating when an objection was raised against his acting in the case.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to shut out from the adjudication all the magistrates who understood the question, and to leave such disputes to be decided by persons who knew nothing of the trade. Instead of benefiting the men, he believed the suggestion would do them serious injury.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, he was familiar with a district in which cases of dispute were constantly adjudicated on by coal-owners only—a magistrate acting in a case precisely analogous to one in which his own property might be concerned. He knew an instance of a number of men having refused to descend by a rope which they believed to be in a bad condition, being committed to prison for a long period by a magistrate, a mine-owner. It was afterwards discovered that if the men had descended it would have been at the risk of their lives. He thought that the Committee should accept the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he still thought that the restriction should apply only to the owner, or relatives of the owner, of such mine as the offence set forth might have occurred in.

MR. FREELAND

said, that in accordance with what appeared to be the opinion of the Committee, he would reluctantly accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.

Clause amended and agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 (Extent of Act).

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

proposed the insertion of words to make the Act perpetual, instead of for five years, as proposed.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he had no objection to the Amendment, which would not prevent the House reconsidering the whole subject at a future time if that was thought necessary.

MR. AYRTON

said, he was in favour of continuing the temporary character of the Act, as it afforded an opportunity for renewing and amending the Act at stated periods.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. FREELAND

proposed the following clause:— The presence of two justices of the peace shall be required for the purposes of conviction or adjudication in all cases of difference or dispute between persons employed in working mines and their employers in which one justice is now by law empowered to convict or to adjudicate; provided always that any person, being a stipendiary magistrate, shall have and exercise all such powers as he would have had and exercised if this Act had not been passed.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the fault he found with this clause was that it did not refer to offences within the Act. It was merely a partial repeal of the provisions of another general Act, and had no special reference to the Bill.

MR. CLIVE

suggested that the clause had better be brought up on the Report, as he believed the object was already effected in the 25th Clause.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

trusted the clause would be pressed to a division. It was of the greatest consequence to the miners that two justices should be required to preside.

MR. FREELAND

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, and to consider the propriety of bringing it up on the Report.

MR. AYRTON moved a clause providing that the payment of wages should in no case be made in or contiguous to public-houses, but at an office to be appointed for the purpose; and further, that every man should be paid the exact amount of his own earnings. In relation to this latter provision, he stated it was not uncommon to give a £5 or a £10 note to a number of men, who were obliged to go to the public-house to get change.

MR. CLIVE

said, the 5th and 6th Vict. already provided that wages should not be paid within public-houses, and he could see no use in employing the words "contiguous to" any public-house, proposed by the hon. Member.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought the words "contiguous to" were most important, as the clause of the 5th and 6th Victoria was most inefficient. The workmen sustained great loss and injury by the prevalence of the practice referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it was a source of great disaffection and discontent.

MR. JACKSON

said, he considered the Amendment necessary. It was essential to the well-being of the men that they should not be paid in or near to a public-house. On this point he could speak from personal experience.

Clause agreed to.

On the Preamble,

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved that the provisions of the Bill should apply to limestone pits and quarries.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to limestone pits and quarries, and to insert these words in the Preamble would only make nonsense in the Bill.

Amendment negatived. Preamble agreed to,

House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

Back to