HC Deb 25 June 1860 vol 159 cc970-7

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Mines to which Part 2 of Act is to extend. Interpretation of Terms).

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, the object of the clause was to bring under inspection iron as well as coal mines. He proposed to move an Amendment, excluding all iron mines except those worked in connection with coal. There was no peculiar danger connected with the working of iron mines, and no case had been made out for their inspection. The loss of life, as compared with the number of tons of ironstone and rubbish taken out of the iron mines, was so small that he was satisfied these mines, when unconnected with the coal measures, did not require the special interference of the Government. In a mine with which he was connected there had been only one death to 498,000 tons of ore raised. There was this difference also, that accidents in coal mines occurring in consequence of want of ventilation involved the death of many persons, while accidents in mines not subject to explosion only endangered the life of the awkward or careless workman upon whom some mass of rubbish might fall. He should, therefore, move, instead of the words "or coal measures" to substitute the words "associated with coal and worked in connection therewith."

MR. CLIVE

said, the hon. Gentleman was, like many other persons—he thought inspection a very good thing when it was applied to all his neighbours, so that it did not touch himself. A system of inspection was imperatively required for those iron mines which were included in the clause. It was the unanimous opinion of the inspectors of coal mines that inspection ought to be applied to all iron mines. He had, however, yielded to the representations made to him that inspection was not wanted where the iron was not connected with coal measures, and the words of the clause had been, in fact, suggested by the owners. The workmen in iron mines took great interest in the establishment of a system of inspection, in proof of which he might refer the hon. Gentleman to the Mining Journal, in which the inspection was warmly advocated on behalf of the miners. The inspectors of coal mines in many districts found the coal and iron so blended together that it was almost impossible to separate them in their inspection. He believed that the great majority both of owners and men were in favour of the Bill. The deaths in Great Britain from accidents in mines were 1 in 64,000. In Durham the deaths were only 1 in 114,000; in Scotland they were 1 in 95,000, while in South Wales they were 1 in 47,000. This greater proportion of deaths in South Wales showed that the accidents were more frequent where coal and iron were mixed together. He had now, he thought, shown the Committee why the Amendment ought not to be adopted.

MR. TAYLOR

said, he wished to exclude those cases only in which iron was not worked in conjunction with coal, and he thought that not an unreasonable proposition.

MR. CAYLEY

said, he thought the clause was exactly framed to meet the case suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Taylor), and that there was no necessity for the insertion of the words proposed by him.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, it was true that the accidents in South Wales exceeded the average for the whole country, but they occurred for the most part in colleries where coal was simply worked for exportation.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he would then move the omission of the following words from the clause descriptive of a class of works to which the Act should extend— And every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level or inclined plane in the course of being driven for commencing or opening any such mine, and all the works belonging thereto respectively.

MR. CLIVE

opposed the Amendment, which was negatived without a division.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Power to Secretary of State to appoint Inspectors of Mines).

MR. AYRTON

said, he would propose an Amendment to the effect that sub-inspectors should be appointed as well as inspectors, so as to provide for a more efficient inspection, which it was natural to suppose would be gained by the sub-in- spectors performing the main portion of the duty under the superintendence of, and subject to the report of, the superior officer and inspector. He would move to insert the words "or sub-inspectors" after the word inspectors.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he thought the scope of the clause was sufficiently extensive to enable the appointment of officers of different grades, which would compass the object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) had in view.

MR. INGHAM

said, he thought they should have some assurance from the Government that the inspection under the Bill would be of an efficient character. At present the number of pits which each inspector had to visit were so many that a considerable interval elapsed between his visits, and it was at those times generally that accidents took place. He did not want that the sub-inspectors should be men of great scientific attainments, but he considered that it would be an advantage to have a class of officers connected with the inspection with whom the pitmen could frankly and easily communicate.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the best course would be for the hon. Gentleman not then to press his Amendment, but to let it stand over until the bringing up of the Report.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 9.

Clause 10 (General Rules to be observed in Coal and Iron Mines).

MR. AYRTON

said, he proposed in line 22 to add, after the word "places," "and all other accessible places," in order that the proprietors of mines might be compelled to ventilate places which were not being worked, but which became reservoirs of foul air in communication with the workings where men were employed.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, after the word 'places,' to insert the words 'and all other accessible places where possible.'

MR. KER SEYMER

suggested the addition of the words "if possible" to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

MR. CLIVE

said, that this was one of the most disputed portions of the Bill. He was bound to say that the Commissioners had recommended the Amendment, but he was told that there would be a difficulty in applying it in all instances. He had, therefore, thought it best to make the clause run as it did.

MR. AYRTON

suggested, that it must surely be possible to stop off those places which were difficult to ventilate, and which if left open might admit gas in quantities large enough to endanger the miners.

MR. CAYLEY

suggested, that the words "where possible" might get rid of the difficulty.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would accept the suggestion.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, there were circumstances in which an attempt to ventilate might be dangerous, because the gas was only explosive when mixed with more than three times and less than fourteen times its own bulk.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 18: Majority 167

MR. AYRTON

said, that accidents were frequently caused through the tramways in mines being too narrow. He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment on rule 8, that places of refuge should be provided at intervals of not less than ten yards, or that the drift or passage for the tramways should be made so wide as to allow room for men to pass the trucks, which ran down with great rapidity.

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

said, he thought it undesirable to take the responsibility of avoiding accidents off the owners or workers of mines. Serious accidents had to be reported to the Secretary of State, and that of itself was a great safeguard. If the drifts were widened there would be greater danger of the fall of the roof—a most fruitful source of accident. He thought it desirable to have places of refuge, but not at shorter intervals than twenty yards. A wide drift without refuges would be highly dangerous.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had no objection to twenty yards.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

said, he next moved, that instead of the words "cover overhead," in rule 9, there should be inserted the words "covered safety cage." That was an ingenious mechanical contrivance for saving the lives of the workmen as they ascended or descended the pit. They had been adopted in several well-regulated mines, and he thought the others ought to be made to use them.

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

said, he had found from repeated experiments that "safety cages" were a fertile source of danger. Every mechanical contrivance of this sort was likely to get out of order He believed all cases of this kind to be impracticable, but, even if they were practicable, they would probably lead to a false security, arising from mistaken economy. Less attention would be paid to the due inspection of the state of the ropes. He thought to pass a law in favour of safety cages would lead to increased injury and loss of life. He must deprecate discussions on details of a practical character in the House of Commons.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he also objected to the Amendment as impracticable.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, he was astonished to hear it laid down by the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian), that the House of Commons was not a fit arena for the discussion of points affecting the lives of thousands of operatives. On the contrary, he maintained that it was the only place to which they could carry their appeal for protection, the House of Lords and the Courts of law alike having laid it down that a workman by the terms on which he entered into the service of his master deprived himself of his remedy at law for any accident which he might suffer while in that employment.

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

said, he never said that. What he said was that that House was not the arena for discussing practical points of mining detail.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he must protest against, the crude statement of the law which they had just heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was true a man obtained no right of action against his master for an injury which he suffered from his fellow-workman, provided his master had exercised care and diligence in the selection of those in his employment; but, on the other hand, a master was undoubtedly liable for any accident arising from his negligence in not having provided proper ropes and machinery.

MR. CLIVE

said, that the question of the safety cages had been very carefully considered, and he hoped the Committee would consent to adopt the use of the overhead cover.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

hoped that the Committee would not force upon miners the adoption of this plan. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire and other hon. Members who had tried it were of opinion that in some cases, at least, it would not be suitable.

MR. BUTT

said, he acquiesced in the view taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. James) of the law affecting the subject.

MR. AYRTON

said, that "safety cages" had been adopted in a great number of mines, and he thought where the expense was comparatively trifling, they ought to be generally used. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Craufurd) had, doubtless, in view, in the statement he had made, the Scotch law on the subject, for certainly it would surprise employers in England to be told that they were liable for damages to their workmen.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, he would recall to the recollection of the hon. Member for Ayrshire a case tried on the Home Circuit, which was brought by a labourer against Sir Charles Fox for having an improper rope at the construction of one of the towers at the Crystal Palace. The case was reserved for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer, and the law was distinctly laid down that, inasmuch as the plaintiff was a labouring man, he had taken the risk of the work, and Sir Charles Fox was therefore not responsible.

MR. J. L. RICARDO

said, he thought it was preposterous that the House of Commons should force on practical men the further trial of an experiment which they had found to be unsuccessful. The Inspectors and the Committee had given it as their opinion that no particular rule should be laid down in this case, but that it should be left to the mine-owners, who were responsible for those they employed, and were anxious for the safety of the men's lives to use the safest and best means for securing the safety of their workmen.

MR. KINNAIRD

objected to the doctrine that the House was to have its decision in the matter fettered by the decision of a Committee.

MR. FRANK CROSSLEY

said, he would advise his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment to give way to the opinion of other Members with greater practical knowledge, and not attempt to enforce on all parts of the country a contrivance which might perhaps answer only in a certain district, lest the result should be to destroy life instead of saving it.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the cage was in general use in the mines. ["No, no!"] He asked his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department whether that was not the fact.

MR. CLIVE

said, that those cages were in general use; but he recommended his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he wished to move in line 5 of the same rule, after the word "shaft" to insert the words "except upon occasions when repairs are being effected," the object of his Amendment being to dispense with the use of the cover over the cage when repairs were being effected in the shaft.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word 'shaft,' to add the words 'except on occasions when repairs are being effected.'

MR. CLIVE

said, it appeared to him that the use of the cover might be more necessary at the time during which the hon. Member proposed to dispense with it.

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

said, he thought that its use was not necessary during repairs.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 127: Majority 80.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to move the insertion into the clause of an additional rule requiring a proper weighing machine or measuring apparatus to be placed at the bank of every mine, for the purpose of accurately testing the quantities of coal, ironstone, or other material brought to the surface. He understood that false weights and measures were sometimes used, to the detriment of the workmen, who were thereby deprived of the full amount of their earnings.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he saw no objection to the adoption of weighing machines, but he could not understand how measuring machines were to be used with respect to iron-stone. He had never heard of their application to such a purpose.

MR. AYRTON

explained that his object was to secure to the workmen payment for all the ore or coal that was brought to bank.

MR. CAYLEY

said, he hoped the claim would not be objected to by the Government. In the two Committees which had sat on the subject, no point was more insisted upon than the necessity of having weighing machines as between the workmen and the employers.

MR. H. H. VIVIAN

said, he did not see any objection to that fair and just regulation, but he thought that words should be introduced by which the gauging of barges should be excepted.

MR. CLIVE

said, he understood that the proposition was permissive, but he would suggest that it should be deferred until the Report. It could do no harm, but he believed it had been tried, and it had been found that the workmen did not avail themselves of it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought it important that there should be a weighing machine easy of access.

MR. KINNAIRD moved that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress, to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.

House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock.