MINES TRESPASSES PREVENTION BILL.—SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 July 1861)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
said, that there were at present very general and well founded complaints of the state of the law in respect to trespasses and dilapidations by mining operations. There was very little remedy for mine-owners or others suffering from proceedings of this character. The trespasses were most commonly committed by persons who made secret encroachments on the mines of others, and the dilapidation was frequently caused to public buildings as well as private houses on the surface of mining districts. Parties who felt themselves aggrieved in this way had now to seek redress either by means of an application to Chancery or by 1030 action for trespass; but the great defect in the law was that before the action for trespass could be taken the wrong must have been done—the injury must have been inflicted. By the Bill before the House he proposed to enable parties to apply to the local magistrates or to the County Court in districts in which the local magistrates were part owners of the mines; but, if the House read the Bill a second time, he would, in Committee, propose to strike out the words which would provide that form of procedure, and move the insertion of others which would make the application one to a Judge in chambers. At present when an inspection was desired full notice had to be given of the application. The consequence was that the trespasser long before the order was obtained was able to obliterate all marks of his interference by bricking up the space which had been opened in the separating wall, and breaking up the galleries, and thus destroy the evidence against him. When it was remembered how prisoners were sometimes able to break through the walls of their cells without discovery, it might be imagined how difficult it would be to detect wrong doings in a place under ground and in pitchy darkness. In one case, where thousands of tons of coals had been stolen in the course of nine or ten months, and proceedings were subsequently taken, although the workmen had been constantly warned that they were trepassing, yet the jury found the master by whose orders they had acted "guilty of stealing coals, but not of knowing it." The Judge, of course, could not receive this verdict, and the man was acquitted. It also often happened that when a mine approached a town, and it was found it could no longer be worked with safety in conse-of houses or a church in the neighbourhood, the mine was let to man of straw, so that the whole of the profit of the working went to the owner, the man who leased it having little more than his mere wages. The consequence was, when it was ascertained that the injury was inflicted, there was nobody from whom to obtain redress. The remedy by which he proposed to meet that state of things was that where the owner of property suspected even that damage had been done, he should be enabled to apply to a Judge at chambers upon an affidavit, stating his grounds of suspicion, for leave to inspect the workings. He should have no objection to the local Government inspector being the per- 1031 son charged with such inspection. The Town Council of Wigan had adopted a petition in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he (Mr. Sheridan) had a copy of a letter written by a coal owner and magistrate of Durham to the Home Secretary, calling his attention to the subject, and expressing himself in favour of the measure before the House. He simply proposed by the Bill to simplify the present system of obtaining the inspection of mines, and he trusted, therefore, the House would read the Bill a second time.

§ MR. COBBETT
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. PAULL
said, that as it was his intention to vote against the second reading, he wished to explain the circumstances under which his name appeared on the back of the Bill. He was applied to by the hon. Gentleman to allow his name to be placed on the back of the Bill, the object of which, he said, was to facilitate the inquiry as to trespass on the grounds under mines. He (Mr. Paull) objected, on the ground that he had had nothing to do with its preparation, nor had he had even an opportunity of reading its provisions; but being assured by the hon. Member that the Bill had been discussed amongst parties interested in mines, and that he had spoken to two or three Gentleman on the subject of allowing their names to be placed on the back of the Bill, he (Mr. Paull) unadvisedly consented. He had, however, since taken an opportunity of intimating to the hon. Gentleman that he did not, on an inspection of the Bill, approve of its provisions. He had also found that in the opinion of the parties likely to be effected by the Bill in the county of Cornwall, that it was not a desirable measure to be passed, and, therefore, he could not give his support to it. He trusted the hon. Gentleman and the House would be satisfied with that explanation of his reasons for taking the unusual course of voting against a Bill to which his name was attached.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw the Bill, first, because at that period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, there was no probability that it would be carried, so that it would only waste time which might be spent on other business; and, secondly, because it contained provisions so arbitrary that they would require more modification than could well be made in Committee. The Bill left no discretion 1032 with the Judge. Upon mere suspicion and before any damage was done, a party might go before a Judge and obtain an under-ground search warrant. The law at present was that in all cases damage must first be shown to have been done. If the Bill should pass at all it could only pass on the ground of some great public interest being affected. For those reasons, then, he repeated he would counsel his hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill.