§ General Rules.
§ Clause 48 (General Rules).
MR. BRUCEhaving on Tuesday proposed to insert, after the words "shall be," the words, "as far as practicable," now moved that they be inserted.
§ MR. ELLIOTagain urged the Government to accept the modification he had proposed by inserting in page 24, line 30, after "therein," the words—"so far as may be reasonably practicable, having regard to any special circumstances of the mine," He contended that there were 641 many precautions which might be practicable in the sense of being possible, that would not at the same time be reasonably practicable, because they would cost so much that the property would not be worth working. If, as the Attorney General had said, the word "reasonably" would make no difference, why should not the Government concede its insertion in deference to those who thought it would? He moved to amend the proposed Amendment of the Government by inserting "reasonably" before practicable.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, the Home Secretary had admitted that in a mine there was a liability to accidents which no manager could possibly foresee; and he regretted the division that was taken when they appeared to have got nearly all they desired in that admission from the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman desired to do what was right, was it not possible for him to insert the word "reasonably" to meet the views of those who were apprehensive that managers, rather than owners, might be taken up when they did not deserve it?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the word "practicable" in an Act of Parliament meant "reasonably practicable," and it would, therefore, be superfluous to insert the former word.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the next general rule provided that the examination of the ventilation should be carried on as far as was "reasonably practicable." He thought, therefore, the words ought to be introduced into this clause in order to bring the different parts of the Bill in conformity with one another.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not object to the insertion of the word "reasonably." He thought it had been struck out wherever it had originally appeared in the Bill, because it was considered to have no legal significance; but as it had been accidentally retained in the next general rule, he would consent to its insertion in this place.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
MR. BROGDEN moved, after subsection 1, insert new sub-section—
Where a mine subject to Clause 19 of this Act is known to give off dangerous gas, a barometer and thermometer shall be placed at the mine above or below ground, under charge of, and as directed by, the manager.
642
The object of the Amendment was to enable the managers of mines, by reference to the barometer and thermometer, in the course of their daily occupations, to ascertain when great danger of explosion was likely to arise. According to a statement made before the Royal Society, it appeared that out of 525 explosions in mines in the years 1868, 1869, and 1872, 49 per cent occurred at times when there was great barometrical change, and 22 per cent when there were great changes of temperature.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the word "mine" in the Interpretation Clause included every shaft in the course of being sunk, every level, and a variety of other things. If the Amendment were adopted, a thermometer and a barometer would have to be placed in the mines at all times. If these instruments were placed in the mines in Staffordshire overnight, they would not be found the next morning.
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsupported the Amendment, but thought it was not sufficiently comprehensive in its terms. He thought that justice had scarcely been done to the advantages that would result from a more general use of scientific instruments in mines. He did not mean to say that absolute safety could be insured by their use; but serious danger to life and limb could be very considerably diminished. A falling barometer and a high thermometer afforded certain evidence that ventilation was carried on with difficulty, and when gas was generated it was not merely explosive gas which had to be guarded against, for non-explosive gas was most dangerous to work in. He would suggest that the Amendment, instead of applying only to certain cases, should be made to apply in the case of every mine. Then he believed that the words "above or below ground" in the Amendment were objectionable. In the case of the thermometer it was important that it should be above and not below ground, because at a certain depth in deep mines there was a constant temperature, and when the temperature at the surface and in the mine were the same, natural ventilation ceased altogether. The plea of expense ought not to weigh for a moment in the matter, as a barometer could be obtained for a sovereign, and a thermometer for a shilling.
§ MR. PEASEsupported the Amendment with the alterations suggested by the hon. Baronet. The Amendment ought to be made to apply to every mine drawing coals.
§ MR. DENMANthought the words "at the mine" were ambiguous, as a mine included several things. If something beneficial were to be done in the sense of having a barometer and thermometer handy and near to ascertain the state of the mine at reasonable distances, the words of the Amendment must be very considerably altered, because the words "at the mine" would be complied with by having one barometer and one thermometer only in any part of the mine, whether it was above or below ground.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his object was to have the use of the barometer and thermometer made compulsory within certain well-defined limits; so that no person should be liable to be prosecuted unless he wilfully neglected to comply with the Act.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, it occurred to him that a foreman coming across a low barometer and a high thermometer would be very much bothered as to what such differences indicated. He should like to know whether a high barometer and a low thermometer always went together?
§ MR. BOUVERIEsuggested that simple directions for the use of the barometer and thermometer should be drawn up in concert with the Inspectors and the Royal Society, which on receiving a public grant some time ago expressed a willingness to give its assistance on any scientific matter.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that, as the Amendment seemed to be generally approved of by the Committee, and as it was obvious that it ought, before adoption, to be very carefully drawn up, he would undertake to introduce such an Amendment, properly framed, upon the Report.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKexplained that the grant referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was not made to the Royal Society itself, but for public purposes under the administration of the Society.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 24, line 36, after "shall," insert "so far as is reasonably practicable."
644MR. BRUCE, understanding that it was practically impossible for all the travelling roads to be always properly ventilated at the same moment, said, he would assent to the introduction of these words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsuggested that it would be better English to say "as" not "so" "far as is reasonably practicable."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN moved, in page 24, line 37, after "safety lamp," insert "and an efficient fire-damp indicator," with a view of subsequently adding a provision that no part of a mine should be reported safe when more than 4 per cent of inflammable gas was indicated by that instrument. The proportion of gas to atmospheric air was now ascertained by the safety-lamp, the flame of which expanded and exploded feebly for a small amount of gas, the explosion within the wire gauze becoming violent for a proportion of 7 per cent. The fire-damp indicator showed the exact amount, and one kind could be so adjusted as to ring an electric bell all over the mine like the division bell of this House, while another was a portable aneroid barometer adapted to the purpose. The only objections that could be taken to the fire-damp indicator were similar to such as were originally urged against the safety-lamp, and he was sure the men could soon be taught its value, after which its use would no longer need to be enforced.
§ MR. LANCASTERsaid, he had found fire-damp indicators so impracticable that he regarded them as mere toys.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought it was a dangerous experiment for Parliament to pretend to tell the miners what they were to do under all possible circumstances.
§ MR. RYLANDSalso deprecated any endeavour to regulate mines with such a minute attention to details, because such intermeddling legislation would give the workers in mines an unfounded confidence in these regulations which would lead to disastrous results.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the present rule only gave effect to what was already done in every well-conducted mine. They had ample experience of the utility of 645 the Davy lamp, and it was better to rely upon it than on any fire-damp indicator, the value of which had not yet stood the same test of long experience as the Davy lamp had.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LANCASTERproposed, in page 28, line 3, to leave out Rule 16, providing that
the roof and sides of every travelling road and working place shall be made secure, and a person shall not, unless appointed for the purpose of exploring or repairing, travel or work in any such travelling road or working place which is not so made secure,in order to insert the following Rules:—16, Where the natural strata are not safe, the roof and sides of every travelling road shall be made reasonably secure by the owner, agent, or manager, and a person shall not travel or work in any such travelling road which is not so made secure, except for the purpose of exploration or repair, or for other necessary duties of the Mine. In the miners' actual working place, as defined by the special rules of the Mine, the miner himself shall make the roof, sides, and face thereof safe for working therein.16 a. The owner, agent, or manager shall cause all timber for props and other purposes required by the workmen to carry on their operations with safety to themselves to be cut in convenient lengths for setting, and placed for use where the workman delivers his coal.It was important that the alteration he suggested should be adopted in the interest of the workmen, of the employers, and also of science, which was introducing the "long-wall" system of working. By that system a large face of coal, probably from 100 to 1,000 yards, all running parallel, was worked out at once. Perhaps 50 or 60 men were employed in that place as miners, and it was necessary that the roof-propping should be done simultaneously. Each man, or number of men, had been in the habit of propping and securing their own place where they worked. As the Bill, however, now stood they must have a set of special timber men, and the miners must remain idle while the timbering was carried out. He considered it important that the miners should help in that work, and he proposed these Rules in the interest of the work people, of the employers, and of science, which had led to the adoption of a system tending to security and economy. In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, in 1865, one life was lost for every 210,000 tons of coal raised; but since then the "long wall" system had come more into 646 use, and in 1870, 380,000 tons were raised with the loss of one life.
§ MR. PEASEconsidered that the Amendment would introduce a dangerous principle. Hitherto the Committee had placed the whole responsibility upon the owners, and whereas this Amendment proposed to transfer to the men the responsibility in regard to the safety of the roof, from the falling of which so many accidents resulted.
MR. BRUCEsaid, this was a most important question, because, although explosions in mines attracted most public attention, the falls of the roofs and walls really caused more loss of life than any other casualties occurring in mines. The Bill did not propose that the timbering and propping should be taken from the workmen where they had been accustomed to do it, but only that what the men did in that way should be done under the supervision and responsibility of the manager. The Amendment would limit the application of this principle to the highways of collieries, and exempt working places from the operation of the rule. Out of every 100 deaths caused by the fall of roofs, 90 occurred in the working places, and it was those 90 deaths that the hon. Member (Mr. Lancaster) would except from the rule. There was nothing new in the principle he had advocated, for it had been adopted in the oldest mines with the best results. In Northumberland 2.75 lives were lost for every 1,000,000 tons of coal raised, and in Durham 1.95. In North and East Lancashire, where the men were allowed to prop for themselves, the proportion was 4.70; the lives lost numbered 221; whereas, judging by the loss in other districts, if the Durham system prevailed it would be only 93. In West Lancashire the proportion had been 5.81, and in South Wales 6.59. The number of deaths in South Wales was 405; if the Durham system prevailed it would have been 120. Of course, in these cases, there were other points of difference besides the difference in system; but a very experienced Inspector, having persuaded the coal owners in his district to adopt a system of superintending the timber and the roofing, had reduced the number of deaths about 40 per cent. It was inexpedient to trust to the men, as some advised, because danger seemed to make them reckless rather than careful. Nothing was more common than for a 647 man to go on pulling down coal to make a good day when he should be propping and roofing. It was not, however, proposed to take the propping out of the ands of the men; it was only required that they should do the work subject to supervision.
§ MR. LANCASTERsaid, the roof of Northumberland and Durham was hard and strong, while that of the Midland Counties and South Wales was loose, so that the system must be different, and comparisons could not be trusted.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, accidents more often occurred from coal-falling than roof-falling. Accidents from the former cause arose from the men going in too far under the mass of coal with their pick, in the hope of getting a good heavy fall. He suggested that the word "reasonably" should be introduced, with a view to qualify the responsibility of the owners.
§ MR. BOUVERIEthought if any rule was adopted that in the clause would be the best, because from the figures quoted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) it was obvious it decreased the loss of life.
§ MR. ELLIOTreferred to the difference in the mode of procedure in mines in Northumberland and in Glamorganshire. In Northumberland enlightened persons were appointed, in consideration of their fitness, to superintend the general safety of the mine. He should be glad to see such a measure carried; for he believed that more lives would be saved under this clause than perhaps any other clause of the Bill.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANbelieved that if this clause were adopted it would tend more than any other in the Bill to save life. No doubt it would create very considerable difficulty, especially in South Wales; but no sort of pains must be spared to save the lives of men. He believed that the difficulty would be in a great degree upon the part of the men themselves. He suggested that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" should be introduced into the clause, which ought to be qualified as the preceding ones had been.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsupported the proposal to insert these words. The first part of the Amendment had been drafted by Mr. Dickinson, one of the most experienced mine Inspectors.
§ MR. BROGDENdoubted whether the clause could be carried into effect in 648 mines of thick coal unless a staff as numerous as the miners themselves was employed. As the Bill would come into operation at an early period, he would suggest that power should be reserved to the Home Secretary to allow an exemption from the clause in case of necessity.
MR. BRUCEwas opposed to the introduction in this clause of the words suggested, because, as the clause had considerable elasticity, he regarded them as unnecessary. All that the Bill required on the part of colliery owners was that they should take reasonable precautions, and if it could be shown, in case of accidents happening, that they had made good regulations and provided for their being carried into effect, they would be exempted from responsibility. Had he thought the words proposed were essential, he would have introduced them; but he regarded them as unnecessary.
§ LORD ELCHOthought the reasoning of the Home Secretary was in favour of the introduction of the words, bearing in mind the speeches they had heard from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Elliot). What appeared to him to be a fair compromise between the two was to carry out the principle that they should not try impossibilities; that they should not say that the roof was to be secure when it could not be made secure. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian) that the roof should be made as safe as possible.
MR. BRUCEsaid, if the word "reasonable" was to be introduced into the Bill at all, it ought to find a place in half-a-dozen clauses which had already been passed. The words at the end of the clause having reference to reasonable care being used were intended to apply to each of the general rules, and to all the requirements of the Bill.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLthought if the word "reasonable" at the end governed the whole, it was as well that that should be made clear. This Bill introduced a very alarming state of things into the management of mines. Suppose a question came before a magistrate, would it be enough to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary's 649 understanding was that the clause was covered by the word "reasonable?"
§ MR. BRISTOWEthought the Home Secretary's interpretation of the influence of the word "reasonable" at the end very doubtful, because the draftsman who had charge of drawing up the Bill had two propositions before him—first the responsibility of the owners for matters under their own management and control; and, secondly, their responsibility for offences under the Act committed by some person in their employment. The owners, agents, and managers were responsible for those matters which were directly within their province, and it was admitted on all hands that the management and maintenance of these travelling roads were matters which they themselves must undertake. The Committee had to consider whether the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was consistent with the wording of the clause. He did not think so, and if his own view were correct the mine owners and managers would be strictly responsible, and the words of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian) were therefore necessary.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who had sat down, that there was no such distinction between one class of obligations and another as the hon. Gentleman had supposed. All were duties and obligations thrown on the owner, agent, and manager, and each would be responsible for carrying out the rules, but in each case of contravention they would be able to exonerate themselves from liability. By adopting the Amendment for the insertion of the word "reasonable" they would render those cases where it did not occur exceptionally severe. For instance, one clause provided that "the shaft shall be securely fenced;" now if it gave way that would be held to be a proof that it was not securely fenced, if the word "reasonable" was not inserted in that clause, and was inserted in others.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had struck out the the word "reasonable" in half-a-dozen cases, believing it to be an unnecessary word.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, they had the assurance of the Home Secretary that 650 the word "reasonable" was intended to apply to all rules, and if so it was very easy to frame the clause in such a way that there could be no doubt about it, and then there would be an end of the question. It was idle to discuss seriatim whether that word was to be introduced into every clause, and the words at the end should be made sufficiently clear.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that without the word "reasonable" the onus of proof would lie on the manager, with it it would be transferred to the person making the complaint. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would introduce some general words throwing the onus of proof on the prosecution there would be an end of the question.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLrecommended the Committee to adopt the clause without alteration, as providing a valuable protection for the men, while not inflicting any hardship on the owners.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the suggestion to throw the onus of proof on the prosecution introduced a new question. The protection aimed at by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) was greater than was right in cases of this sort. What was wanted was to increase the responsibility of the masters. At the same time, he did not want to carry that responsibility too far. The intention of the Government was that when an accident happened the masters should be liable to be called upon to show that they had been sufficiently cautious. But the new clause, of which he had given Notice, would prevent them from being summoned when the Inspector was satisfied that reasonable precautions had been taken.
§ COLONEL CORBETTsaid, the whole question appeared to him to be only a matter of words. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to substitute for "make secure" the words "to be well secured," the difficulty would be met. "Well secured" meant that the work was done as well could reasonably be expected.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the Committee was getting into confusion. This Bill, as the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe) had said, was drawn with two distinct views, relating to the duties and liabilities of two different classes of persons. Unfortunately, the idea was arising that they 651 could import into the management of mines the principle of the Factory Acts, inasmuch as the interior of mines was beyond the control and supervision of the owner—as he was called—that was, the occupier. Except in very rare cases it would be absurd to attempt to apply the Factory Acts to such works. But they had legislation in point. They had the Merchant Shipping Act, where the liability of the owner of a ship was provided for and defined, and where the liability of the captain, who corresponded with the manager of a mine, was also provided for and defined. The penalties were according to the distinct and relative position of these parties. They might go hammering on with this Bill with the view of introducing impossible distinctions in order to define the liability of separate classes, without arriving at clearness.
§ MR. GOLDNEYrecommended the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster) to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANalso recommended the hon. Member for Wigan to withdraw his Amendment, and he would then himself move to insert those words which he had before mentioned, and which he hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would accept. His right hon. Friend might fairly accept words which he had already accepted in the first sub-section.
§ MR. ELLIOTthought this alteration might be made without at all diminishing the efficiency of the clause. A manager or owner ought not to be made responsible for the act of a man who had not put his timber in properly. They might lessen the dangerous conditions which operated in a mine; but as to making the roof and sides in any working secure, such security was quite unattainable in practical mining. He hoped, therefore, that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" would be inserted.
§ MR. CRAUFURDreminded the Committee that the principle laid down in the clause was no novelty, because if a man's servant committed a fraud on the revenue, the employer became amenable to the Excise and Mint law. Adequate protection would never be obtained for the lives of miners unless the same principle were extended to mine owners.
§ MR. WOODSsaid, the evidence of every practical man in the House was 652 against the clause as it stood. It was physically impossible to keep the roof safe in the constant changes which went on in the working of a mine. Yet the mine owner who did not maintain it would be liable under the Act, and, unless he could prove his innocence, might be sent to prison.
MR. SCOURFIELDthought that there was no analogy between the Excise laws and the present case. An offence against the Excise laws did not excite public feeling; but in the case of a mine accident there was the feeling that some one should be punished, and the principle of "first come, first served," was too likely to be acted upon.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, it seemed to him that an analogous case to what was now proposed would be that if the captain of a ship was guilty of smuggling the owner should be held responsible.
MR. BRUCEsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster), and then the Government would state the change they would be prepared to make in the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRUCE, repeating the objection to make exceptions to particular rules, and remarking that there was really no radical difference between the Government and the hon. Member for Coventry with respect to those on whom the burden of proof should rest, and that the Government did not wish to impose any unreasonable burden upon owners and managers, while requiring them to take every possible precaution, said, that on the Report he would propose to introduce into the beginning of the clause itself the words—"so far as is reasonably practicable," so that it would read—"the following general rules, so far as is reasonably practicable, shall be observed in every mine."
§
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved, in page 29, after line 38, to insert—
30. Where an accident has occurred which has caused the loss of life or such serious bodily injuries as require that the circumstances should be reported to the district Inspector, no alterations or repairs are to be made on the place, or in or about the mine, until it has been visited by the Inspector, unless it can be shown that the allowing it to remain without change would impede the work of the mine, or be likely to lead to other accidents.
He said that the necessity for such an
653
Amendment arose from the fact that it frequently happened that immediately after an accident all traces connected with it were removed.
§ MR. ELLIOTopposed the Amendment upon the ground that immediately after an accident it was often absolutely necessary to make alterations to restore ventilation and to endeavour to rescue the men.
§ MR. BROGDENsaw many reasons for some such rule, but he feared the objections to it were unanswerable.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 29, after line 42, to insert the following general Rule—
In the South Wales and Monmouthshire districts no person (other than the haulier or driver) shall precede the horses, or ride on a train of tubs or trams, or accompany the haulier or driver when employed in driving trams or tubs underground, save for the purpose of training unaccustomed horses to the work, and also save by leave of the Inspector of the district. Every door boy shall be solely employed in attending to the door or doors under his charge.
He observed that accidents frequently occurred by boys being taken away from the doors under their charge, and the object of the Rule he proposed was to prevent boys being overworked, and from, running before the horses and being crushed in consequence of tumbling down.
§ MR. BROGDENobjected to the enactment of the proposed Rule as a general law. If it was necessary in particular districts it could be applied to those districts when approved by the Secretary of State.
MR. BRUCEwas aware that the danger arising from the employment of boys underground had long occupied the attention of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Elliot), but he thought that the proposed Rule was not of a sufficiently wide application to justify its being made a general Rule and, if adopted, it should be embodied among the special Rules.
§ Amendmen0t, by leave, withdrawn.
654MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to call the special attention of he Committee to the Amendment which stood next on the Paper. It was one on which, in the opinion of those connected with the Bill, much of its workable character must depend. If the clause remained as it now stood, the Bill would lose a great deal of its virtue. He was not in the habit of saying anything of himself, but he must ask permission to say one word in order to relieve himself of a charge which had been made with regard to him. He fully recognized the ability of the excellent reports of their proceedings which appeared in the public Press; but he thought it was scarcely fair, where, from the very condensed form of the report of what was said in Committee, the reasons for Amendments which stood in his name were not given, that statements should be made that he had reduced the Bill from being a good to be a bad Bill. He had no connection with mines, or interest in them. His only desire with reference to the Bill was for the benefit of the mining population generally, and especially of South Staffordshire, that it should be a good coal-mining Bill—all the Amendments he had put forward were with that view. To secure this two things were essential—that there should be experienced managers, and that nothing should be enacted which would lessen or tend to derogate from their authority. Having laid down 30 general Rules, the Bill provided that every person contravening or not complying therewith should be an offender against the Act. Except that he proposed to insert the word "reasonably"—an alteration which he presumed would be assented to—he did not object to this. The clause, however, went on to say that in the event of contravention or non-compliance "by any person whomsoever" being proved, the owner, agent, or manager should be guilty of an offence against the Act "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent such contravention or non-compliance." He proposed to substitute for this a provision that they should be liable, on conviction, to a penalty—
If it shall be shown that all reasonable precautions have not been taken by such owner, agent, or manager to prevent such contravention or non-compliance.655 The law assumed every man to be innocent till he was proved guilty—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear?]—but the clause as it stood laid down the principle that every man should be deemed guilty till he proved himself innocent. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to show that the clause was consistent with the former principle. He would take as an illustration any of the 30 general Rules for a breach of any one of which by "any person whomsoever" the owner, agent, or manager would be liable to a penalty. A collier might place something in the man-hole or place for refuge, and a person thus prevented from getting into it might be run over and killed. The owner, manager, or agent would know nothing of this breach of the regulations, yet the clause would hold them responsible. In the same way a miner, having lost his rammer, or for some other reason, might take down an iron rammer, and the result of his using this might be an explosion, killing the man himself and those around him. In that case a breach of the rule would have been committed, and the man having been killed no information could be obtained about it. The facts, as proved, might show that a breach of the rules had been committed, and how were the owner, agent, or manager to clear themselves? If they were in the dock their mouths would be closed, and the only persons who could give any explanation would be unable to say a single word. It was said that Parliament was now only asked to follow out the clauses of the Factory Acts. But what were the provisions of the Factory Acts upon which what was said to be an analogous liability attached? No person was permitted to be employed without a surgical certificate, and anyone who paid wages without seeing the certificate was liable to a penalty. If, therefore, a factory manager chose to pay wages without seeing a surgical certificate he did that which he knew to be wrong. The Factory Inspector might summon either the occupier of the mill or the other person in fault, and it was clear that the Factory Act never intended to impute guilt to anyone unless he had personal knowledge of the Act which he was breaking. On a former occasion he had ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Attorney 656 General, in which he cited, as a parallel case, that the existence of an accident was of itself proof of negligence on the part of a railway company. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never said anything of the kind.] He had certainly understood him to say so, and he could scarcely be mistaken, for he replied at the time that the first question raised at a trial was—"Do the company admit the negligence?" According to the law laid down in Addison on Torts, the question arising upon a civil case in the event of an accident would be whether the machine causing the accident was solely under the management of the person charged, and whether he was using due and reasonable care. So that even in a civil action a primâ facie liability, such as it was sought here to fix upon an owner or manager, would not attach to them; but in a charge under this section the proceedings would not be civil, but criminal, and the question whether the owner, agent, or manager had anything to do with the accident, or whether the accident would have happened if the person charged had used reasonable care, would be one which the person charged would have no opportunity of answering by his own evidence. He thought, therefore, that a liability of this nature would tend to keep away the best class of men from the office of manager, and to lessen their authority and consequent usefulness, and it would be an evil day for all working in mines when owners, agents, and managers were placed in the position he had described. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 30, leave out from lines 1 to 9, and insert the following paragraph:—Every person contravening or failing reasonably to comply with any of the general rules in this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and in the event of any contravention or of non-compliance with any of the said general rules by any person whomsoever being proved, the owner, agent, or manager of such mine shall also be liable on conviction to a penalty under this Act; if it shall be shown that all reasonable precautious have not been taken by such owner, agent, or manager to prevent such contravention or non-compliance.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would not place his authority against that of the hon. and learned Member on the question of law involved; but he would repeat what he said the other day, that in the case of a train running off the 657 line and causing personal injury or death it would lie on the railway company to show that they had not been guilty of negligence. Without discussing cases, he was quite content to rest on the principle of law of which there was not the slightest doubt. The real question was whether the section as it stood, substantially, or that proposed by the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted by the Committee? He did not understand there was any serious objection to the first portion of the clause, as it would be amended on the Report by the insertion of the words "so far as is practicable;" and these words would now override the whole clause, including the portion with which the Committee was now concerned. The words must be imported into the construction of the paragraph the hon. and learned Member would strike out. The only fair way of testing it was to consider how it would work. It would be better to strike it out in a straightforward way than to substitute something offering a security which, would prove illusory. If an explosion occurred by the act of some person, not the agent, manager, or owner, and loss of life ensued, and the law was put in force against the agent, manager, or owner, according to the Government proposal the defendants would have to show, to the satisfaction of the Justices, that all reasonable and practicable precautions had been taken to prevent it. It was an argument worthy of Quarter Sessions to say that the mouths of the defendants would be closed and they would be utterly unable to make a defence, because the character of the management of a mine was capable of proof by the production of rules and by the evidence of persons familiar with the course and conduct of business, of whom there must always be several who could be called as witnesses. By such evidence it could be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken for the purpose of avoiding an accident, which, it might be, was inevitable. Under the terms of the Bill the owner, agent, or manager, would be entitled to acquittal. It must not be forgotten what the hon. and learned Member proposed to cast on those who had to enforce the law. He had shown what the defendant would have to prove. He must appeal to the candour of hon. Gentlemen to admit that nothing would be 658 easier than to show that there had been a reasonable compliance with all proper requirements. But what was it the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested should be cast upon those who had to enforce the law at the instance of the public, who were crying out for the protection of human life? He put upon the man who had to enforce the law not only proof of the negative, but of one of the most difficult negatives which could be possibly proved—namely, that there had been an active non-compliance with all the reasonable requirements of the law. How could the Inspector in 99 cases out of 100 enforce the law if he had to discover whether these rules had or had not been complied with? He could not show that reasonable precautions had not been taken, and it would be better at once to strike this clause out of the Bill than to place such a burden of proof upon the shoulders of the person who had to put the law in motion. In substance, the proposal of the Government was perfectly reasonable, and that of the hon. and learned Member was unreasonable and impracticable. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a picture of a highly respectable person standing in a dock and tried before a jury. But in case of the money penalty there would be a trial before a magistrate, and if any other punishment were imposed there would be an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said this was a principle unknown to the law of England. But there was no substantial distinction between this clause and section 41 of the Factory Act. He admitted that the analogy was not exact, and that unless analogies were exact they were often misleading; but regard must be had to the point to which the analogy referred. In the first place, the proposal of the Government was not that a man should be held to be guilty until he had proved his innocence, but that a mine manager or owner should be held primâ facie liable to a penalty until he showed that he had performed certain specified directions mentioned in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman would hardly show his usual candour if he did not recognize the distinction between the two cases. Under the Factory Act, when an offence occurred in any factory the owner or occupier was in every case deemed in the first instance to have committed the offence, 659 and was liable to the penalty; but if he proved to the satisfaction of the Justices that he had used due diligence to enforce the Act, and that the offence was committed by an agent or workman, the payment of the penalty was enforced against the agent or workman; and when the Inspector was of opinion that the occupier had used due diligence, that the offence had been committed by an agent or workman without his knowledge and against his orders, the Inspector might proceed against such agent or workman, and not against the owner or occupier. He had not now to justify the Factory Acts, which had worked for many years with general satisfaction; but what he said was that the Government were in this case doing substantially what had been done in former cases with universal assent. In many instances a man had not to prove his innocence, but there were some in which the rule of law was otherwise—as, for instance, in the case of a man who was found in the possession of Government stores, the law was that he should show whether he had innocently come by them. In other cases certain facts were primâ facie proof of guilt, and while he had admitted that the rule was generally the other way, there were sufficient exceptions to show that it was not universally so, and the question for the Committee to decide was whether there was not abundant reason in this case to satisfy them that it was fair to throw upon the owner the onus of showing that he had performed certain specified acts of duty from which the law would infer his innocence. All that the Government cared for was the substance of the clause; for the expression it would be unworthy in them to contend. He could not expunge the substance of the clause, but proposed to add to it these words—
But no such owner, agent, or manager shall be convicted of such offence if he shall prove that he has taken all reasonable means and precautions.He contended that, substantially, the clause was a fair one, and that it imposed no duty upon an owner, manager, or agent which he had not the means of meeting; but if it gave offence or created alarm the Government would not object to any alteration, provided that the real effect of the clause was left untouched.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYbelieved that there was in reality very little difference between the Government and those who desired the amendment of this clause, and he was convinced that the more the subject was considered the more certainly would the Committee come to the conclusion that if an owner had taken due precautions he ought to be relieved not only from any charge being made, but also from being summoned to meet any charge and having to make his defence. The argument of the Attorney General was not wholly satisfactory, for if an explosion happened and loss of life occurred this Bill would not be applicable, as the offence became one of manslaughter, which would be tried in the ordinary way before a jury. In that event nothing would be inferred; neglect would have to be proved, and the greater offence would swallow up all the minor ones. If it were proved that owing to his negligence or his wilful act loss of life occurred an owner would be liable, and no one would wish it to be otherwise. The offence, however, might be less than manslaughter, yet by the clause an owner would be responsible for a special breach of a general rule; but he did not suppose that if a workman did a particular act in contravention of a rule, anyone would desire to make the owner responsible. He believed that the clause could be amended by the insertion of a very few words, so as to render it consistent with the views of those interested in mines, and those who were anxious that they should be worked in a proper way. He suggested that words should be inserted which would relieve the owners, agents, and managers of mines from prosecution under this Bill in the event of their being able to show that they had taken all reasonable care, by the publication and enforcement of the rules, as to the regulations for the working of the mine. In the event of due care having been taken on the part of the owners or their agents to make the rules known, and to enforce them when a wrongful act was done, the prime offender, and not the owners or their agents, ought to be punished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised to bring up a clause on the Report to bring this Bill into harmony with the Factory Acts; but what the owners wanted was that they should not be summoned before the 661 Justices' unless a primâ facie case was made out against him. He further suggested that before the owner was prosecuted the Inspector should make inquiries and ascertain whether or not he had done his best to enforce the rules. He trusted that there would be no long discussion upon a point upon which both sides of the House were so nearly agreed.
MR. BRUCEacceded to the two proposals of the right hon. Gentleman without any difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right when he stated that there was but little difficulty between them. He had never contended for more than that the owner should be bound to show that he had done his best to enforce and to observe the general rules. He, therefore, willingly accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to amend the clause by inserting after the words "all reasonable means" the words "by publication and enforcement of the above rules as the regulations for the working of the mine." With regard to the second point, he might observe that he had already given Notice of an Amendment which went even beyond the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as it not only required the Inspector to make an inquiry into the circumstances of the case before commencing a prosecution against the men, but restricted the power of instituting a prosecution to the Inspector.
§ MR. PEASEthought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) amply met the difficulty, and would carry out the desired object much better than the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill).
§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIANobserved that he felt much anxiety about this part of the Bill from a fear that a mine owner might be liable to be brought before the law for an offence of which he was as innocent as if he had been a resident of New Zealand. He was, however, rejoiced to find that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) entirely met this case. It would then be the duty of the miner or manager, by publication and other means, to enforce the rules laid down. He wished, however, to know what was the exact meaning of the word "enforcement?" If it meant that wherever one of the general rules had been broken the owner, 662 agent, or manager had done his best to enforce them and to punish an infraction of them, he thought the case was fairly met. It was most important that those other parties who were interested in mines should not be liable to be proceeded against until the case had been previously thoroughly sifted.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, what he meant by the word "enforcement" was to make the regulations of the mine the rules by which the people concerned were to abide.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, he was glad the penal clause had been rejected, but feared the owners would be relieved of all responsibility. Railway directors were made liable in purse for loss of life resulting from disregard of the ordinary rules for insuring safety; and though he was glad the owners of mines were relieved from penal consequences, he thought they should still be liable for pecuniary compensation.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) thoroughly satisfactory. It was right that the owners should be quired to show in case of accident that they had taken every proper precaution to prevent accident; more than this should not be expected of them.
§ LORD ELCHOconcurred in the opinion so generally expressed, that the difficulty in the matter was now satisfactorily solved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy). In respect to the Secretary of State's proposal, to limit the prosecutions to Inspectors, he (Lord Elcho) thought that that was going too far in the other direction.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his only difficulty at first sight about accepting this Amendment was the meaning of the word "enforcement;" but on consideration he found it must clearly be interpreted in conjunction with the word "publication," and that it would require no more than the use of the ordinary means for enforcing the rules of the mine.
§ Amendment (Mr. Staveley Hill), by leave, withdrawn.
§
On Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, the following words were inserted:—
By publication and enforcement of the said rules as regulations for the working of the mines.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
663§ Clauses 49 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.