HC Deb 04 July 1872 vol 212 cc663-7

Penalties.

Clause 58 (Imprisonment for wilful neglect endangering life or limb).

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 33, lines 27 and 28, leave out from "if the Court" to "of the case," inclusive, and insert— If an owner or agent, to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, and if not an owner or agent, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and in the event of non-payment.

MR. BRUCE

said, the effect of the clause was to enable magistrates, where a breach of the rules had been committed involving danger to life or limb, to inflict imprisonment as well as a fine. He did not think the workmen themselves would deem imprisonment too great a punishment for a deliberate and wilful breach of the rules endangering life, or that a money penalty was quite sufficient in such a case. The Amendment now proposed would make the workman liable to imprisonment for such an act, but would allow the owner or manager to escape with a mere pecuniary fine, however palpable his offence. He held that all punishments should be adequate, and also that they should be equal. Imprisonment was inflicted for offences far less grave than an act of wilful negligence endangering human life, and it would be unequal to punish with imprisonment the workmen who committed such acts, while the owner or manager who did the same thing got off by the mere payment of a fine.

LORD ELCHO

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. These were offences which a mere money penalty would not meet. The miners wished that they should be punishable with imprisonment; and the rule that they wanted to have applied to themselves they desired, where all the circumstances were the same, to have equally applied to the owners. It should be remembered that the offence must be a wilful one.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had put down the Amendment on the Paper because the agents and managers of mines objected to the clause as it stood, and it was extremely probable that such a clause, unamended, would lead many gentlemen of considerable attainments and position who now filled those posts to give up such an occupation, and let in a class of inferior men. It therefore became a question whether the clause would work well if it were left as it stood at present. He would, however, leave the matter in the hands of the Committee.

MR. SAMUDA

pointed out that by the alterations already made in the Bill those managers who published and took reasonable means to enforce the rules would not be liable to any penalty at all under this clause, and that would prevent the security to the miners which managers and owners should be compelled to ensure, either in person or in purse.

MR. BRUCE

urged that, as the agents guilty of negligence could only be punished under the present Bill when it had become an Act of Parliament, it was necessary to see that the punishment to be awarded was sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. He thought it could not be urged that imprisonment was too severe a penalty to be inflicted for wilful negligence. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. RODEN

regarded imprisonment as a proper punishment for a personal act of negligence; but suggested that the penalties to which miners and employers were subjected should be equal.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he hoped the Committee would not divide upon this Amendment, inasmuch as the proceedings to be taken were clearly defined, and were of such a character that no person conducting his business in a proper manner would be liable to punishment.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

believed that fines were as great an inducement to people to do well as imprisonment could be; but at any rate punishment should be equal for masters and men.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, he had merely moved the Amendment in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for South West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), thinking it desirable that the proposal should be discussed; but he did not at all agree with it.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had thought it right to place before the Committee the views of the managers, but he would not press the matter further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CANDLISH

suggested that as the offences to be dealt with would sometimes amount to manslaughter, and as a person who had been punished under the Mines Act could not be subsequently put upon his trial for manslaughter, the imprisonment ought to be for six instead of three months.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

pointed out to the hon. Member that, in cases where the injuries inflicted by wilful negligence were likely to result in death, the magistrates would have power to adjourn the hearing of charges brought against the offenders in order that the result of the injuries might be ascertained, and, where necessary, charges of manslaughter might be preferred under the existing law.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 59 (Summary proceedings for offences, penalties, &c.)

MR. BROGDEN moved, in page 35, line 2, after "summary jurisdiction," add— Provided always, That no proceedings shall be taken by any Inspector or other Government officer, after the expiration of three months from the commission of the offence, unless notice was duly given within that time.

MR. BRUCE

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 62, agreed to.

Clause 63.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Mr. LIDDELL) moved, in page 36, line 33, after "applies" to insert—"in which the offence set forth in the complaint shall have been committed" with the view of making the clause harmonize with the general practice in proceedings in criminal matters.

MR. RODEN

hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause as it stood.

MR. BRUCE

said, he thought it would be desirable that a stipendiary magistrate should be appointed for hearing complaints and charges under the Act.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

warned the Committee against getting an immense number of inferior men, who could not get on in their own profession, instead of a high class of independent men.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it had been his fate to be called in to act as arbi- trator or umpire on more than one occasion when differences had arisen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clauses 64 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 68 (Interpretation of terms. 23 & 24 Vict., c. 151, s. 7.)

MR. FOTHERGILL moved, in page 38, line 12, after "mine," insert— Except so far as such person under the reservations contained in the lease or other instrument by which such royalty is reserved be enabled to regulate the mode of working the mine. He was the tenant of a large property, the lessor of which had a royalty on the coals which were raised. One part of the coal being in close proximity to a river could not be worked without great danger; but, notwithstanding this circumstance, he was threatened with an action of ejectment unless he worked that portion of the mine. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words to protect lessees from the exercise of such powers on the part of lessors.

MR. BRUCE

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that arrangements between lessors and lessees did not come within the provision of the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

suggested that in such cases, or in cases where coal was left as a barrier between the mine and old workings, which might be full of dangerous gases, or of water, the lessor should be committing an offence against the Act if he insisted on the mine being worked in a dangerous manner.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

remarked there was no definition of the term "manager," and he had not the remotest conception of what a "manager" was. He suggested that some definition of the term should be inserted in the Bill.

MR. BRUCE

said, there was no need for a definition, as the person who was named manager was responsible. The agent or sub-agent might be appointed, and whoever was appointed was responsible.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

remarked that the word "panel" was not defined.

MR. BRUEN moved, in page 38, line 18, after "State," insert "as to Ireland the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant."

MR. BRUCE

said, there would be only only one Inspector for Ireland, and it was desirable that he should be under the same jurisdiction as the other Inspectors.

MR. DELAHUNTY

, in supporting the Amendment, expressed a hope that before another year elapsed the office of Lord Lieutenant would be abolished.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.

Postponed Clause 15.

MR. BRUCE

said, the clause contained two sub-sections, one providing that no wages should be paid in public-houses, and the second, that all wages should be paid in money by the immediate employers of the men. He proposed to omit the second of these sub-sections, as the miners would be sufficiently protected by the Truck Acts. Next Session he should be prepared to introduce a Bill relating to the subject of wages generally.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

was satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and said he would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.