Commons Sitting of 9 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 8] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Metalliferous Mines Regulation (re-comm.) [151–236].
Considered as amended—Mines (Coal) Regulation [150].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—DECAY OF THE STONEWORK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether it is a fact that in August 1870 seven different preparations for preserving the stone were tried upon the Houses of Parliament; and, if so, whether any report as to the relative merits of those preparations has been issued; whether it is a fact that, with one exception, all those preparations have failed, and, whether there would be any objection to mark those several experiments with numbers, with a printed reference to the names of their respective inventors, for the information of Members and others viewing them?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, that in 1870 eight different preparations for preserving the stone of which the Houses of Parliament were built were experimented upon. But sufficient time had not elapsed up to the present to enable a satisfactory report to be made as to the result. He did not think it would be desirable to convert into a sort of advertisement these experiments of the parties who had applied their various substances to the Houses of Parliament. But if anyone interested in the question desired accurate information there would
  872
  not be the least objection that the Clerk of the Works should point out what had been done, and give any explanation that might be required. But it should be understood that such facilities would be limited to persons interested in the subject.

THE NEW POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WINNasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether he intends to hold the Contractors of the New Post Office Buildings to their engagement in the event of their being unable to fulfil their contract within the specified time, owing to the strike now existing between the builders and their workmen?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, he had already explained to the House that this contract was to have completed the Post Office by the 31st of December last, and that for various reasons that time had been extended; but no question was at present before the Board for the termination of this contract, in consequence of the suspension of the works. When the buildings were completed the question would necessarily arise whether the work had been unduly delayed with reference to the terms of the contract, under which there was a penalty imposed of a certain sum per week for every delay. When that time arrived it would have to be considered whether or not the penalty should be enforced; and, in arriving at a conclusion, of course all the facts and circumstances would be taken into account.

METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 151.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th July.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 23 (General Rules).
Amendment proposed, in sub-section 4, line 6, to leave out the word "load," and insert the words "produce of the mine in transit exceeds ten tons in any one hour over any part thereof, and."—(Mr. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'load' stand part of the clause."
Amendment agreed to.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNobserved, that the first of the "General Rules" in the present Bill was almost identical with the first general rule in the Coal Mines Bill, but he found no provisions in the present Bill for enforcing compliance with the rule. He, therefore, wished to know what means the Home Secretary looked to for securing the efficient ventilation of metalliferous mines?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that many of the provisions suited for coal mines were inapplicable to mines of the character now under consideration; but what was required was that there should be a sufficient amount of ventilation.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 38 struck out.
Clause 39 and 40 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
MR. BRUCEbrought up new Clauses,
(Prosecution of offences)
(Application of Act to the Isle of Man), which, were agreed to, and added to the Bill.
LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH moved to insert the following clause after Clause 10:—
(Mines where not more than twelve persons are employed underground).
"In any mine where not more than twelve persons are employed underground, the returns specifying the quantity of mineral or other material sold from such mine shall be made by the bar-master or other officer employed to collect the dues or royalty, and the owner or agent of such mine shall not be required to send any return specifying the number of persons employed in or about such mine."
MR. BRUCEundertook, if the words were an improvement, that they should be inserted in the 10th clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CAPTAIN BEAUMONTexpressed a hope that the Bill would be reprinted with Amendments.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought the best mode of proceeding would be to postpone the present discussion until the Report had been agreed to.
MR. LIDDELLhoped, in any case, that a considerable interval would be allowed to elapse. There was no wish to delay the measure; but it was extremely desirable that the changes which had been introduced should be well understood by all parties interested.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

[BILL 150.] CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that in accordance with a promise which he had made on a former occasion, he had framed a set of clauses with reference to the appointment of examiners for the purpose of granting certificates, which he hoped would meet the views of hon. Members generally. What he proposed by those clauses was that the Secretary of State should have power to appoint nine persons—three from the class of owners, three from the class of mining engineers or managers of mines, and three from the class of working colliers—who should form a board for the purposes of the examinations in question. The way in which those clauses would operate in practice was, that the Secretary of State would communicate to those respective bodies that they should name to him, through the Inspector, the persons whom they wished to represent them on the board, and there would, he thought, be no difficulty in each of the three classes which he had mentioned meeting with that object, and thus, with the assistance of the Inspector, a board would be formed for the purpose of appointing examiners. The board would frame regulations, too, as to the conduct of the examinations. He was well aware that those examinations must be conducted under very elastic conditions, inasmuch as the various character of the mines throughout the country required the possession of very different qualifications. He had, therefore, deemed it expedient to leave to the boards the duty of framing the rules. They would select the persons to conduct the examinations, and the Secretary of State would have the power of fixing the number and remuneration of the examiners. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—
(Appointment of examiners for certificates.)
"For the purpose of granting in any part of the United Kingdom certificates of competency to managers of mines for the purposes of this Act, examiners shall be appointed by a board consti-

875
tuted as hereinafter mentioned. A Secretary of State may from time to time appoint, remove, and re-appoint fit persons to form such board as follows: namely, three persons being owners of mines to which this Act applies in the said part of the United Kingdom, and three persons employed in or about a mine to which this Act applies in the said part of the United Kingdom, not being owners, agents, or managers of a mine, and three persons practising as mining engineers, or coal viewers in the said part of the United Kingdom; and an inspector under this Act and the persons so appointed shall during the pleasure of the Secretary of State form the board for the purposes of the said examinations in the said part of the United Kingdom."
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
On Question, "That the clause be read a second time,"
MR. WOODS—who also had a clause on the Paper referring to the same subject—asked what number of boards it was intended to form? There should certainly be, at the least, one in each Inspector's district.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsuggested that the fairest way of constituting the boards in question would be to have placed upon them two coal-owners, two mining engineers, two underground colliery managers, and two practical miners, leaving one person to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It was of the greatest importance, he contended, that that class should be represented on the boards, on whom the whole of the practical operations in a mine depended.
MR. LIDDELLbegged to congratulate his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary upon the success with which he had met the difficulties in the case, which in the eyes of the House appeared to be very considerable. He (Mr. Liddell) should prefer the board of his right hon. Friend to that proposed by his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken. What was wanted was that local knowledge should be obtained in the ultimate selection of the Board of Examiners, and that there should be a more clear definition of the districts. They had hitherto proceeded on the supposition that the districts would be Inspectors' districts; but he would like to see a more accurate definition of the area of the locality for which the selection was to be made. There ought to be a good Board of Examiners, and he thought it would be better that it should consist of a small than of a large num-
876
ber of members. He was disposed, however, to support the machinery proposed in the present clause.
MR. FOTHERGILLthought the functions of the machinery of the clause were too limited, as they only applied to the appointment of the board to select examiners. He could not see any rule laid down as to the number of examiners to be appointed or from what class of persons they were to be selected.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRpointed out that while the members of the board, who were only to elect the examiners, were to be paid under the Bill, there was no provision for the payment of the examiners themselves, who were to do the work from year to year. It would be far better to make provision for the payment of the examiners than for the payment of the board who elected them.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that in order to enlarge the area of selection he would propose after the words "mining engineers" to insert "agents or managers of mines." As a matter of fact, the manager of a mine had gone through his apprenticeship to the work before he was put in the position of manager, and might be a very fit person for selection. The reason why he had not mentioned either the districts or the number of examiners was that he was very anxious not to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State by extra regulations. In the first instance, undoubtedly, the present districts should be taken; but if a subsequent Secretary of State were to diminish the districts, it might still be expedient to have a board for every district. As to the number of examiners, he had already suggested that it should be three, and in the first instance it would be so fixed. He did not think the hands of future Secretaries of State should be tied, but that they ought to be allowed to make orders and revoke rules from time to time. The hon. Member (Dr. Lyon Playfair) had hit a blot as to the payment of examiners, but that would be removed by a future Amendment, which would make provision for their payment.
MR. RODENdesired to enter his protest against the adoption of the clause. There was no election in the case, and he thought it little better than a farce to call that a representative board which was merely nominated by the Secretary of State.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANcould not join with the hon. Member in his protest against this clause. The matter was discussed very fully before, and nearly all were agreed that it would be better to have a representative system; but the system was found to be hedged round with so many difficulties as to render it nearly impossible. It was quite easy for the hon. Member for Stoke to have put such an Amendment on the Paper as would carry out his views, but he had done nothing of the kind.
MR. RODENsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) was on the Paper, and he supported it.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he felt confident that whoever was Secretary of State would select proper persons.
Clause read a second time, amended, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved a new clause—
(Constitution and powers,)
"The proceedings of the board shall be in accordance with the rules contained in Schedule Two to this Act; the board shall from time to time appoint examiners to conduct the examinations in the part of the United Kingdom for which such board acts, of applicants for certificates of competency under this Act, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke rules as to the conduct of such examinations and the qualifications of the applicants, so, however, that in every such examination regard shall be had to such knowledge as is necessary for the practical working of mines in the said part of the United Kingdom; every such board shall make from time to time to a Secretary of State a report and return of their proceedings, and of such other matters as a Secretary of State may from time to time require.
"There shall be paid each member of such board other than the inspector of the district, such reasonable sum for his attendance at the meetings of the board, and for his expenses, as a Secretary of State may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, fix."
Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. CANDLISHproposed an Amendment preventing the board from electing any of its own members as examiners.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, after, the word "examiners," to insert the words "not being members of the board."—(Mr. Candlish.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GOLDSMIDthought that a man who would make a good member of the
878
board would also make a good examiner, and if this Amendment were agreed to it might have the object of excluding the very best men from the office of examiners.
MR. BROWNthought that to allow the board to appoint members of their own body as examiners would excite great distrust among the working classes.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was not anxious to select the examiners from the members of the board; but he thought there should be a discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State.
LORD ELCHOdid not think the limitation necessary in order to prevent these appointments from being jobbed.
MR. ELLIOTthought there was considerable difficulty in the clause as presented, for by its operation the board would be practically nominated by the Inspectors, and that was not desirable. There should be some recognition on the part of the workmen and owners of the fitness of those who sat on the board.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRwas of opinion that, although the principle of the Amendment seemed to be right, it would not be well to agree to it. The number of men in each district possessing the practical qualifications which were required was very limited. To disqualify such persons, therefore, might be to cut off all the best examiners. He thought that if the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would consent to have added to his Amendment the words "except with the consent of the Secretary of State," the object which he had in view of preventing jobbing would be secured.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "Board," to add the words "except with the consent of the Secretary of State."—(Dr. Lyon Playfair.)
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had no objection to those words.
Question, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed, to.
Amendment, as amended, made.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that as he understood the clause, no examination was to be held that did not include in it such knowledge as was necessary for the practical working of mines, but subject to that reservation examinations

879
might be held in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and, in fact, every subject under the sun. Now, it might be that the very best men might be excluded under such a system. If the examination should be extended to all kinds of subjects, the most practical and useful men would be excluded, and, therefore, he proposed to amend the clause by inserting the word "only" after the word "knowledge," and then the clause would read on in the following way:—"In every such examination regard shall be had to such knowledge 'only' as is necessary for the practical working of the mines."
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word "knowledge," to insert the word "only."—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)
MR. FOTHERGILLsupported the Amendment on the ground that if managers were appointed after passing an examination in which the marks were given for other knowledge than that connected with mining, the most disastrous consequences might ensue. The fact was that most of the best managers were a sort of mining foremen, who knew by rule of thumb when anything wrong was happening in the mine, and were remarkable for their presence of mind and activity of resource.
MR. BRUCEconsidered the Amendment extravagantly cautious. The examiners would be practical men, who would understand the wants of their own districts and know that many of the largest mines in the country were conducted by men who had very little knowledge except that which they acquired as workmen. Guarded as the clause was already, the danger lay rather in a direction opposite to that indicated by the Amendment.
MR. SCOURFIELDwas of opinion that it should be thoroughly understood that the principal knowledge required should be of a practical character.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to add the word "special" to the clause, so as to make it read that "special regard" should be had to the practical working of mines.
Question put, "That the word 'only' be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 174: Majority 131.
Clause, as amended, added.
New Clause—
(Regulations by Secretary of State.)
"A Secretary of State may from time to time make, alter, and revoke rules as to the places and times of examinations of applicants for certificates of competency under this Act, and the fees to be paid by the applicants, so that the fees do not exceed those specified in Schedule One to this Act. Every such rule shall be duly observed by every board appointed under this Act to whom it applies."—(Mr. Bruce.)
Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved in line 3, after the word "Act," to insert "and the number and remuneration of the examiners."
MR. RYLANDSasked whether no check was to be imposed on the Secretary of State as to the number of these paid examiners? The clause gave great power and considerable patronage to the Secretary of State; and, judging from the experience of all Governments, might ultimately lead to great abuses. The system they were now creating was full of danger. It would be extremely expensive, and, so far from improving, would, he fully anticipated, deteriorate the character of the managers of coal mines. According to this clause, they might have any number of examiners, and any amount of money might be paid to them.
MR. BRUCEthought his hon. Friend was needlessly alarmed, both about the extent of the patronage and the amount of money that would be paid. The fees charged, it was thought, would be sufficient for the purposes of the board. But if the allowance made by the Secretary of State was at all improvident there would always be hon. Members in that House to find fault with the arrangement.
MR. STAVELEY HILLmust observe that if the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) was needlessly alarmed the right hon. Gentleman had himself to blame for it, having placed on the Paper several new clauses with Amendments which had come into their hands only ten minutes ago, and which they certainly ought to have had more time to consider.
MR. CANDLISHhad no doubt the Amendment now proposed would impose a serious charge on the National Exchequer. The great defect of the Bill was that it did not provide that colliery owners

881
should pay the whole expense of working it.
LORD ELCHOentirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill). He suggested that with the view of restricting the expense the words "not exceeding three in each district" should be inserted.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he was anxious to see the members of the mining community, and discuss with them the point at issue, as well as others involved in the Bill. He should suggest, therefore, that the Bill be reprinted, in order that the Committee might know better what they were about. The passing of the Bill need not in consequence be delayed a single hour.
MR. ELLIOTprotested against the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) that the expenses of the Bill ought to be borne by the coal-owners, for as it stood it would render the burden which they already had to bear much heavier. He had already commenced an expenditure of £22,000 in consequence of the alterations made by the Bill with regard to the employment of boys.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland a very fair one. Shipowners were obliged to pay for the survey of their ships, and he did not see why coal-owners should be exempted from the cost of proceedings to which they were rendered liable for the public good.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that as the question was a very large one, he had no objection to its postponement.
MR. J. LOWTHERasked when it was to be considered? The augmented patronage which it was proposed to give the Executive was, he contended, a great evil, and the Government, who had done something which he admitted was beneficial with respect to public appointments, would not, he hoped, undo the good—he was about to say the only good which they had done during their tenure of office.
MR. SCOURFIELDthought that, as the Bill was more or less a sentimental piece of legislation to satisfy the feeling that something must be done, it would be hard on the coal-owners that they should be called upon to pay the expense of the experiment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved a new clause (Grant of certificates on passing examinations).
MR. LIDDELLasked who was to keep the register? Every owner in appointing a manager would have to take particular care in order to avoid penalties under the Act, that the manager was a holder of a certificate, and it was of great importance that the register should be open to every one.
MR. BRUCEreplied that the intention was that the Inspector should keep the register.
Clause added.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved a new clause (Division of mine into parts).
Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word "mines," and insert the word "districts,"—(Mr. Hussey Vivian,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'mines' stand part of the Clause."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"
MR. STAVELEY HILL MR. STAVELEY HILL moved to omit, inline 7, after the word "tends," the following words, "to lead to the evasion of the provisions of this Act, or otherwise." He held that it was too much to leave it to a Secretary of State to say what tended to lead to the evasion of the provisions of the Act.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out the words "to lead to the evasion of the provisions of this Act, or otherwise."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
MR. BRUCEsaid, all that was meant was to secure that the separation should be a bonâ fide one. He objected to the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 82: Majority 60.
Clause added.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved to leave out new Clause relating to prosecution of offences, and, in lieu thereof, after Clause 59, insert the following Clause:—

883
"No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, or manager of a mine to which this Act applies for any offence under this Act which can be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction, except by an inspector or with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State; and in the case of any offence in which the owner, agent, or manager of a mine is not guilty of an offence, if he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent the commission of such offence, an inspector shall not institute any prosecution against such owner, agent, or manager, if satisfied by him that he had taken such reasonable means as aforesaid."
Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved the omission of the words "by an inspector or," the effect of which would be to remove from the Inspector the power of prosecuting of his own motive.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out the words "by an inspector or."—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that an Inspector never could enter on a prosecution without the consent of the Secretary of State. The clause was introduced in order to protect owners and managers from prosecutions in cases where it was supposed they could not protect themselves, and to ensure that prosecutions were not instituted without careful inquiry into the nature of the cases. After that was done, there was no necessity for interfering with any prosecution which was instituted for a breach of any of the rules.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYproposed that the right to prosecute should be in the Inspector, or under the direction of the Secretary of State.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that the clause at present prevented prosecutions by outsiders, and if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was adopted third parties would be empowered by the Secretary of State to prosecute.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYhad understood that in all cases the Inspector was to be the actual prosecutor.
MR. BRUCEobserved, that the Secretary of State would have the power to direct an Inspector to institute a prosecution without any such words as those proposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JAMESsaid, that a mine owner would escape prosecution if the Inspector was satisfied "by him" that he had taken due precautions, so that the owner would have two chances of escape, and one of them on an ex parte statement.
MR. BRUCEobserved, that the Inspector would represent the public in the matter; and besides, there would be nothing to prevent any person appealing to the Secretary of State if he thought that the Inspector had not arrived at a proper judgment in the matter.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the Inspectors would have a power analogous to that of the Inspectors of Factories, which had been found to work well.
Words struck out.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved, after the word "means," to insert "by the publication and enforcement of the provisions of this Act."
Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "means," to insert the words "by publication and enforcement of the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRUCEthought that the addition of the words would tend rather to restrict the operation of the clause, which at present applied to other offences than those referred to in the regulations.
Amendment negatived.
On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
MR. RYLANDSrose to call attention to an omission. Owners, agents, and managers were to be relieved of their responsibility to some extent by the creation of new machinery. The State was to provide Inspectors, with great powers and important duties; they were to point out any matters involving danger. It was quite clear that owners, miners, and agents would be less vigilant than heretofore, and would rely upon Inspectors pointing out to them sources of danger. The Inspector might neglect his duty and disaster ensue; and yet no provision was made for attaching a penalty to the neglect of the Inspector. As had been suggested, a certain mea-

885
sure of responsibility was also assumed by the Home Secretary; and the fact was that when we began to relieve those who ought to be held responsible we did not know where to stop. He had been told by an hon. Gentleman connected with the cotton trade that there were instances in which the Inspectors of Factories had neglected their duties in a very discreditable manner. Many owners would shrink from making improvements that had not been sanctioned by an Inspector, and in this way progress would be retarded by Government interference. He wished to ask what course the Government proposed to take with a negligent Inspector? Dismissal would be no punishment compared with those to which owners and agents were to be subjected.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the suggestion of the hon. Member would have some cogency if the Government had assented to the proposition, frequently urged, that they should multiply the number of Inspectors, so that they might know what was going on in every mine; but they had not accepted so much responsibility for the security of mines as that extent of inspection would involve. It was not the duty of the Inspectors to visit every mine, and they only entered them when danger was supposed to exist.
MR. BROGDENwould be glad if some greater responsibility than at present existed were attached to the Inspectors.
MR. FOTHERGILLcomplained that the Inspector would be a perfect autocrat over the mine owner, the agent, and workmen. Under the existing law workmen were very seldom sent to prison for neglect of the regulations, and he hoped that the good feeling which had hitherto existed would not be disturbed by the present Bill. What he feared would be wanted was some power to keep the Inspector in his place, for he would always escape scot free unless any ground for complaint should happen to come to the knowledge of the Secretary of State. While admitting that, as a general rule, the Inspectors of mines were men of high education and superior intelligence, he was compelled to say there were two or three who were not remarkable for those qualifications.
MR. C. SEELYthought that £800 per annum was not a sufficient remuneration to Inspectors, considering the increase of late years in the
886
scale of remuneration of mining engineers.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines.)
MR. C. SEELY MR. C. SEELY (Nottingham) moved an Amendment to the effect that the discretionary power conferred on the Secretary of State to determine in what cases children under a certain age should not be employed in mines should only extend to mines at present at work, and to such mines only for the period of five years after the passing of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, after the word "mine," to insert the words "at present at work and in such mine only during five years from the commencement of this Act."—(Mr. Charles Seely.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the House would not adopt the Amendment. This question had been thoroughly discussed during the last few years, and the persons connected with thin-seamed collieries in his constituency (York, West Riding) had requested him to submit their views to the consideration of the House. Having made inquiry into all the circumstances, he was bound to say that this kind of labour had not a deleterious effect on the health of the children. Mr. Dickinson, the well-known Inspector of Mines, had given strong evidence some years ago in favour of the employment of children in thin-seam mines. The evidence of one of the principal managers of a very important industrial school at Leeds was to the same effect. That gentleman informed him two or three years ago that the number of boys apprenticed from the school was 53, and that this was found to be a very good way of disposing of the boys. They were provided with a comfortable home, they liked the work, and the living was very good indeed. The same gentleman added—
"In reply to your question, I have to state that the present system has no bad effect on the health or constitutions of the boys. This is shown abundantly by the experience of our schools. As far as I have seen, pit-work does not make boys deformed or more clumsy in appearance than work in the mills."
He objected to the Amendment, because its effect would be to send all young boys

887
into the mills, instead of allowing them to follow the occupations of their fathers in the collieries.
MR. F. S. POWELLtrusted the Amendment would not be pressed, as there had already been a long discussion on the subject in a fuller House.
MR. RYLANDSremarked that the question was not now submitted to the House in the exact shape in which it was brought forward on a previous occasion, as the Amendment would allow time for arrangements to be made to carry on the work.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that boys generally were not to be admitted to the mines until they were 12 years of age, but an exception was made in the case of a certain district, due provision being made for the education of the boys.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 (Employment of male young persons in mines).
MR. STAVELEY HILLproposed to leave out the words "fifty-four," and to insert "one hundred and twelve." He said the Amendment had reference to the number of hours per week and the method of calculating those hours in reference to the work of boys under 16 years of age. He proposed to alter the time from 54 hours in one week to 112 hours in two weeks; and this extension of time from 54 to 56 hours per week could not be considered too great, for the hours of work in mines would still be less than the hours of work for boys under the Factory Act. He calculated the time over the whole fortnight, making it 112 hours for the two weeks, and as there was a considerable amount of holidays in mines arising from irregularities in trade and other causes, it not unfrequently occurred that there were two holidays in one week, and his Amendment would enable the boys who lost time in one week to make it up in the next.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "fifty-four," and insert the words "one hundred and twelve,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words 'fifty-four' stand part of the Bill."
MR. FOTHERGILLcould not support the Amendment. He thought there was no necessity for owners of mines to fight
888
this battle. Their present attitude was a mistake. If coals were increased in price—and they must be increased in price in consequence of the diminution of the hours of labour—the public must pay for it.
MR. BRUCEreminded the House of the prophecies of national ruin which were so generally indulged in on the passing of the Factory Acts, and there appeared some disposition to anticipate similar injury to the public interests from the adoption of the Bill. No doubt all interference with labour must to a certain extent affect prices; but the question was, whether the interference now proposed was not really necessary for the benefit of the working population? He was afraid he must assume that, as in the Factory Act, so here, it was advisable in the interest of all society that some limitation should be put on the hours of labour. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the case very fairly, and he was prepared to adopt the first part of his Amendment and consent to the change from 54 to 56 hours per week. He could not, however, agree to the second part of the Amendment.
MR. LIDDELLrecommended his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought was reasonable.
MR. MUNDELLAwould not be content without taking the opinion of the House against the concession of the right hon. Gentleman. The comparison between labour in the mines and the factories was altogether inapplicable. There was every difference between the atmosphere of a factory and a mine. The hours in factories were only 57 or 58 per week, and the workers must leave the factory for an hour and a-half per diem. In mines the men would not be employed more than 56 hours a-week, and there would no doubt be a power of coercion over boys. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by his Bill, as fair and reasonable. With regard to the price of coals, it was regulated by the principle of supply and demand, and the present high rate was due to that cause, and not to any increase of wages.
MR. RODENwas surprised to hear such remarks from his hon. Friend, who usually spoke so sensibly. There was no necessity for inserting 56 in the Bill,

889
for, in fact, there was no chance on earth of the boys being employed more than 54 hours per week. There never was a greater mistake than for his hon. Friend to suppose that the atmosphere of a factory was superior to that of a ventilated mine.
MR. BROWNsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken told the House there was no chance of boys being employed 56 hours a-week in a mine; why, then, should he object to the insertion in the Bill of 54 instead of 56?
VISCOUNT GALWAYwas in favour of making the number 56.
MR. SHERIDANhoped that the number of 54 hours would not be exceeded.
MR. MELLYregretted the decision at which the Government seemed to have arrived in the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "fifty-four," and insert the words "fifty-six,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—instead thereof.
MR. BRUCEwished the House clearly to understand why he had made the concession of 56 hours. The utmost that it could do would be to enable boys to be worked a maximum number of 56 hours per week; it must also be remembered that the actual work of the boys was often shorter by an hour or more than the nominal hours during which they were engaged, inasmuch as the time counted not between the commencement of their work and its termination, but from the moment at which they entered the pit to that at which they left it.
Question put, "That the words 'fifty-four' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 75: Majority 21.
Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
MR. STAVELEY HILL MR. STAVELEY HILL moved to insert "so far as is reasonably practicable." His object was to prevent any offence arising where there was no intention to violate the Act.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the word "shall," to insert the words "so far as is reasonably practicable,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
MR. BRUCEsaid, when the subject was before under discussion it was ex-
890
plained that no prosecution would be instituted where the Inspector was satisfied that reasonable precautions had been taken. The words now proposed would nullify the object of the Act.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY—Resolutions [July 8] reported, and agreed to.
And it being Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock—when
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.