COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th June.]

HC Deb 27 June 1872 vol 212 cc305-33

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Wages.

Clause 15 (Payment of wages at public houses, &c.).

MR. BRUCE

said, that, in consequence of communications he had received from both sides of the House, he proposed to postpone the clause.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

, while anxious for the discussion of an Amendment of which he had given Notice, would not lay himself open to the charge of impeding the progress of the Bill; but he could acquiesce in the postponement of the clause only on the understanding that the other Bill by which it was proposed to deal with this question would be persevered with.

MR. BROWN

could assent to the postponement of the clause only on a sufficient assurance that the subject should be dealt with by the Government at the earliest opportunity.

Clause postponed.

Clause 16 (Payment of persons employed in mines by weight).

MR. STAVELEY HILL

announced his intention of waiving his Amendments allowing payments by measure also, the masters being willing to submit to the inconvenience involved in weight being the only standard.

MR. PEASE

, while personally in favour of weight, thought measure should be permitted; but would not press the matter if the Committee generally took another view.

MR. FOTHERGILL

wished for the adoption of the standard which would give the greatest satisfaction to the men. In South Wales, where measure was not used, all the work of a mine was often stopped in order to see that the coal was correctly weighed; and his own workmen frequently tested the weighing machine, a practice which was satisfactory to him, for the masters' hands were quite clean in this matter.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved, in page 7, line 20, at end, add— Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall preclude the masters and men from agreeing that deductions shall be made in respect of stones or material other than that contracted to be gotten, which shall be sent out of the mine with the mineral contracted to be gotten, or in respect of any tubs, baskets, or hutches being improperly filled; such deductions being determined by the banksman and check weigher (if there be one), or, in case of difference, by a third party to be mutually agreed on.

MR. BROGDEN

proposed to insert in page 7, line 20, in Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN'S Amendment, if carried, after "improperly filled" the words— In those cases where they are filled by the getter of the mineral or his drawer, or by the person immediately employed by him.

MR. BRUCE

assented to the Amendment, remarking that the reputation of a mine owner depended on the coal sent to market being free from stone or shale. It was, therefore, necessary to protect him against baskets being filled with rubbish.

Proviso, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BRUCE

proposed an Amendment which would affect not only this clause, but other parts of the Bill. The concluding paragraph of the section raised the important question which was discussed the other day, and having received information as to the sort of opposition which these points would receive, he had endeavoured to frame an Amendment which, while giving due effect to the object of the Bill, would meet the legitimate objections which had been raised. He proposed to omit the last paragraph and to insert the words— Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and, in the event of any contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of this section, the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act unless he can satisfy the Court that he has used due diligence to secure the execution of such provisions. These words were taken from the Factory Act.

MR. LIDDELL

, while grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attention to this important matter, and for the earnest he had just given of the manner in which he would deal with it, was of opinion that Notice ought to be given of the Amendment in order that its terms might be very carefully weighed. He would suggest that it should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.

MR. BRUCE

said, the words he had proposed were of a less stringent character than the words in the original clause, to which no Notice of Amendment had been given.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

observed that, notwithstanding the opposition of the Government to the insertion of the word "knowingly" in a clause discussed at the sitting on Tuesday, the Home Secretary, in effect, now proposed to insert the word "knowingly," because he felt it to be due to this clause. But full Notice ought to have been given of his intention to amend this clause.

MR. RODEN

said, he hoped the Home Secretary would postpone his Amendment, of which he had not given Notice, until the Report—that was to say, until the Committee had a fair opportunity of discussing the whole question. According to the Amendment, the owner, agent, and manager might all be sent to prison for the same offence.

MR. BRUCE

said, the Amendment followed the words of the Factory Act, but he had no objection to the clause standing it its present form.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he had read the Factory Act carefully, and found that in every case not only knowledge but personal knowledge was required before any person could be punished. He took exception to the construction put upon the matter by the right hon. Gentleman, and maintained that the words had a very different effect in the Factory Act from what they would have there.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had not studied the Factory Act so successfully as his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, otherwise he would have seen that the obligation which it was now proposed to place on the mine owner, if not identical with that imposed under the Factory Act, differed only in being less severe. The clause proposed by the Home Secretary was to this effect—that if the rules were contravened the mine owner should be held responsible, but he might free himself from responsibility if he could show that he had used due diligence. Under the Factory Act the owner or occupier would be primâ facie liable, but would be able to exonerate himself if he showed that he had used due diligence, and also pointed out who the culpable person was. In the present clause the latter obligation was not required, because in case of an explosion it might not be possible for the mine owner to show who had been culpable, though he might be able to prove that he had himself employed due diligence. Therefore, under this Bill the owner, agent, or manager of a mine would be placed in a more favourable position, because he would have exonerated himself the moment he had shown the Inspector that he had shown due diligence.

LORD ELCHO

said, the speech of the Under Secretary was an unanswerable argument in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) to postpone the clause. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) on one side had brought forward a legal argument which was met by another legal argument by the Under Secretary. That showed that it was extremely desirable to proceed with caution, and if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wished to make progress with the Bill it would best be done by postponing the clause without entering further into a legal discussion, which might be prolonged with very little advantage.

MR. PEASE

also appealed to his right hon. Friend to postpone the clause, for they were being asked to legislate on a new Amendment, the legal bearings of which it was extremely difficult for them to follow.

MR. BRUCE

did not deny the reasonableness of this request, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that there had been no want of due diligence on the part of those in charge of the Bill. As objection had been taken to the insertion of the words, he was perfectly willing to postpone them until some later period, or the Report, when it would be his duty to propose them again upon giving due Notice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

MR. NEWDEGATE

, as a person interested in the subject, wished to state that the difference between the Amendment suggested and the substance of the Bill and the Factory Act was this—that the Factory Act made the occupier primarily responsible as the person in possession. The owner was not in possession when he had let his mine to another, and to make him responsible for what was done under the occupier was altogether unjust. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

informed the hon. Member that the Amendment had been withdrawn.

MR. FAWCETT

rose to move that the clause be omitted from the Bill. The hon. Member said, he had sat upon a Committee the Report of which formed the basis of the present Bill, and he had listened to the evidence given by various persons relative to the payment of wages by weight or measure. He wished therefore to enter his most emphatic protest against the legislation contained in the clause, which was also to be traced in various other Bills. It was the beginning of an evil course, which, if persisted in, would bring great disaster on this country. It would intensify the very evils it sought to cure, and he was convinced it would inflict the most serious blow upon industry, because it would teach working-men not to rely on themselves, or their own efforts, but to seek the miserable and demoralizing assistance of repeated Acts of Parliament. He would have occasion, when the Government brought on the Truck Bill, to raise this question on a broader basis. But what he wished now to point out was this—if it were better to have the men paid by weight than by measure, could not the House of Commons leave the question to be decided by the masters and the men themselves? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill), who spoke with great practical experience, had told the House, what they knew to be the truth, that the men had quite as much power as the masters. The men had worked wages up to the market point, and, when the circumstances of trade justified, they were able to obtain an advance of 10, 20, or 25 per cent. They had fought out the question of wages successfully, because, happily, this House had not encouraged the baneful doctrine of interfering between employer and employed. Would not half the same force of combination, similarly directed, enable working men to say that they should be paid by weight and not by measure? You could not legis- late in this way for every trade, or even for every mine. Whenever you attempted this trade interference you were forced to allow the Home Secretary the power of making certain exceptions. The result would be to spread over the whole country a great network of Government interference, under which trade would suffer more even than it would from onerous taxation. You had not the courage to carry out this very clause consistently, and what was your weak resort? You inserted a proviso that the Home Secretary might suspend its operation, allowing men to be paid by measure and not by weight. Would the practical men of England really say that the Home Office was to decide all these difficult and delicate questions? Had not the Home Office enough to do at present? Did it do its work so well that it could undertake, in adddition, to look into every mine, every level, every shaft, and say that wages should be paid according to measure in one case, according to weight in another? He said nothing against the Home Secretary. The Home Office did not fail because of any personal faults in his right hon. Friend, but because it undertook 50 times more than a Government Department could do. If this tendency were not checked, the Home Office would not only have 50 but 100 times more than it could properly do, and it would be far worse done than it was at present. No doubt, these would be called the theoretical opinions of doctrinaires; but they were really opinions based on common sense, and he believed that a great majority of the House would be anxious to make the same avowal, if they were not deterred by the false and mistaken philanthropy which had grown up. He was strongly in favour of certain kinds of Government interference; but there was an important distinction between interference on behalf of children and interference on behalf of grownup men. "Oh," said an hon. Friend, to whom he used this argument, "but workmen must be treated as children." If so, why did not the supporters of this childish legislation say so, when they were going to give the franchise to working men? The very men who advocated this meddling, mischievous legislation, and who now said—"You must legislate for working men as if they were children," talked then, in Parliament and upon endless platforms, about "the enlightened working classes," and declared that every working man in the country ought to have a vote. He, too, thought that every working man should have a vote, and it was because he thought so that he was of opinion they should be left to manage their own affairs. If he believed that workmen must continue to pass their lives on crutches, and to be treated as though they could not settle their ordinary transactions, he should be the first to say—"For Heaven's sake do not extend the suffrage. Let us even retrace the fatal step we have taken in entrusting political power to a class who are so childish that they cannot take care of themselves." This clause raised an important principle, one against which he should protest whenever it was introduced into an Act of Parliament. He meant to do it on the Truck Bill. He did not care how much he might be misunderstood, or what unpopularity he incurred; but if he received the slightest encouragement, though he did not desire to delay the Bill, he should ask the House to express its opinion on the policy contained in the clause.

MR. PEASE

said, the clause compelled every colliery proprietor after August, 1873, to pay his men by weight instead of by measure, except in certain cases where the Secretary of State had power to vary that arrangement. Like his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett), he objected to place such an unnecessary power in the hands of the Home Office. From some practical experience on this subject, he believed that there was no difficulty in paying the men accurately by measure by providing a standard measure at the mine. If that were so, there need be no dissatisfaction with the system of paying by measure, and he objected to the House of Commons dictating between masters and men.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he had heard with astonishment the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), which, if it meant anything, meant that the Bill was unnecessary, and that masters and men were perfectly qualified to settle their own arrangements without interference from this House in the matter of mines, manufactories, and workshops. The cheers from both sides of the House during the speech of the hon. Member were not very encouraging to those outside who were looking to that House to render life in mines more secure, and to place the relations of masters and men on a better footing. If that House accepted the doctrine that working miners were perfectly able to make their own arrangements with their masters, as to the rules and regulations for the working of mines, it would thereby transfer to the trades unions the power of regulating these relations; or the argument of the hon. Member would, in effect, allow the weak to be ruled by the strong. When, some years since, great complaints arose respecting the frauds and dishonesty in the coal trade, when coals were sold by measure, Parliament did not say that was a question between buyer and seller, with which they had no concern, but it passed an Act compelling coal merchants to sell their coals by weight, and also to provide scales and weights to enable the consumer to test the weight. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he thought that the hon. Alderman had entirely mistaken the question, and that if all questions of rates of wages and modes of payment were settled by a paternal Government there would be a much greater outcry than there was now. To compel coal merchants to sell their coals by weight to the public, and make them provide scales and weights to test the weight of the sacks, was a totally different thing to compelling the miners to change a system to which they had been accustomed. The men could easily settle this question for themselves; they could see whether the skips were full; and if they were, they knew that they would receive a certain rate of payment.

MR. GOLDSMID

cordially supported the views expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton, and protested against the system of having a paternal Government interfering on all occasions between masters and workmen. He had recently paid a visit to the mining districts, and had conversed with several miners, and he had come to the conclusion that there was not a more intelligent class of men in this country, or men more capable of making an arrangement for themselves.

MR. ELLIOT

entirely concurred in the principle which had been enunciated by the hon. Member for Brighton, and thought that the less interference be- tween masters and men the better. British workmen were very well qualified indeed to take matters into their own hands. The system of computing by measure had, however, he could state from his own experience, given rise to more disputes and difficulties than anything else connected with the management of collieries; and while fully recognizing the principle that the less interference tools place the better it would be, thought that for the sake of expediency, it would be well to enact the adoption of the weighing system.

MR. LANCASTER

also supported payment by weight, and said it was well known that there was generally a large percentage of over-weight in favour of the masters as compared with the estimated weight of the coal as measured. He also stated that it was the custom of the banksman at the pit's mouth to declare the whole of the tub or skip forfeited if, in his opinion, it was not the proper measure, which was a great grievance. Of course, in cases of short weight the deduction was only made of the amount it was short.

LORD ELCHO

trusted the Committee would allow the clause to stand. The hon. Member for Brighton said it was not right for the State to interfere between masters and men in such matters; but the Irish Land Bill was an interference on the part of the State, and the hon. Member's conduct in reference to that measure was inconsistent with the principle which he now enunciated. When, as in this case, the representatives of the employers and of the workmen were agreed, that principle, though generally sound, might be departed from in the present instance.

MR. RODEN

observed that nothing had caused greater irritation than the question as to the way in which the men should be paid; and though he agreed with the statement that the men ought generally to be left to settle such matters for themselves, yet all interested in the subject declared that the clause was necessary. He, however, was of opinion that the discretion proposed to be given to the Home Secretary should be left out of the Bill.

MR. BRUCE

conceived that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had done good service by raising this discussion. The subject was one of great difficulty, and it was not without a great deal of reluctance that he complied in this matter with the general wishes of the mining population. He knew the danger of interfering between masters and men in anything which could be fairly settled between themselves. But Parliament had already interfered in respect to weights and measures in order to prevent disputes and the suspicion of fraud. Parliament had interfered to cause coal to be sold by weight all over the country. It was found that that was the only way to establish confidence, and that was the justification for the introduction of the present clause into the Bill. With respect to the interference of the Secretary of State, he should be glad if that matter could be omitted from the clause; but great hardship would be entailed if the proposed change were carried out in all cases without exception.

MR. FLETCHER

, as one practically connected with the management of collieries for many years, expressed himself as being strongly in favour of the system of weight, and he thought it should be adopted absolutely, without any power being given to the Home Secretary to grant exemptions.

MR. PEASE

was in favour of payment by weight, but on the principle of non-interference, he should vote with the hon. Member for Brighton. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Elliot) had stated that great dissatisfaction arose among miners from the practice being enforced of paying their wages by measure. All he could say, as the result of his own experience in the matter, was, that he had never known a strike occur from disputes on that point.

MR. FAWCETT

remarked that he was usually not disinclined to carry a question to the test of a division; but he should not take that course on the present occasion, because he had not given Notice of his intention to oppose the clause. Again, this Bill was, to a great extent, the result of a compromise, and many hon. Members who thoroughly agreed with him in principle would not be prepared to vote against the clause. He should, however, take an opportunity of raising the same principle on the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill, which he intended to oppose.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Appointment and removal of check-weigher on part of men).

MR. BRUEN

said, this clause, which related to the appointment of a check-weigher on the part of the men, provided that if in any mine proper facilities were not afforded to the check-weigher, the owner, agent, or manager of such mine should be guilty of an offence against the Act. He proposed to change into the positive what was put by this provision in a negative form, and therefore he moved in page 8, line 6, to leave out from "proper," to "section" in line 7, inclusive, and insert— Any inconvenience or obstacle be placed in the way of such check-weigher calculated to interfere with his taking in an efficient manner such account as aforesaid, as required by this section, or to encroach on all reasonable and proper facilities for his so doing, then and in such case.

MR. BRUCE

opposed the Amendment, because he thought the Bill should insist on proper facilities being given to enable the check-weigher to perform his duties.

MR. BRUEN

remarked, that as the facilities to be given were not defined by the Bill, the owners might be placed in a difficulty.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Inspection of weights and measures) agreed to.

Single Shafts.

Clause 19 (Prohibition of single shafts).

SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN

said, this clause provided that in communication with every seam of each mine for the time being at work, there should be at least two shafts, or outlets, separated by natural strata of not less than ten feet in breadth. This distance, in his opinion, was not sufficient, and he therefore moved, in page 9, line 28, to leave out "feet," and insert "yards."

MR. BRUCE

said, he had taken the opinion of Inspectors on this clause, and none of them suggested any departure from the Act of 1862, in which the same provision appeared. Therefore, unless the hon. Member had stronger reasons than he had adduced for his Amendment, the Government must object to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRUEN

pointed out that the Proviso at the end of the clause stated— That the separation between the shafts should not be deemed incomplete by reason only that openings through the strata between the two shafts or outlets had been made for temporary purposes of ventilation, drainage, or otherwise. In no times in Ireland had any inflammable gas been discovered, and the retention of the word "temporary" might be prejudicial to them. He therefore moved in page 9, line 41, after "otherwise," insert— Or in the case of mines where inflammable gas has not been found within the preceding twelve months, such separation shall not be deemed incomplete by reason only that openings through the strata between the two shafts or outlets have been made for purposes of ventilation, drainage, or otherwise.

MR. BRUCE

said, he did not think the Amendment would give any additional security.

MR. BOUVERIE

thought the introduction of the words proposed would restrict the Proviso, since its effect would be to exclude from the operation of the clause all mines where no inflammable gas had been found within the preceding twelve months.

MR. ELLIOT

thought the communication provided for by the clause would frequently be required in a mine where inflammable gas had been found within twelve months.

MR. LIDDELL

said, the weight of authority appeared to be opposed to the Amendment. He would, however, suggest that the matter be considered before the Report was brought up.

LORD ELCHO

said, the difficulty of the case might be met by omitting the word "temporary" from the clause.

MR. BRUCE

promised, if the Amendment were now withdrawn, to consider the question before Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Certificated Manager.

Clause 24 (Appointment of manager to mine).

MR. LIDDELL moved in page 11, line 41, after "manager," insert "or managers," the object being to meet the case of mines having more than one manager.

MR. BRUCE

opposed the addition, on the ground that by it the responsibility of the management of the mine would be divided. In his opinion, one of the greatest benefits that could arise in mines would be the introduction of certificated managers.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

supported the Amendment, remarking that in his district there was a general manager, with a separate manager to each pit, and that the clause as it stood would make only one of these responsible.

MR. CANDLISH

suggested that the Amendment might be adopted subject to the insertion of qualifying words on the Report.

MR. FOTHERGILL

pointed out the impossibility of a single man personally supervising enormous collieries.

MR. BRUCE

said, that what was required was a man to be engaged in the daily supervision of a mine who should possess intelligence, vigilance, and assiduity, inasmuch as so many lives depended on the exercise of those qualities: and it was deemed desirable that the person so engaged should be required to have a certificate. Unless the Bill were to increase responsibility it could scarcely be called an improvement on any of its predecessors, and if that responsibility were diffused among several persons it would be to that extent weakened.

MR. ELLIOT

pointed out that there were some mines of such magnitude that they would require half-a-dozen managers. If security, protection, and responsibility were the objects which it was sought to attain the more managers there were, he contended, the better.

MR. PEASE

was of opinion that the result of requiring a certificate would be to produce a higher standard of education among the men.

LORD ELCHO

suggested that the introduction of the words "of active certificated managers" would meet at once the object of the Home Secretary and the framers of the Bill, and ensure the direct responsibility which his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment desired to attain.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

was of opinion that the security of a mine did not depend more on the manager than on the chief agent, who had the control of the general working of it. He suggested, therefore, that the chief agent should be subjected to a practical examination, and should be certified as well as the manager.

MR. LANCASTER

compared a mine to a ship with its captain, who directed its general course, and its mate, who was responsible for seeing that the sailors did their work and for the lifting and lowering of the sails. He, for one, did not think it was necessary that there should be a certified manager for every compartment of a mine.

MR. LIDDELL

replied that there was a vast difference between the area of a ship and that of a colliery. It was impossible, he maintained, for any single manager to do the work involved in the daily supervision and control of many miles of mine. He must take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the captain of a ship was always on board, while the agent of a mine might be many miles away. He should be glad if the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) would allow the matter to be further considered on the Report. The hon. Member had made out a case for more than one manager in some instances, and that case might be met without breaking in upon the principle of the Bill.

MR. HENDERSON

said, that in all the well-managed collieries there was a proper staff appointed, who were really responsible for every hour of the day, and there was not a single operation in one of the large colleries which was not under the supervision of officials who were responsible both for the safety of the mine and for the lives of the workpeople.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ELLICE moved the insertion in page 12, line 2, after "be the" of the words "agents and," his object being that the owner of the mine should be required to give notice to the Inspector of who the agent of the mine was, and that that agent should be subject to examination and have a certificate in the same way as the manager.

MR. BRUCE

said, that this Amendment, thus suddenly started upon them, would alter the whole structure of the Bill. There was no reason why the agent should not be the manager if it was the desire of the owner that he should be; but there were cases in which an owner might have one agent and a great number of managers. The person invested with the responsibility should be the manager. The point raised by the Amendment could be better dealt with on the Report.

MR. ELLICE

said, he did not like leaving these things till the Report. A long experience had taught him how unsatisfactory that was. The agent was the person on whose control the safety of the mine really depended.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BRUEN moved the addition of words in the clause giving power to the Secretary of State to exempt, in special cases, mines from the operation of the Act in which more than 10 persons were employed, as he thought that that restriction might sometimes prove inconvenient.

MR. BRUCE

thought that it was better that the limit fixed upon—namely, mines with not more than 10 persons employed in them—should be retained.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Grant of certificate of competency).

MR. LIDDELL

, in moving that this and the following clause relating to the appointment of examining Boards and the grant of certificates of competency to managers should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting other clauses at the proper time on the same subject, said, that for the first time it was now proposed that all managers of mines should hold certificates of competency, thereby relieving owners and agents from a material portion of the responsibility which had hitherto attached to them in the choice of their servants, and also conferring an official title upon all future managers of mines. The constitution of these examining Boards ought, therefore, to be carefully considered. What he objected to was that not the Home Secretary, but "a" Secretary of State was to take upon himself the duty of appointing the examiners, framing regulations for the future conduct of these examinations, and granting certificates to candidates. Even the Home Secretary had not the requisite local knowledge, either for the choice of persons to conduct these examinations, or for ascertaining the qualifications and general fitness of men for these most important duties. He, therefore, desired to introduce the representative principle, adopting an analogous machinery to that by which certificates were conferred on masters and mates in the Mercantile Marine, and substituting local knowledge versus official theory. The present Secretary of State had a practical knowledge of mining, but a successor of his might be crotchety, dogmatic, theoretical, or quite ignorant of the subject. What was necessary in the case was an examining Board whose decisions should inspire public confidence, and he desired that the Board should be elected by men whose local knowledge would enable them to say who were qualified to act as examiners. A practical, not a theoretical, examination was necessary. It was requisite not so much to ascertain the scientific attainments of candidates, but to elect practical men with a certain knowledge of elementary science, for if you got very highly educated young men as managers, they would not submit to the drudgery of the pit. He desired to have a practical rather than a theoretical examination, and to obtain this it would be necessary to have a Board composed largely of practical men, with a mixture of the working-class element, which, in the examinations, would bring out the moral qualities, the courage, and the powers of endurance which were so necessary in the successful conduct of mining operations. When the proper time came he would explain more at large the plan he proposed to substitute for the clauses he now desired the Committee to strike out of the Bill.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he entirely disapproved the plan in matters of this kind of granting certificates fixing standards of merit. The effect of such a policy had been very injurious, as exemplified under the operation of the Merchant Shipping Acts, for the result was that few men endeavoured to get beyond the legal standard of merit, and the work in which they were engaged suffered considerably. He felt sure that, taking the Bill as far as it had progressed up to the present, the rules laid own were less stringent than those already in force in the best regulated collieries; and the further effect of vesting the appointment of examiners in the Secretary of State would be largely to remove responsibility from the shoulders of the colliery owners, on which it ought to rest, and so tend to the injury of the public interests.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

suggested that the practical portion of the Board of Examiners hereafter to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) should be composed of two colliery owners, two practical miners, and two underground colliery managers. He attached great importance to the presence of these last-named persons upon the Board of Examiners.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he was of opinion that the practical result of the clauses now under consideration would be to prevent a great deal of the good which without them the Bill was calculated to effect. It was true, as had been said, that the present Home Secretary had much practical knowledge of mining operations. He might, however, be succeeded by a Gentleman destitute of such knowledge, who—perhaps through the agency of the School of Mines in Jermyn Street—might adopt such means for the examination of managers as would result in the selection not of practical men, but of those persons who could write the best essays, or give the best vivâ voce answers to questions relating to theoretical mining.

MR. PEASE

said, there was very great force in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland. The character and requirements of mines varied considerably in different districts, and it was, therefore, desirable that the examiners should be acquainted with the localities. In his opinion, it would be of the greatest advantage to put working miners on the Board of Examiners.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he wished to know whether, supposing a certificated manager did not answer his purpose, the Home Secretary would be placed in the position at present occupied by the owners? If an owner appointed a manager he incurred certain responsibilities as to penalties; but if the Home Secretary undertook the duty of certifying the manager, he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not bear the owner's responsibilities. He felt convinced that under the system proposed by the Bill the services of the best and most practical men would not be obtained. He knew instances in which persons of the highest character and of long experience utterly failed to pass an examination which was rather suited to young men fresh from school, and both the mines and the miners suffered through these failures, because otherwise the can- didates were perfectly competent. There were, moreover, few men of comparatively advanced age who would like to have all their knowledge sifted to the bottom. He doubted whether the Home Secretary should take upon himself so grave a responsibility, as well as the policy of removing that responsibility from the owners, managers, and agents, and putting it on the Government. In doing so they were going far out of their way to interfere with business.

MR. BRUCE

said, he agreed that it would be advantageous to have a local examination conducted by persons conversant with the wants of the different districts, and also that the object of the examination should be to ascertain not whether a man was fit to hold a professorship in a mining college, but whether he possessed all the practical knowledge which was necessary for the proper management of a colliery. He should be extremely glad to discover a mode more satisfactory than that proposed in the Bill of appointing a Board of Examiners. The hon. Member for South Northumberland had been bold enough to propose a scheme which, he said, was founded on the Merchant Shipping Act. No doubt, the owners of vessels did select the examiners; but he believed the sailors had no voice in the matter, and he might remark that it would be impossible to collect the votes of the colliers in the various districts in the manner now proposed. He was as desirous as his hon. Friend that the working men should have a share in the election, and, if proper machinery could be devised to bring about that result, he should be most happy to adopt the suggestion. The proposals of his hon. Friend, moreover, were in substance those made by the joint committee of masters and men. He had carefully considered them when, they were first brought under his notice; but it appeared to him that they did not afford a practical solution of the question. It was necessary to get practical men, and not men of science; and he admitted he took refuge in the Secretary of State, not knowing where else to turn. It had been recently suggested to him that in most, if not all, of the districts there were associations of mining engineers, gentlemen who took the greatest interest in their profession, who were well acquainted with the wants of their respective localities, who stood, as it were, between the masters and the men, and who, without pitching their standard too high, would not fix it too low. Perhaps by intrusting this body of men with the selection of a certain number of examiners a solution of the difficulty might be found. The suggestion had only been made to him recently, and, therefore, he had not been able to give practical effect to it; but if it should be the opinion of the Committee that the Secretary of State was not the proper authority to appoint the examiners, and also that his hon. Friend's scheme was too cumbrous and expensive, it might be possible to secure in the way he had just indicated the appointment of an efficient Board of Examiners.

MR. HERMON

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland. In most cases in which mines were concerned there were men who had risen out of the ranks by their own ability, and who had shown the proof of practical merit.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

remarked that the adoption of the clauses as proposed in the Bill would probably result in a state of things quite opposed to the practice generally existing at present, for a straightforward, sober, courageous man selected from the staff might probably be rejected by the examiners, though he would be the best man, and though the master would wish to consult the feelings of the men in the appointment.

MR. FOTHERGILL

, referring to his own experience, said, that in his own mines there had been raised 6,000,000 tons of coal during seven years, and that without the loss of a single life; but he should tremble for the consequence if the new system were adopted, as he considered it a miserable "come-down" from that which now existed. He objected to the owner being relieved from responsibility at the expense of risk to the lives of the miners; but, submitting to some such scheme as inevitable, he preferred that of the hon. Member for South Northumberland.

MR. ELLIOT

testified from experience to the consideration and judgment required in selecting underground managers. The thickness of seams, the modes of working collieries, and other conditions varied so much in different districts that a man fit for a manager in one locality might be unfit for another. More- over, knowledge of mankind was an essential qualification. He contended, therefore, that the examinations should be local.

DR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, that having been an Inspector of Schools of Navigation and a Government Commissioner to inquire into mine accidents, he could bear testimony to the satisfactory working of the system of certificates in the Mercantile Marine, though, when proposed, it excited the objections now urged against mine certificates. It was true that examiners could not test practical aptitude, but they tested the intelligent application of science to practice. A shipowner's responsibility had not been lessened by his being required to appoint a certificated captain, and the latter was not the less practical for understanding cyclones and land breezes. In the same way, a mine manager should know something of air, choke-damp, fire-damp, and the barometer and thermometer. He therefore differed from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and he would remind him that his own town did not depreciate technical studies, for it had a most excellent school of navigation to prepare young men for passing the necessary examinations. Unless the hon. Member for South Northumberland wished to exclude technical subjects from the examination, his proposal and that of the Government had the same object—the securing an intelligent, practical manager. The objection to local Boards was that their standards of qualification differed, while the proposal of the Home Secretary was more likely to secure uniformity in this respect. Scientific principles, consciously or unconsciously applied, underlay and formed the root of all practice. That was now admitted in all practical professions, and mining was a most important profession. Managers of mines should not exercise mere rule of thumb, but possess some intelligence to guide their practice.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that looking at the importance of establishing a competent Board of Examiners, he thought it was impossible for the Committee to arrive that night at any decision on either of the propositions that had been made. The Home Secretary had abandoned his own proposition, and it would be expedient to postpone the clause to give the right hon. Gentle- man an opportunity of bringing another clause.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, there was evidence that the mining interest was not at all satisfied with the proposition of the Home Secretary that he should nominate the Board of Examiners, while as to the proposition of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, it seemed to him that the carrying out of that plan would be impossible; he therefore thought the Committee were not in a position to adopt either one or the other. In that state of things he would suggest that the Committee should fall back upon some such plan as that laid down in the 9th clause—namely, that where an Inspector complained that a manager was incompetent, an inquiry should be directed by the Secretary of State, and, in the event of the charge being sustained, the manager should be removed. There was this presumption in favour of the old system—that it had been conducted with great success, and that the accidents, which everyone deplored, were not due to bad management or the incompetence of managers, but to other causes. He thought the postponement of the clause desirable.

MR. A. EGERTON

said, he approved of the constitution of a Board consisting of three examiners, and thought that the Inspector should be one member of the Board, and that the other two should be nominated by the Secretary of State.

MR. RYLANDS

observed that the Home Secretary had said it was most important that managers should be required to obtain certificates. But if certificates were desirable in the case of managers they were at least equally desirable in the case of agents, who controlled managers, and who had a great deal more to do with the administration of the mines than managers had. His own opinion was, that it was a mistake to suppose that accidents would be lessened if there were certificated managers, and that was the opinion of the Select Committee of 1867. The miners saw that we should not stop at managers, and therefore they asked that all agents, overmen, and chief managers should be required to have certificates. The men trusted to scientific acquirements; they had a blind confidence that if all these people passed a scientific examination they would be able to protect them from dangers of all sorts. The men were, in fact, relying upon the machinery of Government, upon which there was too great a disposition at present to rely for everything. But hon. Members knew very well that the protection of the men rested very much on the good sense and care of such owners as his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill), who had told the Committee that he had carried on his mine for seven years without an accident. The men ought also to depend on their own care. He feared that too many accidents were owing to men going down into the mine with their hands unsteady and their brain disordered. He believed that a course was now proposed which, if taken, would not only not put a stop to accidents, but would increase them.

MR. BRUCE

said, he gathered from the discussion that what was required was that the managers should be men of ascertained practical ability, and well acquainted with the district for which they were examined. The hon. Member for South Northumberland had spoken of the moral qualities necessary for the managers. Of course, it would be requisite for the employers in selecting their managers to see that they had the necessary experience and the necessary knowledge. The proposal of the hon. Member, however, was surrounded with insuperable difficulties; but he thought a solution of the problem might be arrived at in this way—Words to the following effect might be added to the second of those clauses which it was proposed to strike out:— The examination shall be conducted locally by not less than three examiners, and of these not less than two shall be mining engineers practically acquainted with the mining district in which the examination is held. That would secure the examination being held by persons of local knowledge.

MR. RODEN

thought this a very wide proposition, and one that tended in the direction of centralization. In the first place, he did not know who was to appoint the examiners. [Mr. BRUCE: The Secretary of State.] He objected to the Secretary of State having any such power. He much preferred the scheme of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, which appeared to be a practical one. The plan of the hon. Member for South Northumberland was that there should be an Examining Board of nine members—one to be appointed by the Secretary of State, three to be practical mining engineers, three mine owners, to be elected by the mine owners of the district, and two to be miners, to be elected by the miners of the district. He did not see any difficulty in electing such persons, but he had no faith in nominations of any sort or kind. He should vote for the rejection of the clause.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he objected to nomination by the Secretary of State. A serious objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was, that it provided no means for the representation of the men. There were practical points absolutely in dispensable in the managers, which the men of all others were best qualified to ascertain.

MR. ELLIOT

, in reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), begged to say, speaking from a long and intimate experience, that in the whole course of his life he had never known of two men who had gone down into the pit in a state of intemperance.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, he did not think the ordinary run of mining engineers were qualified to examine men as to the practical working of mines underground; and, further, he had even known Inspectors of districts to whom he should be sorry to intrust the selection of such men. A long experience of both in mining led him to attach greater importance to practice than to science; and he thought the Motion of the hon. Member for South Northumberland afforded a good basis on which to found a Board of Examiners.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he was sorry that obstacles should have been thrown in the way of the Bill by persons who, to say the least, were not disinterested, who depreciated science, and said, in effect, that they preferred ignorance and the rule of thumb. ["No!"] What was science? It was knowledge. He always suspected the opposition of those who were personally interested in a question, whether mine owners, bankers, shipowners, or any others.

LORD ELCHO

said, he must deny that any slur had been cast upon science in the course of the debate. The Home Secretary had himself admitted by his last proposition that there was great difficulty in a purely scientific examination; but you could not suddenly accept words such as had been proposed for insertion in the clause, and the best plan was not to postpone clauses which were condemned even by their author, but to strike them out altogether, and give time to the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell), to frame other clauses which would meet the views of the Committee. He should regret to see the representation of the men given up. Such a representation would ensure practical knowledge at the Board; it would establish the principle that employers and employed might meet amicably together, and it would tend as much as anything to bring about kindly relations between them. He hoped, therefore, that the Home Secretary would not be deterred by formal difficulties from attempting to secure on the Board representatives of the working miners.

MR. B. SAMUELSON

said, of the two plans, he should prefer that the inspection should rest with the Home Secretary, and what was now wanted was that there should be some decision as to the way in which the selection should be made. No doubt, in some parts of the country, Boards selected in the way which had been recommended might be very well adopted; but in others, such a plan would leave things just as they were, and it would be just as well if no examiners were appointed at all. Anyone who knew anything of the Reports of Inspectors of Mines from year to year would see how widely the different districts of the country varied in practice. He should vote with the Government on the question.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 156: Majority 49.

Clauses 26 and 27 struck out.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 (Inquiry into competency of manager, and cancellation of certificate).

MR. LIDDELL moved as an Amendment, in line 22, after "or," to insert the word "employer," the effect being to permit a representation to be made by employers as well as Inspectors or otherwise to the Secretary of State, that any manager holding a certificate under the Act is by reason of in competency or gross negligence unfit to discharge his duties, whereupon the Secretary of State is empowered to make an inquiry into the conduct of the manager with a view to the cancelling, if necessary, of the manager's certificate. He had a further Amendment to move—namely, the omission of the words "or otherwise," in the same line, which gave too wide an opening for the making of representations to the Secretary of State.

MR. BRUCE

said, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that an employer had it in his power to discharge the manager if he was unfit, without the necessity of any such inquiry. The Amendment would excite great dissatisfaction.

LORD ELCHO

said, if the words "or otherwise" were struck out, it would exclude representations from the men.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

suggested that the Amendment should run "through an Inspector, or by an employer," which would obviate the latter objection.

MR. GOLDNEY

urged that the clause was introduced for the protection of the men. The insertion of the word "employer" was, therefore, an absurdity, and power should be left to the men to make a representation if they saw fit.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30 (Costs and expenses of inquiry).

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he wished to call attention to the novel principle which seemed to be sanctioned in this clause of giving compensation to a person who had been prosecuted, but the charge against whom had been dismissed. Why should the public pay expenses and give compensation in such a case? It was a new principle in English legislation, and ought not to pass unchallenged by the Committee.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he was of the same opinion. He contended that the expense of these prosecutions and of inspection should be borne not by the public, but by the particular interest they were now dealing with. Moreover, he did not understand on what ground the proposal was made, that compensation should be given to Inspectors who had been prosecuted under the Act and acquitted. The clause would add con- siderably to the Vote for Inspection, and some explanation ought to be offered of it.

MR. BRUCE

said, the question whether collieries should pay for their own inspection or whether the State should pay for it, was one well worthy of attention; but the point was not exactly such as had been described. It only proposed that if a manager was brought up under the Act on a charge that could not be substantiated, he should be allowed a certain sum for his expenses; and it did not seem to him that that was an unreasonable proposition.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the force of the objection taken by his right hon. Friend. It was that when a charge was made against an individual, and he was acquitted, the Bill proposed that compensation should be given to him. Well, but compensation was never given to other persons who were charged with offences, and acquitted. It was a new principle to be introduced into an Act of Parliament, because when any charge was made, there was always a primâ facie presumption that it was not made without grounds; and it was for the interest of society that the examination should take place, but it had never hitherto been held that compensation out of the public funds ought to be granted to the person if the charge were not sustained. The new principle laid down by the Bill was rather a surprising one.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the question was not one of compensation, properly speaking, to a person because a charge had been made against him; but it was only that an allowance should be made him for the expenses to which he had been put. The circumstances would be altogether novel. The Bill created a new tribunal and a new description of offence; and it seemed to him to be only fair that in the case of a manager against whom the charge made could not be sustained, he should be allowed some compensation for the loss of time and the expenses of his attendance.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that if the prosecution was a malicious one, there was a remedy at law against the person who started it, but that was a different thing from the proposal in this clause. The words were that any person prosecuted under the Bill might at- tend "by himself, his counsel, attorney, or agent," which opened a wide field of expense. He must insist that the prosecution would afford a man the means of investigation, as in the case of the ordinary Courts of Law, in which no one dreamt of recompensing a person accused, except in so far as he had a right of action against anyone who had maliciously prosecuted him. In fact, the new principle proposed in the clause was a dangerous one, and, if once introduced, the Committee might depend on it that it would soon be extended.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, in order to show its absurdity, that on the principle of this clause they ought to compensate a man who was charged with negligent driving in the public streets.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, much could be advanced in favour of the abstract proposition that a person unjustly accused of an offence should be compensated for the trouble he had been put to in defending himself; but it was inexpedient to introduce so novel a point in a Mines Regulation Bill. But this clause was being discussed without any real foundation, and he submitted that it was impossible to deal with it satisfactorily until the Committee had settled the nature of the certificate with which the clause dealt.

MR. GOLDSMID

asked in what position the Home Secretary would be if Parliament refused to grant the money to pay the compensation in any case?

MR. BRUCE

said, that seeing the provision under notice was so objectionable to the Committee, he was prepared to omit the words giving compensation, but was not prepared to make any fresh proposition relating to the certificate at present.

MR. PEASE

said, it was idle to suppose that the coal owners would bear the penalty. The whole cost of the Bill would fall on the consumers of coal, and the effect of the measure had been felt already in increased prices, the result of shorter hours of labour.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Clause amended, by striking out the words relating to the compensation and costs of inquiry.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Returns, Notices, and Abandonments.

Clause 33 (Expenses and fees).

MR. HERMON

estimated that the taxation which would be rendered necessary by this Bill would amount to £6,000,000 a-year, and that it would raise the price of coal 4s. per ton on 120,000,000 tons.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Plans of abandoned mines).

MR. PEASE

proposed an Amendment providing that such plans should be on a scale of not less than that on which the plan, if any, of the mine was last kept. The original words of the clause fixed the scale at not less than two chains to one inch.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

proposed, in line 16, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty." The object of the Amendment was to provide that no person except an Inspector under the Act should be entitled without the consent of the owner of the mine to see the plan sent in to the Secretary of State, until after the lapse of 20 years from the date of its abandonment.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he trusted that if the limit of 10 years was to be altered at all, one year would be substituted. The clause would be of no use if 20 years were inserted.

MR. WOODS

thought 10 years was rather too short a time within which to restrict the knowledge of a disused mine to the Inspector alone, and he hoped the Secretary of State would accede to an enlargement of the period.

MR. COLLINS

said, he could not see what right anybody had to know what was going on upon another man's property, either above or below ground, provided the mine was not dangerous to the public.

MR. ASSHETON

said, he could not see why, if the maps were to be made, they should be locked up.

MR. BRUCE

said, there was opposition on the part of owners of mines. Under the Bill, a plan could be seen by the Inspector of the district or with the consent of the owner of the mine, and there was no reason to suppose that permission to inspect plans would be refused by the owners to any person who had good reason for asking to see them. He had experienced no opposition on the part of the mining interest to the clause as it stood; but he was bound to consider the objections of owners to any greater amount of publicity.

MR. BROWN

suggested that the prescribed term should be five years.

MR. ASSHETON

said, he must persist in asking for an explanation of the object of locking the plans up at all.

MR. HERMON

said, an error in the tracings would subject an owner to a penalty or imprisonment for an offence under the Bill, and that would be rather hard for an inadvertent mistake committed in an effort to assist the Secretary of State.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.