§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, he felt it his duty to take a course somewhat extraordinary in consequence of the Answer he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was to move the adjournment of the House. ["Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite would hear him, he would occupy but a very few minutes; if, on the other hand, he received interruption, he would speak much longer.
§ Mr. RITCHIErose to Order, and desired to ask the Speaker whether he had not already ruled, in similar circumstances, that a Member who was dissatisfied with an Answer to a Question put on the Paper could not raise a dis- 1492 cussion upon it by moving the adjournment of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have repeatedly pointed out to the House that such a course is highly inconvenient; but I cannot say that the hon. Member is not within his right in taking that course if he thinks proper. At the same time, I am bound to observe to the hon. Member that any language of a threatening character addressed to Members of this House is out of Order.
§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, he was sorry if he had in the least degree violated the Rules of the House, and he apologized at once. But, independently of the Answer he had received, it was his duty to make a statement. The Home Secretary had admitted, in answer to a Question put to him a few nights ago, that the Mines Act of 1872, as well as the Mines Acts that preceded it, had done an immense amount of good, and that no one knew that better than he (Mr. Macdonald) did. He would venture to say that no one was more sensible than he was of the benefits which the Mines Act of 1872 had produced. At the same time, it was not the good which had been done to which he objected; it was that which had not been done, and that work which the Mines Act, if properly carried out, would have effected. He had culled hastily from the Mines Reports a statement of the lives lost in the Swaith Main, Blantyre, Kearsley, and other recent accidents, the total number being 535; and he ventured to say that every one of those lives was lost in violation of the rules laid down by the Mines Act. The other day The Times, in a leading article, carefully guarded itself against calling one of these explosions an accident. It was a prostitution of language to call these accidents. They should be described as a scandalous waste of human lives. If it were in keeping with the language ordinarily used in the House, he would call this sacrifice of life "murders in the mines." But what he had to object to was this—they could discuss plans night after night affecting armoured vessels, but his was a question which in a short period of time involved the loss of 535 precious lives.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already given Notice that he will bring this matter under the consideration of the House; and, although he has 1493 not fixed any day for the purpose, I am bound to say that in these circumstances his observations are now altogether irregular.
§ MR. MACDONALDbowed to the Speaker's decision. He now left the matter in the hands of the House; and it was for hon. Members to answer to their constituents with regard to whether this sacrifice of life should continue. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSScould assure the House that whenever the question was brought forward he should be quite ready to give a full history of the working of the Mines Act, and to enter into every particular; but the House would feel that this was not an occasion on which he should be called upon do do so. He was bound to say, in justice not to the Inspectors, but to the mine owners, that the hon. Member had a Notice on the Paper nearly the whole of last Session accusing them of malpractices, and that he did not bring the matter before the House at all. He did not say the hon. Member was not perfectly right, if he thought proper, in putting such a Notice on the Paper; but it was to be regretted that he did not take some opportunity of bringing the subject before the House; and, having had the matter on the Paper for so long a time, it was an unusual proceeding to endeavour to bring it forward in this way at the present time. He could assure the House that every effort had been made for a number of years to enforce the Acts; and the hon. Member had more than once publicly thanked him in the House for the course he had taken on the occurrence of accidents. The Inspectors were doing their best to see that the regulations were carried out; but he wished to say, in the most kindly spirit, through the hon. Member, to those employed in mines, that there was considerable difficulty in preventing them running risks through their own carelessness. He did not desire to impute blame in any way; but if mines were to be worked with due regard to life, care and caution must be exercised by all concerned. It did not rest upon owners and Inspectors only; but it rested also upon miners 1494 themselves to see that due care and caution were taken. The Inspectors had considerable powers under the Act, and if miners saw anything going wrong they could call an Inspector to the spot immediately. He could answer for it, that no notice had been received, whether it were anonymous or not, without it being duly attended to. But, as he stated the other day, the duty of an Inspector was of a much wider scope than simply receiving and attending to these complaints. The Act must be worked in such a way as not to take away the responsibility of owners for the safe working of their mines; but it was the duty of the Inspectors to spend their spare time in going from place to place, above ground and under ground; and this duty, which had always been impressed upon them, he believed they performed to the full extent of their opportunity. He could only say that the sooner the hon. Member brought the Motion forward the better he should be pleased.
§ MR. MACDONALDbegged to say that he would withdraw his Motion for adjournment. At the same time, he wished to add this explanation—-that he took the ordinary course last year to get the question discussed and failed in the ballot. That was the sole reason why he did not bring it on.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.