PART II.

HC Deb 16 August 1887 vol 319 cc687-814

General Rules.

Clause 50 (General rules).

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham (Mr. W. Crawford), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, to omit the words "so far as is reasonably practicable." the words proposed to be left out are similar to the words introduced into the Act of 1872, which led to so much contention and unpleasantness. If these words are omitted, the clause will run thus—"The following general rules shall be observed in every mine." We fear that if the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are retained in the clause they may give rise to considerable difficulty. What might appear to be reasonable in one case might be very unreasonable in another.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, lines 25 and 26, leave out "so far as is reasonably practicable."—(Mr. Fenwick.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

These words are contained in the Act of 1872, and, as far as I know, no difficulty has ever arisen in regard to them. I think it is hardly too much to ask for some reasonable protection against the employment of these rules with unnecessary severity.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I quite understand the motives of the hon. Member, but some words of the kind are absolutely necessary, seeing that the rules are quite imperative; and it has been laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench that they may be dispensed with in cases in which physical or engineering difficulties prevent them from being carried out. That is the only effect of the qualification. The effect of striking out the words would be to make the rules imperative without any qualification whatever; and persons disobeying them, no matter what the physical difficulties may be which prevent their being carried out, would be liable to a criminal prosecution for the non-observance of them.

MR. FENWICK

Who is to interpret the words "reasonably practicable"—who is to decide whether a particular matter is reasonably practicable or not? If it is to be left to the manager, the door will be opened to abuses which the workmen will have no means of preventing or limiting. The words are very elastic, and therefore we desire to have them expunged from the Bill.

MR. MATTHEWS

The interpreters of the rules will be the Court who would have to try a man for violating them. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham) will probably remember the case in which a miner was tried for firing the gas in a working place, and in that case the Court took upon itself the interpretation of the rules. With such power in the hands of the Court I think the clause, with these words retained in it, will be perfectly satisfactory.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I suppose everybody is agreed that it is a fundamental principle in good administration to fix the responsibility upon someone. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the decision, of the Court of Queen's Bench; but between the Court of Queen's Bench and the manager stands first of all the Inspector, and secondly the Home Office. There is nothing here to guide a Court of Law in deciding what is or is not reasonably practicable, and the rules are left in a most indefinite manner. If the Inspector could be appealed to as to what is reasonably practicable, or if the Home Office could decide whether a manager has infringed the spirit of the rule, a considerable number of questions and matters of complaint on the part of the workmen would be got rid of. Circumstances are constantly changing in mining operations, so that it is almost impossible for the same case to occur again; and, therefore, a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in reference to the violation of a rule in one case may not apply to a complaint of a similar violation in another. Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask that there should be some definition of what is reasonably practicable, both in the case of the miners and of the owners and managers.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

The Inspector would interpret the act of the manager in precisely the same manner as he would interpret all other cases, and the Inspector would challenge any improper act on the part of the manager.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pardon me? It is altogether illusory to say that the Inspector will insist upon having the rules strictly adhered to by the manager.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

I said that the Inspector would challenge the acts of the manager.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

Then I say again that after what we heard in this House last night upon the question of inspectorship, it is impossible for the Inspector to visit each colliery even once in every 12 months; and if he does not go there how is he going to challenge the conduct of the manager, in regard to the ventilation of the mine for instance? I understand that the Home Secretary does not intend, personally, to relax these rules in any way so as to increase the danger of working the mine. It has already been pointed out that the circumstances of various collieries are very rarely the same; and, therefore, what is reasonable and practicable in one might be very unreasonable and impracticable in another. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is the reason why these words ought to be retained in the clause; but we ask who is to decide the question? The right hon. Gentleman says the Court; but the question will not be brought before the Court until some accident happens. I hope that the Home Secretary will not insist upon the retention of the words.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

May I point out a practical difficulty in working this provision in connection with the 21st clause, which provides that, under certain circumstances, the owner and agent of the mine shall not be liable to a fine in the event of the rules being infringed. I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, that what may be reasonably practicable in one mine may not be reasonably practicable in another. I think the matter is one which ought to be looked at very carefully, and I would suggest that some elasticity should be introduced upon this point, and that it should be left to the Inspector or the Home Secretary to determine how the rules are to be applied. Rules which may be absolutely necessary in the collieries of the North of England or Wales may be in the highest degree prejudicial in the case of the Staffordshire collieries. I would suggest that some such words as these might be introduced into the clause—"except the Home Secretary or the Inspector shall otherwise determine." I do not think that it would be right to leave the determination to the discretion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

The language of Clause 51 is precisely the same as that of the old law, which provides that in certain cases the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against the Act unless he can prove that he has taken all reasonable means to prevent the contravention or non-compliance with the rules. Unless there is some elasticity in regard to these rules I am afraid they might be made so rigid that it would be impossible to carry them out in their present form.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

This is one of the most important, if not the most important, of the Amendments which have been placed upon the Paper. It is quite true that these words are in the existing Act, and they were put into the existing Act in substitution of other words which it was considered would be still more objectionable—namely, the words "under ordinary circumstances;" but they have always been regarded as very loose, and as greatly weakening the value of the rule. So far as I am concerned, I have invariably set my face against them. The miners, generally, are opposed to any such words, because they fear that the rules may be evaded through them. However, I have no desire to continue the discussion, and I hope that steps will be taken at once to test the feeling of the Committee on the matter.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouthshire, W.)

I would ask the Home Secretary whether the views which have been expressed could not be met by a Proviso at the end of the section, stating in what respect a rigid observance of the rules may be expected?

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to the fact that, under Clause 52, special rules are to be made for every mine. With regard to the question before the Committee, there can be no man in this House who would desire to insist upon the observance of rules that were not reasonable and practicable; but, as the words would have to be interpreted by a Court of law, the responsibility of complying with the rules would not be taken away from the owner and manager. When, however, we come to the rules themselves, and see how technical they are, and how difficult it must be under any circumstances to carry them out, I think some such words as "reasonably practicable" are absolutely required. I have invariably objected to any redundancy of expression in an Act of Parliament. But in this case these words only mean that general rules are to be observed as far as they can reasonably be observed. For instance, take the first of the rules which relates to the ventilation of the mine, and provides that— An adequate amount of ventilation shall he constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases to such an extent that the working places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travelling roads to and from those working places, shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein. It may be very difficult to comply literally with this provision, and all the manager can do is to observe it as far as he can reasonably do so. My own opinion is that the words it is proposed to omit are far better left in the clause for the protection of the miner and the mineowner. It has already been interpreted by a Court of Law that the words "reasonably practicable" do not take away from the proper person the responsibility of carrying out the rules.

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

There are occasions on which it is impossible to observe the rules, and if the manager is to be responsible for the working of the mine there must be some words to make the observance of the rules reasonable and practicable. If the words are omitted a hard-and-fast rule will be made, by which it will be laid down that a man should do what he really cannot do.

MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

The reason why we want these words to be struck out is that the managers and the miners should be placed on an equal footing in the matter of responsibility. No such words as these have anywhere been applied to the conduct of the miners. The Bill provides that if a workman commits any offence or refuses to carry out the orders of the manager he is to be punished, and there are no words, such as "reasonable or practicable," applied to his case. What we want is that the same provision should be applied to the owner, agent, and manager as that which is applied to the miner.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

These rules apply to the employers as well as to the workmen, and therefore affect both sides. It will be impossible for the manager to ask the workmen to do anything unreasonable or impracticable.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

May I be allowed to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? This matter was discussed at great length last year, and what I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this. The general rules are now the subject of discussion; but in the case of special rules under Clause 52 power is vested in the hands of the Inspector, and ultimately of the Secretary of State, to adopt special rules for each particular mine running with the general rules in this clause. I would suggest that the words "as far as is reasonably practicable" should be left out in Clause 50, but that they should be inserted either in Clause 51 or 52—perhaps they would be better in Section 52—giving the Secretary of State distinct power to waive the operation of the general rules in the case of particular mines where special rules are applied, and where it is not necessary or practicable to enforce the general rules. I would rather not lay down at this moment the words which suggest themselves to me, or the exact place where they should be inserted; but I think it would be better that the rules should be absolute, but that a dispensing power given to the Secretary of State in connection with the special rules, enabling him to dispense with any of the general rules in the case of a particular mine. Without some such power I think the operation of the Act would be rendered extremely difficult. It would be, of course, the distinct duty of the Secretary of State to see that when any of the general rules were qualified the qualification was a safe one. If the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the principle of my suggestion I think he will be able to get over the difficulty.

MR. TOMLINSON

The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would only meet one of the difficulties. There may be some one rule inapplicable to the circumstances of a particular colliery; but it might also be that a rule had become temporarily impracticable. Something, for instance, might occur to cause a temporary interruption to the ventilation of the mine, and so cause a violation of Rule 1. A case of that kind would not be met by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. CHILDERS

Yes; I think it would. The Home Secretary would have power to meet a temporary case of accident of that kind. Indeed, he would be able to deal with the rules either temporarily or permanently. The more power we can throw into the hands of the Secretary of State the better.

MR. TOMLINSON

In the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the action of the Secretary of State would be ex post facto and too late.

MR. FENWICK

What I object to is that either the manager or the workman should have the power of saying that either this or that thing is reasonable and practicable, or unreasonable and impracticable. When danger occurs or difficulties arise in any mine we have already provided a solution of the difficulty by an appeal to a Court of Arbitration. Let the arbitrator decide whether a particular thing is reasonably practicable or not. I maintain, therefore, that these words are altogether unnecessary, as you have already provided a Court of Arbitration for the solution of the difficulty.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I support the Amendment because, in the event of a prosecution being instituted, an able advocate may easily convince a magistrate, especially if he desires to be so convinced, that a matter is not reasonably practicable in a particular case, and consequently the rules would be rendered utterly valueless.

MR. MATTHEWS

I must remind the Committee that these words have already been the law since the Act of 1872.

MR. FENWICK

Much too long.

MR. MATTHEWS

Will hon. Members consider what may happen if the rules are not observed? The non-observance of any one of the rules subjects a workman or manager to a penalty. Do hon. Members wish that a man should be subjected to penalties where the thing has not been reasonably practicable, and where it has been perfectly impossible to comply with the rules? Suppose, for instance, that a steam gauge in a boiler has been broken off, or some accident of that kind has happened, and the man goes on using the boiler, although immediately the accident occurred he sent to the engineer to report it, and the engineer sent to the manufacturer to supply a new gauge. The man has done his best under the circumstances—he has reported the accident, and steps have been taken to repair the damage; but, nevertheless, he goes on working, and there is an interval. Is he, under such circumstances, to be subjected to a penalty? It is such a case as that which these words are intended to meet—namely, to prevent a man being subjected to a penalty in consequence of something having occurred which he could not help. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), I should shrink very much from the responsibility he endeavours to impose upon the Home Secretary. I confess that something of the same kind did pass through my mind originally; but I think it is better to fix responsibility, as far as it can be safely fixed, upon those who are engaged in the working of the mine, and in doubtful cases to dispense with, the strict observance of the rules, because it is quite evident that no general rules can be framed which would precisely fit all cases. The more I have thought upon the matter the more I have been induced to believe that there are too many general rules, and I think it would be better to cut them down, and to leave matters to the Court of Arbitration. Certainly the power of dispensing with general rules which Parliament has thought fit to enact is a power which I think any person, filling the Office of Home Secretary, would he very loth to take upon himself. No Home Secretary would be likely to possess a sufficient amount of technical knowledge to enable him to decide.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The right hon. Gentleman says that this has been the law since 1872. That is no answer to the objection which has been raised, because we are now amending the law of 1872; and the fact that these words exist in the present law should not prevent us from expunging them if they are objectionable. I am not prepared to contend that my knowledge of the law can compare with that of the right hon. Gentleman; but I would submit to him that in such a case as the Home Secretary has suggested no prosecution would be successful, because there would be a good and valid legal defence.

MR. MATTHEWS

That would not be so.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Of course, I have not the same legal experience as the right hon. Gentleman; but my opinion has frequently turned out to be correct even when pitted against that of very high legal authorities. I think that the words "reasonably practicable" would enable a clever advocate, before a favourable Bench, to evade the Act entirely.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) urges that the general rules should be subjected to special rules. I think the right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the provisions of the Bill in that respect. The special rules are first of all originated by the owner of the colliery himself. The Home Secretary might object; but, if so, he is to be guided by general rules laid down for his direction. I admit that it would be a serious thing if he were to disregard the general rules; but he can challenge the special rules submitted by the owner. The owner is not at all precluded from objecting to the action of the Home Secretary. He has a right to object, and in that case he might go to a Court of Arbitration. The Arbitrator, like the Home Secretary, might consider himself bound by the general rules. These words, and the discussion which has arisen upon them, are a proof, I think, if any were required, of the bad policy of this system of general rules altogether. On the second reading of the Bill I objected to the general rules, because I am convinced they are altogether a mistake, and that they ought not to be enacted. Everything ought to be provided in accordance with the circumstances of the particular undertaking. These general rules throw on the Home Secretary the responsibility of assenting to regulations, although they may be dangerous and difficult in regard to a particular case and a particular mine. The House has, however, decided to adopt the principle of general rules; and, under those circumstances, it seems to me only right and proper that general rules, having been decided upon, they should be distinctly binding upon all parties—that everybody should know exactly how he stands, and what amount of protection he is afforded by the Act of Parliament. The Home Secretary says that these words are in the Act of 1872; but there are many things in the Act of 1872 which since that Act passed have been found to be practically unworkable, and that is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced. The manager who claims the protection of these elastic words has a distinct advantage conferred upon him in the event of any infringement of the rules on his part, whereas the working miner has no such advantage. Whoever heard of such words as these being used to protect the workman from the responsibility which attaches to him for a failure to observe the regulations? In the case of defective machinery or engines, the blame falls, not on the workman, but on the manager or the under manager, who would be safe from punishment by these elastic words. But where some rule has been infringed by the miner, altogether apart from the machinery of the mine, the strict letter of the law will be applied to him, and these elastic words will be of no avail. Therefore, in general operation these general rules will be unfair, and I support the proposal to omit them because I do not think they can be equitably made use of in respect to both parties. If I thought the clause would fairly operate I should vote for the retention of these words, because I believe that, as a matter of policy, it would be right and proper for some central authority to decide whether or not it is reasonably practicable to ob- serve a particular rule; but, at the same time, I am of opinion that that authority ought not to be the manager, and that the final Court of Appeal ought not to be the Court of Queen's Bench, but the Inspector.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

I agree with what has fallen from the Home Secretary to this extent—that some protection must be afforded in cases where it is a matter of physical impossibility to comply with the rules. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the later part of Clause 51, which seems to have escaped general observation— Unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing the said rules as regulations for the working of the mine, to prevent such contravention or non-compliance. I would ask the Home Secretary whether in respect of the illustration he gave the Committee a moment ago these words would not be a sufficient protection to the mineowner; and, further, whether he does not think that they would afford sufficient protection to him in respect of matters where a physical impossibility arises on the part of the owner, agent, or manager, to carry out the rule. It, therefore, appears to me that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are unnecessary in this clause, and that ample protection is afforded to the mineowner by the words which are contained in the latter part of Clause 51.

MR. MATTHEWS

The words which appear in the latter part of Clause 51 apply only to a case in which the owner, agent, or manager, is sought to be rendered liable for an offence against the rules committed without their knowledge. Hon. Members will observe that if the rules are broken or not complied with, then any person whatsoever, whether he is the owner, agent, or manager, is guilty of an offence, and is rendered liable to fine and imprisonment. This clause provides, however, that if the offence has been committed by somebody else, and that the manager has known nothing of it, and has never heard of it, he is not to be punished. It is to guard against a vicarious responsibility of that kind that these words are introduced— Unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing the said rules as regulations for the working of the mine, to prevent such contravention or non-compliance. The words which are proposed to be omitted apply to a workman just as much as to the manager or owner. The workman may be able, if he has failed to comply with one of the rules, to say that something occurred in the mine which prevented him from complying, and these words would be just as useful for his protection as for that of the manager.

MR. WIGGIN (Staffordshire, Handsworth)

Not being a lawyer, I am unable to say what the complete effect of omitting these words would be. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, supposing these words are left out, and an accident occurs in a mine, the owner and manager would be held to be legally liable, notwithstanding the fact the accident was due to circumstances over which they could have no control.

MR. MATTHEWS

If the Amendment were to be adopted I am of opinion that not only the owner and the manager, but the workman, in case of an accident, would be liable under the general provision contained in the 1st part of Section 51, which says— Every person who contravenes or does not comply with any of the general rules in this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and in the event of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the said general rules in the case of any mine to which this Act applies, by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act. In such a case if the general rules had not been complied with the owner or manager would be guilty of an offence, although it was impossible to comply with them. Therefore, some such words as those now proposed to be left out are absolutely necessary in order to prevent such gross injustice as that provision, if left unguarded, would give rise to. These words are contained in the Act of 1872, and have been interpreted by the Courts in a way which has never led to any harm.

MR. J. C. BOLTON (Stirling)

I wish to know whether, under the general rules, in the case referred to by the Home Secretary, of the breaking of a steam gauge, the men working the boiler would not be liable as well as the master?

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes; I should say so, inasmuch as the men would be contravening the general rules by working the boiler without the precautions required to be taken by the general rules. It would be no answer to say—"I could not help it." The answer to that would be—"You should not have continued to work the boiler."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 96: Majority 45.—(Div. List. No. 382.)

Rule 1—Ventilation of mines.

MR. TOMLINSON

I beg to move, in line 28, after "mine," to insert the words "while any persons are employed therein." The object of the Amendment is to provide that the ventilation of a mine shall only be compulsory while any person is employed therein, and that where, for instance, it is not worked during the night, it shall not be rendered necessary to keep up the same amount of ventilation that would be required while the pit is being worked.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 28, after "mine," insert "while any persons are employed therein."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

I confess that I do not understand the object of the hon. and learned Member in proposing the Amendment. I presume it is to be read in conjunction with some subsequent Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

No; it is a substantive Amendment.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

Then I hope the Government will not accept it. It certainly would be most inapplicable to some of the mines, and might lead to most mischievous consequences. Indeed, there would be the danger of bringing about spontaneous combustion in certain mines if the ventilation were slackened for a time. That, I am afraid, would be especially the case in some of the Staffordshire mines.

MR. HINGLEY (Worcestershire, N.)

In Staffordshire the seams are of two different kinds—one of them being very much broken and giving out a larger quantity of gas than the other, and it is a matter of experience that spon- taneous combustion is only prevented by keeping up a proper amount of ventilation even when the miners are not at work. During the working hours, of course, the men themselves are able to keep the ventilation in order, and there is very little danger; but during the remainder of the night when they were absent there would be no means of keeping up the ventilation unless it were made compulsory upon the owner to maintain it.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

The hon. Member (Mr. Hingley) has spoken as an owner of South Staffordshire collieries. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on behalf of the South Staffordshire miners, who consider they have good reason for believing that the slackening of the ventilation in the mine has been a frequent cause of accident. A very serious accident occurred not very long ago. The slacking of the ventilation having led to the accumulation of a considerable quantity of choke-damp, three men and an overlooker went down the mine to attend to the ventilation, got into the choke-damp, and were brought up suffocated. Such painful experience on the part of the miners of South Staffordshire is quite sufficient to show that the slackening of the ventilation at any time is a dangerous practice, and ought not to be permitted. It is for the interest of the miners as well as of the colliery owner that the ventilation should be adequately maintained, and I hope that the Committee will refuse to listen to this proposal.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I trust that the hon. Member who has just sat down will allow the Chairman of the South Staffordshire Colliery Trade (Mr. Hingley) and others who have been in Staffordshire all our lives to know as much about these matters as he does. I have taken the trouble to study this subject, and speaking not in the interest of the mineowner, but of the men themselves, I am prepared to say that unless the pits are closed over for the night it would become impossible to work them, and the consequence would be clearly as disastrous to the men as to the owners. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend and myself have the interests of the men at heart quite as much as the hon. Member, and I am prepared to maintain that this clause cannot be rendered operative unless these words are inserted in it.

MR. HINGLEY

May I explain that this matter was discussed quite recently at the conference between the masters and workmen in Staffordshire, and it was pointed out that in many of the mines there are broken seams which render it necessary to cut off the air.

MR. WIGGIN

As a representative of a large mining distinct in South Staffordshire, I desire, on behalf of the miners, to say a word or two in reference to this clause. I am bound to say that the information I have received from them does not accord with the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). I have been informed by the men—and I think it is a rational view to take—that they desire that the ventilation should be kept up during the night as well as in the daytime, so that when they go down the pit in the morning the air may be found wholesome and free from fire damp and choke-damp. The veriest tyro must know that pure air is more likely to be found in a pit where the ventilation has been kept up during the night than if it had been stopped for several hours. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

This is one of the Amendments in dealing with which I confess I have had considerable difficulty. I am altogether unwilling to put anything into a clause which is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of any class, either owners or men. On the other hand, in inserting this rule, I have not altered the clause in the Act of 1872 by a letter. The mines in South Staffordshire have gone on and flourished under this provision; and I can only ask myself why they should not go on and flourish under a similar provision in this measure. I know that the Inspectors are decidedly against the principle of stopping the ventilation. One of them tells me that in Leicestershire the mines that are liable to spontaneous combustion are among the best ventilated mines that can be found; and the Reports of the Inspectors and Examiners show that the mines of South Staffordshire must be treated in the same way. I should imagine that in any well-managed mine it would be easy to deal with all circumstances likely to occasion danger; but what is uppermost in my mind is the fact that we are not altering the existing law, and the Bill does not seek to alter it in any respect.

MR. HINGLEY

If we were left alone in the future, as we have been in the past, we should not care.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

What the Home Secretary has said is perfectly true—namely, that the wording of the clause is precisely the same as that of the Act of 1872. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) contained the words— An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced by day and by night throughout the year. Those words have been omitted, and they have evidently been omitted for some purpose, because in other respects the Bill is almost identically the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. In regard to the words "reasonably practicable," the Home Secretary told us that he had carefully considered the representations which had been made to him on the subject. Therefore, we may presume that when he consented to omit the words "constantly produced by day or night throughout the year," he also carefully considered the representations that were made to him. As those words were contained in the Bill of last year, I would ask why they have not been introduced into the present Bill? The Committee will observe that there is a very elastic adjective at the beginning of the rule—namely, the word "adequate." Now, what may be adequate when there are men working in a mine may be altogether unnecessary at night, and there may be certain conditions by which, with a strong movement of air, an accumulation of gas may be fired, with very serious consequences, and in such cases the diminution of the rush of air may not only be reasonable, but absolutely necessary. Therefore, I can quite understand the desirability of slackening the ventilation in certain cases; and the hon. and learned Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) tells us that if these words are not introduced there are certain mines in South Staffordshire which cannot be worked at all. That, however, will be provided for, I presume, by the words we discussed some time ago—"so far as is reasonably practicable." I suppose it would be a sufficient defence for the slacking of the ventilation if it could be shown that it was absolutely necessary. I know very well what the feeling is of individuals with whom I have been in correspondence on the subject. They believe that the slackening of the ventilation at night is frequently the cause of an accumulation of fire-damp and choke-damp, which renders the working of the mine the next day very much more dangerous than it need be; and I am inclined to think that men who have to pass their lives in the daily duty of coal getting are much more trustworthy guides in this matter than anyone else can be.

MR. TOMLINSON

After the discussion which has taken place I shall not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I have an Amendment to move, in line 28, after the word "gases," to insert the words "and the fumes of explosives." I have had complaints from the miners and workmen in the South Staffordshire mines that they suffer from the fumes arising from the powder exploded in the mines. As the rule is drafted, it simply provides that— An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases. The miners of South Staffordshire have requested me to add these words, so that in future their health may not suffer from the fumes of explosives, as it has done in the past.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 28, after the word "gases," insert "and the fumes of explosives."—(Sir John Swinburne.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WIGGIN

I think the words "noxious gases" cover also the words "fumes from explosives." The fumes from explosives are certainly noxious gases, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to insert the Amendment.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

It is generally considered that noxious gases are gases which are generated from the coal, and not from explosives. The men who work in the mine complain very bitterly indeed of the foul air produced by these explosives. That is the view which I wish the Committee to take of the matter. Only yesterday I received a letter upon the subject, stating that at the present time the health of the miners suffers very severely from this cause—not from the noxious gases generated from the coal, but from the fumes of the explosives fired off in the mine.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I have now to move at the end of the rule, in line 32, to add these words— And all waste places in the mine shall be either built in, drained, or so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate. The clause, as far as it has passed, provides for the proper ventilation of the working places; but there are also waste places in a mine where gas is liable to accumulate, which form the most fruitful source of accident. I am afraid it is a matter of considerable difficulty to secure the removal of the gas from these waste places. But we must bear in mind that the Amendment is governed by the words which were recently discussed by the Committee—namely, "reasonably practicable." I think it is desirable that the general rules should contain some special provision of this kind, so that this great source of danger may be properly dealt with.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, after line 28, insert "and all waste places in the mine shall either be built in, drained, or so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I hope that my hon. Friend, whatever else he does with the Amendment, will take out of it the words "built in." Nothing could be more dangerous in a mine than to build in what may turn out to be a tank of explosive gas. which may be let out by some accident. I would point out to the hon. Member that this clause requires an adequate amount of ventilation to be provided, and it must be of such a character as to draw away the noxious gases which may accumulate in a mine, and render it liable to explosion.

MR. BARNES

In the Midland Counties the goaves are solid goaves; and where you have a solid goaf there is no danger.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

If the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) means walling up, I believe that no practical man would agree with him; but if he means what is termed stowing, I shall be prepared to vote for his Amendment. I would, however, suggest to him that he should allow the Amendment to be amended so as to substitute the word "stow" for "built in."

MR. BARNES

I do not see how that can be done.

MR. MATTHEWS

This is a subject which I think would be better met by a special rule. It will depend very much upon the manner in which the mine is worked as to whether it is possible to do this or not. I take it that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Lanark means by the words "built in" is packing or stowing. Where it is quite possible in a large mine to pack the goaf and to keep the waste places packed up or stowed, in some of the mines in Staffordshire, which are worked on the pillar and stall principle, it would be impossible to pack. The waste places in that case must be kept open without being packed or filled in; and it is only when you are working the pillars themselves that it becomes possible to pack. The matter, however, is surrounded with difficulty, and to lay down any general rule is impracticable. I have, therefore, after turning over the subject in my mind, come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it is to leave it to the special rules. The decisions of the Courts have, I think, rendered any danger which might arise from the neglect of waste places less serious than it was before those decisions were given. In such cases it has been decided that not only the ventilation of the working places, but that the levels, and the travelling roads, and the waste places must be adequately ventilated so as to free them from noxious gases. As the law now stands I think there is as much in the Statutes on the subject as any general rule can meet. I would therefore suggest that the safer mode of dealing with this very difficult subject would be to leave it until we reach the special rules.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I quite appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman; but, after all, this is merely a question of expense. If a rule were once made it would have to be applied, and the men would have the consciousness that they are not working in constant peril of an inroad of gas. At the same time I am quite aware that in Scotland especially it has been extremely difficult to drain off the accumulations of gas.

MR. PICKARD

I trust that my hon. Friend will allow his Amendment to be amended by leaving out the words "either built in, drained or." It will then read—"And all waste places in the mine shall be so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate." I quite agree that it is necessary to ventilate waste places, and so to ventilate them that an accumulation of gas shall not take place.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I am well aware of the difficulties of the question, and I think they have been fairly stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I also attach the greatest weight to the opinion of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, who have practical experience, which I cannot claim. I am, therefore, quite prepared to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. W. Abraham) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard), if that will render the Amendment acceptable to them.

MR. PICKARD

Then I beg to move that the Amendment be amended in the way I have suggested. The only thing we want is to prevent, as far as possible, an accumulation of gas.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "either be built in, drained or," and inserting the word "be,"—(Mr. Pickard,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, That the words, 'And all waste places in the mine shall he so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate' be there inserted.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I believe that this will be found to be quite impracticable, and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I feel that it would inflict great injury upon the owners.

MR. FENWICK

The Amendment is proposed in the interest and safety of the miners, and if it is found that in carrying it out it increases the cost of getting the coal I am satisfied that the general public will be willing to pay an increased price for their coal if they are thereby assured that the lives of the miners are to some extent rendered more safe by the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill. I think the question of increased cost ought not to stand between this House and effective legislation for procuring the increased safety of life and limb to the miners. I shall therefore support the Amendment as it has been amended.

MR. MATTHEWS

I quite agree with the hon. Member that we ought not to study the question of cost in comparison with that of safety, but I would invite the attention of practical miners to this question. Can you effectually ventilate the waste places in which the roof has come down, or where you are following the pillar and stall system of working? When once the roof has come down you cannot possibly reach the gas by ventilation; but it you do not attempt to introduce air into them you will soon have an accumulation of fire-damp which it is difficult to expel, because the introduction of fresh air renders it dangerous. I would therefore ask the Committee to pause before making a general rule which would not only be impracticable, but positively dangerous in some cases.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I would respectfully submit that we are dealing with a most important question. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that probably the best way of dealing with the subject will be by framing a special rule; but I think is is essentially necessary to say in the general rules that this must be done. Unless something of the kind is inserted in the general rules an employer may permit these large reservoirs of gas to be formed. So far as the contention goes that it is impossible to do this, I would ask what becomes of the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable?" Will not the matter be met by that qualification that "as far as is reasonably practicable" it should be done? I quite admit that there may be a certain amount of danger, but no man would enter these holes without there was a sufficient supply of air to clean them out, and when the waste places have been stopped up, if there is the least fall of roof, the gas inside will be brought out into the fresh, air. That is a thing which we ought not to permit at all, and there should be a specific provision that no reservoir of gas should be allowed to exist in any mine, but that all the waste places should be properly ventilated. I myself believe that it is necessary that some such provision as that which is proposed in this Amendment should be inserted in the general rules, but that the way of carrying it out should be left to the special rules to be made for each district. The special rules in that case would be adapted to the circumstances of the district.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I am of opinion that it would be perfectly impracticable to carry out the Amendment if it is passed. Anyone who knows what a large mine is knows that it is impossible to ensure a perfect ventilation of the goaf. Let me call the attention of the Committee to what they are going to enact—namely, that— An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine, to dilute and render harmless noxious gases to such an extent that the working places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travelling roads to and from those working places, shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein. And now it is further proposed to provide that all waste places in the mine shall be so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate. As I read the clause, we have already provided that the owner shall be bound to produce an adequate amount of ventilation in the mine, and I am quite sure it will only add to his difficulties in carrying out that rule if you are to add this Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

One of my earliest experiences down a mine was in being taken down for a considerable depth underground. Having reached the bottom, I walked for several hundred yards up an incline to one of the working places, and the miner raised his lamp above his head, when I saw a blue corona formed around it, which I understood to indicate that there was a dangerous accumulation of gas. He told me that that gas came from the goaf, and I must admit that in that particular working place I failed to see how it would be possible to ventilate it adequately. There is, however, something more important than ventilation, and that is that if these places cannot be ventilated, and the presence of this dangerous and inflammable gas cannot be prevented, then the men ought not to be exposed to danger, and the mine itself ought not to be worked. We have inserted elastic words at the beginning of the clause to provide that the general rules shall be observed "so far as is reasonably practicable." Therefore, I do not see why those who represent the coalmining interest should hesitate to submit to them.

MR. BARNES

May I point out that in the Midland Counties the goaves are solid, and there cannot be danger.

MR. PICKARD

No suggestion has been made that a solid goaf should be ventilated, but only the waste places. It is a mistake to suppose that the ordinary goaves cannot be ventilated. As a matter of fact, when they are packed, the ventilation is carried along the goaf by poking holes in the head of the pack-wall in the gateway, so that any gas which may percolate through the goaf towards the working face is carried away. That is the system which is followed in Yorkshire, and I think it is possible that what is done there can be done anywhere else.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 143: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 383). [6.35 P.M.]

Rule agreed to.

Rule 2.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

This Rule provides— Where a fire is used for ventilation, the return air, unless it is free from inflammable gas, shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway. I move to omit the words "unless it is free from inflammable gas." This is an Amendment of a very important character, and one which I hope will meet the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Hon. Members will observe that the Rule provides that the return air shall be carried away by a dumb drift "unless it is free from inflammable gas." The reason why I desire to excise the words "unless it is free from inflammable gas" is that I am convinced it is absolutely impossible to secure that the return air passing from the mine is absolutely free from inflammable gas. Therefore, these words are dangerous words, upon which an interpretation might be placed which might be most prejudicial to the safety of those who are working the mine. I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that the view of the Inspectors of Mines is that there shall not be any furnace in a pit. At the same time, we know that a large majority of pits are provided with furnaces over which the return air passes. I do not propose, because I know it would be hopeless to do so, to substitute anything for these furnaces; but, I think the Rule ought to be modified and made to apply only to mines where furnaces are now used. I know it will be said that the return air passing over the furnace secures a greater amount of ventilation. No doubt, that is true in one sense, because it causes brisker ventilation; but what I want to point out is the enormous amount of danger which arises from the return air passing over the furnace. The return air sweeps, not only the working places, but the edges of the goaf. The solid coal is continually discharging gas, and gas is constantly oozing out in larger or smaller quantities, so that by the time the return air passes over the furnace it is charged with a certain amount of gas. We have been told by a great chemist that 2½ per cent of gas mixed with coal dust is sufficient to occasion an explosion, and that an amount of gas not very much larger, without coal, will explode. I do not think that my proposition is at all unreasonable—namely, that— Where a fire is used for ventilation, the return air shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway. That is to say, a chimney altogether separate from the furnace. In many of the explosions which have taken place—and hon. Members are aware how serious some of them have been in the destruction not only of property, but of life—it has been suggested that the explosion has arisen at the furnace. It may have been in certain cases that it has been so, and I think that it is a matter of vital importance to guard against such, a danger. I quite admit—although I doubt the fact—that the return air passing over the furnace may secure a greater amount of ventilation by producing a brisker supply of fresh air. At the same time, owing to a variety of causes, the chances of an explosion are rendered more frequent by allowing the return air to pass over a furnace instead of carrying it away by means of a dumb drift.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 4, leave out "unless it is free from inflammable gas."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Rule."

MR. TOMLINSON

I quite agree with a considerable part of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I believe that in most of the mines in Lancashire a dumb drift is used in connection with the furnace. But there are many mines where the quantity and proportion of gas are not considerable, and there is no possibility of an accident arising. Of course, all these things are carefully watched by the engineers and the Inspectors, and the Rule, as it exists in the Bill, practically does the same thing as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to effect by his Amendment. How can anyone pretend to say that the air in a colliery is perfectly free from inflammable gas? I think it very likely that if the air in this chamber had teen analyzed last year it would have been found that there was a certain portion of inflammable sewer gas in it, and yet the air is passed through a furnace near the roof. All we want to provide against is real danger, and this danger seems to me to be provided for by the Rule as it is proposed. Where the gas is so small and where it is rendered harmless by the ventilation, a furnace may be used freely; but where it exists in any quantity and is likely to do harm, I think the dumb drift ought to be obligatory.

MR. FENWICK

If I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) rightly he objects to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend; but I confess that, as far as the argument itself went, it was in favour of the Amendment, because the hon. Member said, if I apprehend him rightly, that it is exceedingly difficult to tell when the return air is free from inflammable gas. It was the difficulty that existed in determining when the return air is free from inflammable gas which has induced my hon. and learned Friend to move the Amend- ment to omit the words "unless the mine is free from inflammable gas." He proposes to provide, in order to avoid all difficulty and risk, that the return air shall not pass over a furnace, but be carried away by a dumb drift.

MR. YEO (Glamorgan, Gower)

If the Amendment were intended to be prospective in its operation I would have small objection to it; but, considering the large number of collieries which are worked at the present time in connection with naked lights, it would be monstrously oppressive, I think, to compel the owners to incur a large expenditure in altering their arrangements simply for the purpose of providing dumb drifts in their collieries. I think the Amendment should be made prospective in its character, and in that case I would support it, because I believe that furnaces are objectionable, and that in laying down collieries in future it would be desirable to use dumb drifts. But to impose an obligation upon the owners of existing collieries, in order to avoid a danger which does not exist in a mine where naked lights are used, I think would be most unwise.

MR. BURT

I intend to support this Amendment, which carries out one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Commissioners were strongly of opinion that dumb drifts should be constructed; and that principle has also the support of the Inspectors of Mines.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

I cannot support the Amendment, because I believe there are many cases in which it would operate unfairly. I believe there are at least 1,000 mines in which there is no danger at all, and it would be ridiculous to enforce this rule in them.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I think the Home Secretary will find, on referring to the Bill of last Session, that what is provided for by this Amendment was then proposed. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, as it will greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill.

MR. MATTHEWS

I think this Amendment ought to be made prospective only, otherwise it might impose a heavy burden upon a depressed industry, which it is desirable to avoid doing unless it is absolutely necessary. I am not aware that any accident has ever arisen in consequence of the return air not being perfectly pure. I think, on the Report, the clause might be so framed as to make the Amendment prospective only in its operation.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I wish to point out that if the return air is free from inflammable gas the plan suggested is a very bad way of dealing with the matter. If it is necessary to make this alteration I think it ought to be done in a more economical manner.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I perfectly recognize the hardship which my hon. Friend has pointed out—namely, that of making it, in all cases, incumbent on the owner to put a dumb drift; but, I think, prospectively there ought always to be a dumb drift. I think there might be some limiting words such as proposed by the Home Secretary, which would more happily carry out the object in view, such as that—"unless the Inspector certified that a dumb drift is not necessary."

MR. MATTHEWS

I suggested prospectively that the return air, in all cases, should be carried away by a dumb drift.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I want also a further addition to the clause—namely, that in collieries where there is, in the opinion of the Inspector, danger from air passing over the furnace, there a dumb drift shall also be required. I do not wish to put any burdens upon coalowners for frivolous reasons; but where there is any real appreciable danger to human life, I think, whatever the cause may be, this precaution should be taken. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the limiting words which I suggest.

MR. MATTHEWS

That would be done under Clause 43.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is effectively provided for under Clause 43; but I have grave doubts about that, owing to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal that no arbitrator has power to compel any particular thing to be done, and that all he has to do is to see that there shall be absolute safety. I shall be prepared to accept words to limit my Amendment to prospective mines, and will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, with a view of making it prospective.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 3 agreed to.

Rule 4—Stations and inspection of conditions as to ventilation, &c.

On the Motion of Mr. FENWICK, Amendment made, in page 27, line 14, after "persons," by inserting "not being contractors."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Amendment which I to rise to move is to add, after the word "appointed," in line 14, the words "in writing." I move this Amendment in order to secure the principle to which I have referred earlier in the evening—namely, that you should have clearly traceable responsibility at every stage of the administration of this industry. If the owner appoints a person for an important duty such as is imposed by this clause, it is only reasonable that he should appoint such persons by writing under his hand. This would fix the responsibility upon the person appointed, and also fix the responsibility of the owner of the mine.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 14, after "appointed," insert "in writing."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I wish to point out that the practical working of this Amendment would be very difficult. In many collieries there are 15, 20, or 25 men, who are appointed daily to inspect the far off workings of the mine. These men are generally taken from the ranks. The hon. Member proposes that before these men go their rounds they shall all be appointed in writing. I need hardly point out that this would entail much more work than is necessary. The men are well known, and perfectly conversant with the mines, and their responsibility easily traced without putting the owner to the trouble of making the appointment in writing.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BURT

The next Amendment which stands in my name is connected with that which follows it, and the object of it is to make it imperative that a long time shall not elapse between the men going into the pit and the examination of the working place by the person deputed and the firemen. The interval I propose is really a very wide one; it ought to be enough for the purpose, and it is more than is usual in many instances; but we have had cases in which intervals of four, five, and even sis hours have elapsed, and that is utterly out of all reason, having regard to the danger which may exist. I rely upon the reasonableness of this Amendment, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 15, to leave out "within such time before the commencement of each shift, as shall be fixed by special rules made under this Act."—(Mr. Burt.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I can assure the bon. Member for Morpeth that it is my earnest desire to insist on inspection immediately before the change is made. When I came to consider the matter I was told that the conditions vary so much in different mines that no time should be fixed. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should put in the words "not exceeding two hours," so that he leaves it possible to extend to two hours the period which in some mines is only half-an-hour. I think it would be better to leave something to the discretion of the manager in this matter. I have no objection to put in such words as "within such time immediately before the commencement of the shift," or "shortest possible time." The intention was to fix the time according to the size of the mine.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 15, after "shall," insert "immediately."—(Mr. Matthews.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'immediately' be there inserted."

MR. BROAD HURST

I wish to point out to the Committee that this very subject received careful and long consideration at the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) last year, and after that most careful consideration it was decided that the words which the right hon. Gentleman has now adopted would meet everything that was desired under the circumstances.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I do not wish to prolong the discussion of this question, especially after the small concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. But I again endeavour to impress on the mind of the Home Secretary the importance of this question, and to point out that unless the limit is made which my hon. Friend has suggested, it cannot be said that the examination is made immediately.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. WILLIAMS, Amendment made, in page 27, line 20, after "as" and before "ventilation" insert "the presence of gas."

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

I rise to propose that we should insert in line 21 that the examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether gas is present in the mine shall, if the Inspector requires it, be made by means of indicators to be approved by him. Perhaps the Committee will wish to hear from me some explanation of the term "indicator" in this connection. I will endeavour to explain what is the object of my Amendment. In the course of the inquiry by the Royal Commission which was appointed to consider whether the resources of science would protect colliers against accident in mines—on which Commission I had the honour and privilege of being secretary—it was made part of the inquiry to deal with the question of coal dust, which is one of great importance with reference to the dangers in coal mines. They discovered, and made quite sure, that the presence of a very small volume of inflammable gas in a mine might be a source of serious danger where the mine was dry and dusty. A volume probably as low as 1½ or 2 per cent, it was conclusively proved, might be the cause of a serious explosion. The Commissioners examined a multitude of inventions presented to them for the purpose of indicating the presence of gas, and they ascertained that one apparatus determined with the greatest accuracy and simplicity of action the presence of a very small proportion of gas—namely, ¼ per cent. I wish it to be brought before the Committee that there is a method of indicating the presence of gas in these small proportions, and having regard to the danger consequent upon their presence in the roadways in dry and dusty mines, I think it right that it should be left to the Inspector to decide in particular collieries that some indicator should be used. Having pointed out the simple means by which the presence of very small but dangerous quantities of gas may be indicated, I will leave the Amendment which I beg to move in the hands of the Government.

Amendment proposed, In page 27,line 21, after "concerned," insert "the examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether gas is present in the mine shall, if the Inspector requires it, he made by means of indicators to be approved of by him."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

No doubt, the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has thrown a great deal of valuable light on the subject of the presence of gas in mines. I am bound to say, however, that as far as my information goes the Inspectors do not know of any indicator that is trustworthy in the hands of all who may use it. Therefore I am unable to say that I can look with favour on the language of this Amendment. It is the business of the managers of the mines to do what is necessary in this matter; and although I agree that they should be made responsible for not taking proper precautions, I do not think it desirable that the particular method of doing so should he laid down here.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I feel the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and am disposed to be satisfied with having brought this subject forward. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the instrument I have referred to has not at present been found to answer; but I think it only fair to the Commissioners to say that to my knowledge a large number of experiments were made, in mines and elsewhere, with this indicator, which on those occasions certainly performed accurately.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I desire by the Amendment I am about to move that the Report required to be made by this rule with regard to the presence of noxious or inflammable gas, and which is to be recorded in a book for the inspection of the workmen, shall be not only signed by, but be in the handwriting of the person making the Report. The reason why I wish this is because I believe that the necessity of making the Report in that way will necessitate a certain amount of care and deliberation which would not be the case with a mere signature. I recollect some years ago, at a meeting, seeing an auditor's report produced; it was a very suspicious document and I desired to inspect it. I found that the signatures at the bottom of the Report were in the handwriting of the auditors; but that the body of the Report was in the handwriting of the clerk, and, of course, we were not able to appreciate what was the value of the signatures. Now, the same sort of thing may occur in coal mines. I do not mean to say there would be anything improper in a Report to be signed by the person who makes the inspection; but I say that those on whom the responsibility of making the Reports lies should be obliged to fill it up altogether, in order that they may realize the importance of making it. As it is upon the presence, or otherwise of noxious or imflammable gas in mines that the lives of the men depends, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the Reports on this should be altogether in the handwriting of the person who makes the Report.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 33, leave out "signed by," and insert, "in the handwriting of."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. BURT

was understood to say that he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

As the next Amendments which stand in my name are of similar importance to that which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Donegal, it will save time if in support of that hon. Member I say now that the making and posting up a true copy of the Report is calculated to allay the fears of the men.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan Rhondda)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. If it should be neces- sary we can give cases proving the necessity of these Reports being made in the handwriting of the men. The right hon. Gentleman may possibly remember a case tried four years ago at Swansea, in which it was proved that the Report after it was taken from the man was not exactly falsified, but that large portions of the true Report had been left out. I believe that the man employed ought to be able to make the Report in his own handwriting, and I submit that it would be hardly safe to trust to these Reports unless the responsibility of making them is brought home to the individual by their being required to be in his own handwriting. I hope my hon. Friend will divide the Committee on his Amendment unless we have a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BARNES

I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal is likely to defeat the object he has in view. These Reports are made on printed forms, which materially assists in the making and understanding of the Report. These forms have been sanctioned as being the best means of getting a true Report of the facts, and I think the hon. Member will do well not to press his Admendment to a Division.

MR. MATTHEWS

I hope the hon. Member for East Donegal does not want to interfere with so useful a practice as that which at present exists. If I am correct in understanding the hon. Gentleman to desire that the answers in the columns of the forms now used should be in the handwriting of the person who makes the Report, I am quite willing to agree to his proposal. The only reason why I object to the whole of the Report being required to be in the handwriting of the men is that education among the mining class is not so far advanced as to insure that the Reports can be properly made in the handwriting of all the men, and that if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were inserted, it might lead to many good workmen being thrown out of employment. I give the Committee the testimony which I have received from the Home Office Inspectors, which is opposed to the principle of enforcing written Reports by men of this class. It may be in a few years hence that the schoolmaster will be more abroad among miners, and then the difficulty which I now urge will not exist. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press an Amendment which, if it were agreed to, might have the effect of throwing a number of men out of employment.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

If this Amendment is to be carried, I think some words will have to be added, so as not to do away with the printed forms which the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has referred to. I am told there would be a considerable waste of time by this arrangement. From what I have seen latterly, I should not have thought there were many men who could not write, but it may be the case that some of them are in that position. Certainly on Report, some words would have to be inserted to obviate the forms which are now printed being written out.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

I suggest that the Amendment should say that, so far as the Report shall not consist of printed matter, it shall be in the handwriting of the person who signs it.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I may point out that I have known managers in some difficulty with regard to writing their names.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I shall be glad to accept the Amendment proposed to be substituted by the hon. Member for Monmouth for that before the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 33, leave out "each," and insert "such."—(Mr. Warmington).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 34, after "by" insert "and so far as the Report does not consist of printed matter shall be in the handwriting of."—(Mr. Warmington).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

I cannot help thinking that it is a great deal too much to ask that all these Reports should be written out by the persons who sign them.

An hon. MEMBER

I think the proposal is a very reasonable one; but that provision ought to be made to meet the case of men who Lave not sufficient education to write out their Reports.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

The two Amendments in my name have been transposed, I therefore rise to move the second Amendment, the object of which is to provide that the inspection shall be made by a properly qualified person. I desire by the addition of these words to tranquillize the minds of men who may think the mine in which they are working is in a dangerous condition. The words I propose to add are, "and who shall be the holder of a third-class certificate under this Act."

THE CHAIRMAN

That question has already been dealt with on the Amendment proposed to line 14.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

Then, Sir, I will move the next Amendment, which it will be necessary for me at all hazards to carry to a Division. It provides that a copy of the Report shall be posted up at the entrance to the mine, or at the station underground for the inspection of the men. This Amendment is urged by the mining population of Scotland, to test the opinion of the House of Commons on the question, and having said that it is not necessary for me further to detain the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 33, after the word "inspection," to insert the words "and a true copy, signed by that person, shall be posted up at the entrance to the mine, or at the station underground, for inspection by the workmen."—(Mr. Cunningham Graham).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think if the hon. Member will follow out the effect of his own Amendment, he will see how difficult it is to make it conform with the scheme of Rule 4. When the Inspector has concluded his inspection he will return and tell the men that all is right, and that they can go on with their work. He then goes to the office and writes out his Report, and that Report is recorded in a book. I do not see that the posting of a copy of the Report would serve any good purpose after the Inspector has sent the men to work.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I think there must be some mistake, I have seen the Inspectors writing out their Reports down below.

MR. MATTHEWS

That maybe so, but they are not required to write out their Reports below. The scheme of the rule is that the Inspector, having made his inspection below, should start the workmen at their work, and then go up and record his inspection in the book in the office. It is proposed by the hon. Member that the book should be copied, and the true copy posted up at the entrance of the mine or at the stations. That copy is to be for the inspection of the workmen before they go to work, according to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, but I point out that under the rule they will already have been sometime at their work.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to me to apprehend the spirit of the Amendment. It is not that the workmen should see the copy of the Report before they go to work, but that any workman about the mine should go and look at the Report for their own satisfaction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that with the miners this is a question of life or death.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

It would have helped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he had paid a visit to some of our large collieries in the Rhondda Valley, and seen the large room provided for the firemen, and the books that are now kept. My hon. Friend only asks that what the best managers do at present should be done universally. The right hon. Gentleman would find on inquiry that what is now asked for is already done in the best regulated collieries.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I think that if this rule were made it would be fatal to the plan adopted in the best mining system in England—that is to say, the system which exists in Northumberland and Durham. We take the responsibility of setting up timber all over the mine on the report of the persons who inspect the workings. The man who inspects goes back and sets up the timber under the present system, but instead of doing that under this proposal he would have to go away and write out a copy of his Report to be placed at the entrance of the mine. The Reports have to be posted into a book which is accessible to the men, who are not allowed to go into any part of the mine which has not been inspected if there is any danger, and I cannot see the practical advantage of taking men away from their duty for the purpose proposed by the hon. Member for Lanark. I think there would be more danger from the absence of timber than advantage to be gained by accepting the hon. Member's Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 120: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 384.) [7.50 P.M.]

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

As I understand it, the rule, as it now stands, will allow any number of shifts succeeding each other in unbroken continuity to count as one shift. I have no desire, by the Amendment I propose, to interfere with the general principle, which is that in the event of an interval occurring between the shifts there shall be a fresh inspection; but I am told that in my own district a change of workmen does involve some interval—a very slight one, but still an interval—and that great inconvenience would result by a strict literal interpretation of the rule. I wish, however, to put myself very frankly in the hands of the Committee, and to say that, having explained the purpose of the Amendment, I shall be very glad indeed if any other way of meeting the objection can be suggested. My own impression is that the rule should read—"for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this rule two shifts succeeding one another, with an interval not exceeding an hour, shall be deemed as one shift." A shorter period than an hour, however, would quite satisfy the purposes of my constituents.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 35, leave out "without," and insert "with an interval of not more than one hour."—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I am sorry I am not able to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member will see that the clause now requires an inspection before the shift and during the shift.

MR. WOODALL

Provision has already been made, I gather, for the con- tinuous ventilation of the mine during these possible intervals. The whole difference is between the practice in some parts of the country, where I understand that men descend and actually replace other men; and cases like those which prevail in North Staffordshire, where one set of men are brought up, and another set taken down. The interval is at least within the hour asked for, and I am quite willing, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is anything in my contention and will meet the difficulty I put forward, to accept a much shorter time than an hour.

MR. BARNES

If there is an interval there must bs a period of danger.

MR. WOODALL

As my Amendment does not appear to meet with support, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 5—Inspection of machinery, &c., above and below ground.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I propose to move the insertion of the words "in writing" after the word "appointed," in line 5, page 28, so that a competent person, or competent persons appointed by the owner, agent, or manager for the purpose of inspecting the machinery above and below ground shall be appointed in writing. I move this with the object of fixing the responsibility upon the agent and principal alike. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) contains a similar provision to that I propose. Whatever objection there may have been to the appointment in writing of the man whose duty it was to inspect the condition of the strata and the atmosphere, I do not think any objection can hold good to the proposal that the appointment of a person or persons charged with the inspection of the machinery of a colliery shall be made in writing.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 5, after "appointed," insert "in writing."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted." put, and negatived.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I now beg to move the insertion, in line 8, of certain words which appear to me to have been omitted possibly by accident. The words in the present Bill are almost identical with those of the Bill of last year, but the words "working places, levels, and plains" are omitted. I can only conceive that they have been inadvertently overlooked. The duty of an Inspector of machinery is to examine the state of the external parts of the machinery, the state of the head gear, ropes, chains, and other works of the mine which are in actual use both above and below ground. The Return of accidents happening in mines which is annually laid before Parliament, shows that a very considerable number of accidents happen to men not only in working places, but also on levels and plains where there is machinery in use; and, under these circumstances, I presume the Government cannot possibly object to the insertion of the words which I have quoted, and which were included in the previous Bill of last year.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 8, after "gear," insert "working places, levels, plains."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

Rule 4 deals with the general inspection of the workings, but Rule 5 is confined to an inspection of the external parts of the machinery, head gear, &c.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Machinery at large.

MR. MATTHEWS

All the external parts of the machinery, and the state of the head gear, ropes, chains, and other works of the mine which are in actual use, both above ground and below ground. The working places are dealt with by Rule 4. I cannot pretend to recollect everything in the draft Bill of last year, but I thought that the words we framed covered everything.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I see the distinction the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to draw, but it is a distinction for which there is no solid ground. The marginal notes show clearly the real difference between the two rules. The marginal note to Rule 4 is "Stations, and inspection of condition as to ventilation, &c.," and the marginal note to Rule 5 is—"Inspection of machinery, &c., above and below ground." This rule, therefore, applies to machinery in general, whether it be above or whether it be below ground. The duty of the person appointed to inspect under Rule 4 is to inspect as regards the condition of the atmosphere in reference to the presence or absence of inflammatory or noxious gas, and also as to the condition of the strata wherever the super-incumbent roof or the strata is being cut through. In connection with that the Inspector is to examine the condition of the boarding and the timbering, but he is not charged with the duty of inspecting the machinery. It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading Rule 5 that it is not merely the machinery at the shaft which is to be inspected, but such things as ropes, and chains, and other works. Well, but you have works in the plains and levels, there are other things besides ropes and chains there. There are the levels themselves, and if there is an imperfect level which precipitates the tram or tub very violently at a particular point you may have a boy or man at that particular place injured. As I said before, the Report of accidents shows the importance of an inspection of machinery at both the levels and the plains, and it appears to me very clear that the words I propose to insert here have been omitted by those who drafted the Bill purely accidentally. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary takes credit for deliberation in the matter, and he has very ingeniously suggested an objection to my Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL

I hope the Committee will allow me to suggest that our proceedings will not be shortened if we are to have as we go on a comparison between the Bill of last year and the Bill now before us. We have got enough to do in dealing with the print in our hands, and in comparing it with the actual legislation of 1872, which I quite admit is a fair subject for comment and comparison. If we are to compare by running comments this Bill with the draft Bill of last year, I fear our discussions will never come to a termination within a reasonable time.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

My hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has forgotten one thing. The man who is to inspect the machinery is to be a man who understands machinery, and he may know nothing more about underground places and levels than some of us in this House do. Rule 5 provides for the inspection of machinery, while Rule 4 provides for the inspection underground. I do not think it would be well to confuse the two inspections.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Amendment made in page 28, Rule 5, line 9, by leaving out "works," and inserting "similar appliances."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I beg to move the omission of the word "week," in line 11, and the insertion of the words "twenty-four hours." This Amendment is to provide that an examination of the shafts by which persons ascend and descend shall be made every 24 hours. I suppose the great body of the minors, not only in England, but in Scotland, if polled, would almost to a man vote for this Amendment. It is of immense importance that the shaft of all places should be safe and known to be safe. Now, though the comparison with the Bill of last year appears to be so obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, let me point out that in that Bill a daily inspection was provided for. In this Bill it is proposed that an examination of the state of the shafts shall be made once in every seven days. I beg to move this Amendment, making the Bill in this respect, similar to the Bill of last year.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 11, leave out "week," and insert "twenty-four hours."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'week' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BARNES

I object to this Amendment on the ground that it is altogether unnecessary. Every shaft is now properly and regularly examined. No one can be expected to examine every day a shaft which is not in work.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I think this would be a very difficult Amendment to carry out. In the case of a long shaft, a proper examination often occupies three or four hours. At all good collieries the shaft is examined thoroughly and well at least once a-week. An examination every 24 hours could not possibly be nearly so thorough as that which now takes place, say, upon a Saturday.

MR. FENWICK

If my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will confine the inspection every 24 hours to the guides or conductors of the shaft in which the cage is run, I shall be disposed to support his Amendment, and in that shape the Amendment would be one which the Home Secretary might very fairly accept.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I should be very happy to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick), and I suppose the Government will consent to an examination of the guides and conductors every 24 hours, and of the shaft once a-week.

MR. FENWICK

The guides and conductors of shafts are most important, and they ought to be fairly examined every 24 hours. Certainly seven days is too long for guides and conductors to go unexamined. I hope that in face of the reasonableness of this Amendment the Government will accept it.

MR. MATTHEWS

I have no objection to the Amendment as amended. The clause will then read "head gear, ropes, chains, guides and conductors."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment cannot be made now.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

We will propose the Amendment upon Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 6—Fencing of entrances.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I confess I do not see much difference between the words "in actual course of working" and "in actual use or course of working," but I am informed by managers of collieries that they attach some importance to the Amendment, and I therefore beg to move it.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 17, after "actual," insert "use or."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 7—Withdrawal of workmen in case of danger.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 8—Use of safety lamps in certain places.

CAPTAIN HEATHCOTE (Staffordshire, N.W.)

I beg to move the insertion of the words "being the property of and being provided by the mine-owner," after the words "safety lamps," in line 38. I am quite aware that at present in every well-conducted colliery the lamps used are the properly of the owner of the mine, but there are other collieries not so well conducted in which the men employed find their own lamps In my own constituency there has been a case known of a man who bought his lamp from a rag and bone shop. I think it is very desirable that it should be made clear that such a practice cannot be. It should be distinctly understood that the responsibility for the lamps being in good order rests upon the owner.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 38, after "lamp," insert "being the property of and being provided by the mineowner."—(Captain Heathcote.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. COGHILL (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I think the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very valuable one, but that some other words are necessary besides those he proposes. One colliery might supply one sort of lamp—an inefficient lamp—while another colliery might supply an infallible one. I think every endeavour ought to be made to secure that only those lamps are used which keep out the inflammable gases.

MR. MATTHEWS

This is a complicated subject, and it is really impossible for me to deal with Amendments which are not on the Paper. It is questionable, too, whether such an Amendment really can be proposed upon this Rule.

MR. COGHILL

It would certainly come under Rule 9, which deals with the construction of safety lamps.

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes; Rule 9 would be a more suitable place for the Amendment.

CAPTAIN HEATHCOTE

I shall be very glad to bring the matter up on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis), I beg to propose the omission of Rule 8 and the insertion of the following Rule:— In all dry mines where the air may he laden with coal dust, and where fire-damp is either known to be given off from the strata, or may from experience he reasonably suspected to exist, the Secretary of State may require safety lamps to be used, unless the owners and workmen of such mines prove to the satisfaction of a court of arbitration, to be appointed by the respective patties, that less liability to accident generally will be involved by the working of the mine with open lights than by the use of safety lamps. It shall be a special instruction to such court that the circumstances of each mine be taken into consideration with respect to the following points:—

1. (a.) The mode of working;
2. (b.) The nature of the coal seams, and of the roof and floors of the seams, and of the adjacent strata;
3. (c.) The proximity of the seams to each other;
4. (d.) The emissions of gas from the seam, and the liability to blowers or outbursts of gas from the coal roof or floor;
5. (e.) The order of working the seams."

THE CHAIRMAN

It is evident this is not the proper place to introduce these words. This is a Rule which provides a new method of guarding against a supposed danger from the use of other lamps than safety lamps.

MR. BURT

Can this be moved afterwards as a new clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

If Rule 8 is struck out altogether, there is no doubt these words may be moved as a new clause. The hon. Member may, no doubt, propose to strike out Rule 8 altogether.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

Then I beg to move the omission of Rule 8.

Amendment proposed, in page 28, to omit Rule 8.—(Mr. W. Abraham.)

Question proposed, "That the Rule 8 stand part of the Clause."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

This Rule 8 in the present Bill is, I think, founded upon a clause in the Bill I introduced two years ago; but I must say I prefer the wording of my own clause, which seems to effect the purpose just as well as this Rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) in- serted in his Bill a Rule to the effect that in a seam or mine in which inflammable gas was found, no lamp or light other than a locked safety lamp should be used. In the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman it was provided that three months should be the period within which any report of the presence of inflammable gas should preclude the use of any but safety lamps; but, in the present case, we have a strange departure from that provision, for the period of three months is altogether discarded. The past career of the mine does not appear to be necessary to be taken into account; it is now laid down that— In any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous, no lamp or light other than a locked safety lamp shall be allowed to be used. Why is this provided in this way, and why is the period of three months eliminated altogether from the Bill?

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

If we strike out Rule 8 and insert these words as a new clause I am afraid we shall be landed in a great difficulty. I think it should be clearly laid down in this clause that any question as to whether safety lamps ought to be used or not should be referred to arbitration, as suggested by the Commission. If it is decided that this new clause should be inserted, some change ought to be made to meet the case of mines which are dry and combustible.

MR. MATTHEWS

I found it simply impossible to lay down any Rule to suit all mines. Therefore, I deliberately meant to leave the matter to be dealt with by a special Rule to be afterwards inserted. I tried in vain to frame some words which would be fairly applicable to all mines. I could not find any but these rather colourless words. I found, upon consultation with several Inspectors, that no set of words I could find would meet the exigencies of all cases. I think it is as well that each mine should be allowed to decide what sort of safety lamp it will use.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I quite appreciate the difficulty; it is a very great difficulty. If you do leave it open to fair arbitration, when the Inspector says—"I think a safety lamp ought to be used in this mine," it may be well worthy of consideration whether the suggestion made by the Commissioners should be adopted in terms.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

I beg to propose the Amendment which stands in my name, the object of which is to give effect to the opinion expressed by the Commissioners who reported on accidents in mines. The Royal Commission condemned the system of working with mixed lights, for which system, they said, there was no justification.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, line 44, after Sub-section (b), insert—"(c) And when it is necessary to work the coal in any ventilating district with safety lamps, it shall not be allowable to work the coal with naked lights in another part of the same ventilating district."—(Colonel Blundell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think this is a valuable Amendment; but I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Blundell) that the phraseology might be improved. He says—"And when it is necessary to work the coal in any ventilating district with safety lamps." Would it not be better to say—"In any place or any part of the ventilating district?" Would it not do to say— It shall not be allowable to work the coal with naked lights in any part of the ventilating district, in some part of which safely lamps are required.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman assents to the proposed Amendment to his Amendment, I should like to suggest another alteration of it. In the Bishop Auckland district they sometimes work with safety lamps where there is a hitch or fear of gas, or where there is some trouble. I should not at all object to this Amendment, provided my hon. and gallant Friend would allow me to insert at the end words, so that the Amendment would read— It shall not be allowable to work the coal with naked lights in any part of the ventilating district situated between the place where such lamps are being used and the return airway. I think that, if the additional words were agreed to, the views of my hon. and gallant Friend would be carried out, and the difficulty I see to prohibiting the use of other lamps would be met.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words "situated between the place where such lamps are being used and the return airway"—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

COLONEL BLUNDELL

In deference to the superior knowledge of the hon. Baronet, I beg to accept his Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 9—Construction of safety lamps.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. With reference to the last clause, which refers to the appointment of official assessors, there is some doubt whether these assessors will ever be appointed; but if my Amendment is accepted, I would propose that the question be referred to arbitration in the usual way. I attach considerable importance to this Amendment; it has a most serious bearing upon the very question of the safety of colliers. I do not desire to occupy the time of the Committee unduly, yet it is very difficult to put forward arguments in favour of this Amendment without going into the matter at some length. Let me direct the attention of the Committee to the work done in this particular direction by the Royal Commission. That Commission sat for seven years, and for six years they were engaged in the most careful and elaborate examination of the whole question of safety lamps. They made 1,700 experiments; they tried 253 lamps; and during the whole of these years almost every day brought up some new invention. The Commission presented a series of recommendations with reference to safety lamps. If the work of the Royal Commission is to be of any value whatever, some such clause as this ought to be adopted. If it is not adopted the responsibility must rest upon the shoulders of the Government. It is true that the Commission, in their Report, after summing up the results of all these elaborate investigations upon the sub- ject, pointed to four lamps as deserving of attention; but they also said—and it is clear to anyone who gives any attention to the Report, and to that thoroughly exhaustive analysis of the different kinds of safety lamps—that the responsible authorities can find 20 or 30 lamps which have been submitted to test, and which may be thought thoroughly safe for all practical purposes. It is very clear, from the whole of the experiments conducted by the Commissioners, that a large number of lamps which are supposed to be safety lamps, and which have been used as safety lamps in the collieries of this Kingdom, are at this moment perfectly untrustworthy—are, indeed traps. They are even worse than that. The Commissioners had not been long at work before they found that some lamps made in America were largely employed in the country, and were absolutely as dangerous as naked lights, and in some respects more dangerous. Surely if the work of the Commission which has been of such importance is to be of any value whatever, some clause should be inserted in this Bill, making it sure that some responsible person shall see that proper safety lamps are used. The Commissioners, without recommending any particular kind of lamp or class of lamp, say that some responsible authority ought to be appointed to see that the lamps which are used are safety lamps in fact. To make the use of a particular lamp compulsory would be unwise; but the Commissioners say— We think it desirable some control should be exercised in reference to the description of lamps employed in coal mines, and that only those lamps should be used which are authorized from time to time by the Secretary of State. I do not wish to commit myself by this Amendment. I only put it forward as a suggestion that there should be some responsible authority appointed to attend to this question of safety lamps. It is of the greatest importance that no particular class of lamp should be defined. The experience of the Belgian Government, which, 30 years ago, passed a decree authorizing the use of a particular form of safety lamp, has shown that that is a most mischievous course to adopt; it is entirely foreign to our principles of freedom to do so; but there can be no harm surely in giving a competent person like an Inspector of a district some such discretion as I venture to suggest.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 5, after "inflammable," insert—Within one calendar month after the passing of this Act a sample of the safety lamps used in every mine shall be sent to the inspector for the district in which such mine is situated for his approval. He may require that any modification shall be made in it, or that another kind of lamp shall be adopted. No safety lamps shall be introduced into a mine for the first time, after the passing of this Act, until a sample lamp has been submitted to and approved of by the inspector for the district in which such mine is situated. Any colliery owner dissatisfied with anything done or required to be done by an inspector under this rule may appeal to the official assessors hereinafter mentioned, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

Although I do not dispute the soundness of the principles urged by the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Williams), still I do dispute the wisdom of asking that the lamps shall be submitted to an Inspector for approval. This is a principle which I am not prepared to accept, as, in my opinion, it reverses the system on which the Bill is based. The system of the Bill is to let the owner select his own lamp at his own peril, and then to allow the Inspector to come in and say whether he objects to the lamp selected or not. Besides, the Inspector has no office at which he can receive lamps, neither has he appliances by which he can test them. Since the commencement of the discussion upon this Bill I have had shown to me two extremely good electric lamps. The owners of mines will, no doubt, watch the improvements made in lamps by the progress of science, and I think the period is not far distant when they will be able to get good electric safety lamps.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

Do I understand that it is competent for the Inspector to object to any lamp?

MR. MATTHEWS

Most certainly.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

On his own mere motion?

MR. MATTHEWS

Certainly.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

Then I ask, how it is that there are thousands of the safety lamps in use in England which are condemned by the Commission as absolutely unsafe? There must be something seriously wrong.

MR. MATTHEWS

Everything depends upon the velocity of the current. A Davy lamp is thoroughly safe in a mine where the velocity of the current is slow. Of course, a lamp can be totally unsafe in one colliery where there is a high speed of ventilation, while it would be perfectly safe in another mine where the circulation is slow; but, beyond doubt, the Inspector can, on his own motion, under Rule 43, object to any safety lamp. I think that this point can be properly dealt with in the special rules of collieries.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. The responsibility of refusing it, of course, rests with the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BURT

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. My hon. Friend the Member for the Southern Division of Glamorgan (Mr. A. J. Williams) has pointed out that the Royal Commission on Accidents in Mines went into very elaborate and careful experiments in regard to safety lamps. It was proved by those experiments that certain classes of lamps were utterly unreliable, and that some of these were the Stephenson, the Clanny, and the Davy. I quite agree that it would be exceedingly difficult, indeed undesirable, for the Government through the Inspectors to say that certain lamps ought to be used; but, at the same time, those which are known to be dangerous should be entirely prohibited. The Home Secretary stated that Inspectors already have the power to object to certain lamps; and thereupon my hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Williams) very pertinently asked how it was that there are a great number of lamps in use in the country which have been condemned by the Royal Commission? In page 75 of the Commissioners' Report reference is made to the Scotch lamp; and it is said that this lamp can scarcely be regarded as a safety lamp at all. This lamp, I understand, was in general use at the Udston Colliery, when that terrible explosion occurred some few months ago with such fearful consequences. The Commission have spoken very emphatically on this question; and on page 117 of their Report they say that it has been known that if an atmosphere becomes inflammable, the Stephenson, the Clanny, and the Davy lamps are quite unsafe. I move this Amendment with the utmost confidence that the Home Secretary will accept it, or that, if he refuses to accept it, the Committee will support me in carrying it. I fasten the responsibility upon the Government if they do not prohibit the use of these lamps, which have been proved by the Royal Commission to be utterly unsafe.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 5, after "inflammable," to insert—"Provided that the words 'safety lamp' shall not be taken to include Stephenson, Clanny, or unprotected Davy lamps."—(Mr. Burt.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

These words appear to me unnecessary, the lamps in question being excluded by the operation of Rule 9, already passed. That being the case, I do not see that the Amendment does any particular harm, and I am not disposed to object to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

rose to speak.

THE CHAIRMAN

The words have been added to the Bill.

MR. CONYBEARE

I was on my feet, Sir, before the Question was put.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

Rule 10—Examination of safety lamps.

MR. CONYBEARE

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, in page 29, line 9, after "appointed," to insert "in writing."

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that a similar Amendment has been twice rejected this evening.

MR. CONYBEARE

Then I will move the next Amendment, for there are two standing in the name of the hon. Member. I beg to move the Amendment in the same line, after "manager," to insert "and approved of by the Inspector."

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 9, after "manager," to insert "and approved of by the Inspector."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE CHAIRMAN

rose to put the Question,

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will be kind enough to express his assent or dissent on this Amendment?

MR. MATTHEWS

I am quite unable at present to grasp what the Amendment is. I am trying to find out.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The object of the Amendment is this—that the competent person appointed by the owner, agent, or manager for the purpose of examining the safety lamps immediately before they are taken into the workings for use shall be approved of by the Inspector. The Inspector shall see that he is properly qualified to discharge the duties with which he is intrusted.

MR. MATTHEWS

I have persistently objected to throwing responsibility of this kind upon Inspectors; and I, therefore, trust that the hon. Member will not insist upon this Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name, in page 29, line 13, after "order," and before "and," to insert "by placing it in an explosive mixture of air and inflammable gas." If my Amendment is adopted, the section will read— A competent person appointed by the owner, agent, or manager, for the purpose, shall, either at the surface or at the appointed lamp station, examine every safety lamp immediately before it is taken into the workings for use, and ascertain it to be in safe working order by placing it in an explosive mixture of air and inflammable gas and securely locked; and such lamps shall not be used until they have been so examined and found in safe working order and securely locked. The result of all the experiments which have been made—the result of the 1,017 experiments made—went to show, as the Commissioners say, that the protection of safety lamps by simple inspection was impossible. They say that the only way to avoid the danger of the introduction of imperfect lamps into mines is to test every lamp with some inflammable gas before it is allowed to descend with the shift. It is quite obvious that the weakest link in the chain of safety, where safety lamps are used at all, is one single imperfect lamp. In the case of a sudden outburst of gas, or in the case of meeting with explosive gas in a mine, one single imperfection in a lamp which could not be discovered by ordinary observation, being so small that it is impossible to find it out by the naked eye, will be enough to bring about an explosion. The result was that the Commissioners took a good deal of pains to see whether it would not be possible to provide a thoroughly simple means of putting each lamp into good condition. They said it would be perfectly possible to do so, wherever there was gas in or near a colliery. Of course, it is said in a colliery where there is no external or artificial gas such a means of testing safety lamps cannot be adopted; but a case of that kind could be provided for by a slight alteration in my Amendment—for instance, by introducing the words "where practicable." I do think, however, that some means should be adopted for carrying out this suggestion. Where practicable, I think it is most desirable that this method of testing the efficiency of safety lamps should be adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN

In what form does the hon. Gentleman move the Amendment?

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

After "order" to insert "by placing it where practicable in an explosive mixture of air and inflammable gas."

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 13, after "order" and before "end" insert "by placing it where practicable in an explosive mixture of air and inflammable gas."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

There is a subsequent Amendment in my name as follows, to add at the end of Clause:— That all safety lamps before going into the mine shall be examined and tested by gas, for the purpose of ascertaining their reliability or otherwise, by a competent person approved of by a Government Inspector. The names of the qualified person or persons to be placed on the pit heap. That Amendment will, perhaps, be deemed by you, Sir, out of Order if this Amendment were accepted by the Committee; therefore I propose, at all events, to support my hon. Friend on the Amendment he desires to insert as a safeguard here. There can be no doubt whatever that safety lamps should be subjected to some test, as recommended by the Royal Commission, before being allowed to go down the pit. The difference between my hon. Friend's Amendment and my own would be that while under his Amendment the lamp would have to be approved of by a competent person appointed by the owner, agent, or manager, in my Amendment he would be a competent person approved of by the Government Inspector. But, at the same time, it is clear, from the Report of the Royal Commission who have examined carefully into the matter, that they have arrived at the conclusion that an ordinary examination of safety lamps, even where they are of simple construction, may easily fail to detect some flaws which may deprive them of the power of resisting gas. The Commissioners say that it is necessary to have some test in gas before the lamps are sent down the pit; they declare that it is absolutely necessary that lamps should be tested in explosive gas before being allowed to go down the shaft. They speak of several means of testing them, and refer particularly to a simple method which would meet every necessary purpose. There is one practical difficulty which will be suggested by hon. Gentlemen representing the owners of mines, and that is that mines are not always in juxtaposition to gas supplies. That is sometimes the case; but though gas may not be found in immediate proximity to a colliery, I think it is desirable that some simple practical test of this sort should be resorted to, and the words "when practicable" meet this objection. Inasmuch as the Bill itself says that it is not prepared to recommend any lamp, or even to exclude any lamp under its provisions, but only to require them to be subjected to a certain test, it is very necessary that that test should be complete. Well, the only complete test that is known to experts is that of subjecting the lamps to a mixture of air and gas. I hope the Committee will see that this is a desirable Amendment, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to accept it. I think it is absolutely necessary for the safety of a mine that some such proposal as this should be adopted.

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

I would point out that in many instances gasometers are miles away from the colliery; if there was gas in the neighbourhood it might be an easy matter.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

How can you possibly produce the condition of things in your test which exists in the mine? You have in a mine not only an atmosphere which may be charged with gas, but an atmosphere in motion. Under the circumstances, I do not think it is possible to have a reliable test reproducing the conditions as they exist in the mine; and, therefore, I think that such a test as that proposed would be illusory and dangerous.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

The test I propose is one to show whether or not there is a hole or an imperfection in the lamp. The test is not as to whether the lamp will bear the velocity of 10 or 50 feet per second. The test is conducted in a specially constructed receptacle containing a small mixture of gas and air. The lamp is dipped into this receptacle, and if there is a hole in it the gas gets inside and it is found out. It is most important that this test should be applied. As to the objection of the hon. Member below me, I have not that by inserting the words "where practicable."

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

I think that this rule should not be inserted in the Bill, as it would be impossible to test electric lamps in this way.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

No doubt, there are difficulties in this case; but I suppose we are here to try to get over difficulties. At any rate, the Royal Commission, after giving very great consideration to this subject, were unanimously of opinion that something should be done. There is nothing upon which they are more emphatic. In their Report they state that they consider it absolutely necessary that safety lamps should be regularly tested before they are allowed to descend the shaft. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment has shown his reasonableness by modifying, and to some extent thereby weakening it, by inserting the words "where practicable." I really think that, with this modification, the Committee should have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I think it is to be regretted that mineowners on the opposite side of the House, and perhaps some on this side, do not show a little more desire to meet these Amendments, the object of which is to secure the safety of life. I am assured by practical men, who are not too familiar with the proceedings of the Commission, that the system proposed is the most necessary and most complete test. It is one which has been earnestly pressed, and I think it is hardly becoming that every improvement of this kind which is suggested should be met with opposition by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I think the remark the hon. Member has just made is wholly unjustified. The mineowners in the House have shown over and over again that it is their earnest desire to do everything in their power to insure the safety of the miners. Moreover, as hon. Members should see, it is against the interest of mineowners that accidents should take place.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I hope we shall discuss this question without recrimination and without the throwing of motives across the floor of the House. The difficulties which some of these practical questions involve do not seem to be fully understood by hon. Gentlemen who represent mining constituencies, and who come down to the House having heard all the complaints of the miners, and not knowing what are the practical difficulties. With regard to these safety lamps, the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee (Mr. Donald Crawford) speaks as if some of us mineowners had never paid any attention to safety lamps in our lives. Well, I may say that almost every day of my life—certainly that every month of my life—brings me a new safety lamp, and I am very much mistaken if other colliery owners are not in the same position. In the North of England we have a standing committee on safety lamps, and with every new lamp which is brought out, experiments are tried, and every endeavour is used by practical men to obtain the best light. When you put safety lamps into a mine you encounter difficulties. As I have said already, as soon as a safety lamp goes in a candle comes out, and the miner has to work in greater darkness, and is subject to other circumstances, and to accidents of a very serious character. Mineowners, therefore, do not adopt safety lamps until they are necessary. When, however, safety lamps ate necessary let us have the best; but I submit that by trying experiments and putting clauses into this kind of Act of Parliament you will never get the best lamp. You get it by relying upon the simple process of supply and demand. You must depend, in some measure, upon the interest of the mineowner; he wants the best and the safest lamp that he can get; and you may depend upon it he will not fail to adopt the best means of keeping it in proper order, and of testing it when he has it. You had better leave this matter to practical people to whose interest it is to get a good—to get the best—lamp. You must bear in mind that in some districts you have some very little mines—well, who is to test the lamps there? The Amendment says "where practicable." Well, it is done where practicable now. In all the large collieries of the country that Amendment will have no effect, and the only result of adopting it would he to throw difficulties in the way of small owners who would find it very difficult to carry out the system proposed, and in respect of these people the hon. Member actually proposes to make an exception. I think we ought to get along in this Committee much more quickly than we are doing, and I think we should do so if we could only avoid getting into these scientific discussions which the hon. Member behind me has done so much to encourage. If the hon. Member will look at the Report of the Royal Commission, he will see that even they dared not recommend any particular safety lamp.

MR. P. STANHOPE

I must protest against the assumption of the hon. Baronet that we are moving in this matter without a knowledge of the wants of the miners. We are moving in the matter in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission, which was a very competent body to consider this question. They conducted their experiments and their inquiries over a long period. They had associated with them the cleverest experts and the most competent persons to give advice. The Commission itself was composed of persons thoroughly conversant with these subjects; they made certain recommendations, and those recommendations we are trying to introduce into this Bill. I do not think that this Committee will consider that the consideration of the recommendations of such a Commission is at all out of place in a discussion of this kind.

SIR CHARLES FORSTER (Walsall)

I should like to point out that the whole of this Bill is confessedly based on the Report of the Royal Commission. Well, one of their most important recommendations was that safety lamps should be tested. We have just succeeded in getting an Amendment inserted which shall exclude defective lamps. Well, we want to make the Bill as effective as possible with reference to the lamps used, and we think that if a test like this could be used in a certain number of instances, so as to prove that the lamps used are free from holes through which the inflammable gas could not penetrate, we make safety lamps safer than they could otherwise be; and as this is the question of the life or otherwise death of a number of people, surely every possible precaution ought to be taken in the interest of these miners. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I can only speak of the Commission as one which had nothing in the world to do with it. I do not pin my faith at all to them; but I would point out that they are by no means drawn from the scientific circles—there are practical miners upon the Commission, such as Sir George Elliot and Mr. Lewis. That gives me confidence in the recommendations of the Commission such as we are now considering.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I must confess that the recommendations of the Commission have been of considerable weight with me; and I think that, seeing that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has consented to modify it, the Committee should be content to accept it.

MR. YEO (Glamorgan, Gower)

The question is this—is this a practicable, feasible test to apply? If so, I should hail it with satisfaction; I should welcome any test that would give additional safety to our colliers. At the same time, I must deprecate such remarks as those which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who sits near me. For him to assume that colliery owners are so blind to their own interests—if they are so utterly indifferent to the interests of their employés—as to neglect the adoption of the necessary precautions against accidents, is a course of proceeding in which I do not think any other sane man would join him. So much hangs on the safety of the colliery and the prevention of explosions, that no colliery owner, in his senses, would decline to adopt any plan suggested which is practicable and easy of application. As one representing the colliery interest, I should be glad to accept the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not know whether it would be of any use; but I would once more appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider the words of the Bill they are amending. I submit that the words proposed to be inserted really weaken the Bill. The Bill requires that a competent person shall ascertain that the lamps are in safe working order. He has to do this by all the means which are open to him; and cannot hon. Members see that they weaken those words if they specify one mode, and one mode only, of ascertaining this? The competent person mentioned in the Bill, in order to satisfy this section, will have to adopt not one but all modes of ascertaining safety. The general words of the Bill require more than are in the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member. It does really seem to me that by too much minute specification you will cut down the effect of the Bill, in excluding all other, and perhaps better, modes of ascertaining the safety of lamps which may be discovered tomorrow. I have adopted a broad requirement. General words do more, and require more than the words of the hon. Member.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 115: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 385.) [9.15 P.M.]

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I beg to move, in page 29, to leave out from line 23 to line 25. The effect of this Amendment will be to omit the following words:— A person shall not have in his possession any lucifer match or apparatus of any kind for striking a light except within a completely closed chamber attached to the fuse of the shot. These words seem to me to be altogether unintelligible.

Amendment proposed, in page 29, to leave out from line 23 to line 25.—(Sir John Swinburne.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

I cannot accept this Amendment. I fail to see that the words are unintelligible.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

You say that he is to have in his possession a lucifer match or apparatus within a completely closed chamber attached to the fuse of a shot. If a person has such in his possession he can fire it at any time.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I do not like to be the means of asking the Committee to accept proposals which would be drastic in their character, and which would impose upon the managers of mines a duty which would be objectionable both to them as having to carry it out, and to the men as having to be subjected to it, without serious necessity. It is, however, a matter of common knowledge that serious accidents occasionally arise through the rules as to not carrying lucifer matches or other means of striking a light being violated by the workmen; and I think it is desirable that we should insert in this clause some provision dealing with cases where men are suspected of violation of the rule. I think it only reasonable that where there is cause for suspicion, and where it is possible that the men who infringe the rules may be endangering the safety of themselves and their fellow-workmen, this precaution that I suggest should be taken. I do not wish to press the Amendment if the Committee is against it; but I certainly think it my duty to move it.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, after line 25, to insert—"And the owner, agent, manager, or under manager shall be empowered to have any person searched whom he suspects to be in possession of lucifer matches, or other apparatus for striking a light."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

We should have no objection whatever to an Amendment of this kind, if the hon. Member will amend it by inserting the words "and the person making such examination should before he makes it be himself examined by a third party." [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I will give a reason for this proposal. Our miners state that some of the colliery officials themselves carry lucifer matches into the mine and drop them into the pockets of the men. We have no objection to the rule proposed, but we want the man who makes the examination to be above suspicion; and we desire, therefore, that he should be examined himself before making the examination.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

We are extremely anxious that every possible care should be taken to prevent workmen from taking into the mine anything which is likely to ignite gas or cause an explosion; and I may say that the great majority of the workmen are just as anxious as we are to prevent men taking matches or other inflammable substances into the mine. But we have an extreme contempt for such legislation as this, which will give an owner of a colliery or an official of a colliery power to go down into a mine and search the clothes of the workmen. This Amendment, if accepted by the Committee, would give the manager or person appointed by him power to go into the mine at any time, and subject the men to the indignity of being searched. I think it is certainly to be hoped that the Committee will reject the Amendment, if the hon. Member presses it to a Division. I hope, however, he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

As I said before, the last thing I wish to do is to press this Amendment upon an unwilling Committee; but it has been suggested to me, and I thought it my duty to bring it forward. The hon. Member opposite objects to the workman being subjected to the indignity of having his clothes searched. This matter was brought forward at one of our meetings, and discussed as a means of preventing accidents; and I indignantly repudiate the suggestion that its object is to enable anyone to go down into the pit in an informal manner and search the clothes of the colliers. What the Amendment means is that a formal search should take place.

Question put, and negatived.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 11—Lamp stations.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I beg to move, in page 29, line 28, the insertion of the following words:—"And that such lamp station be so constructed as to form a harbour of refuge." The object of the Amendment is to bring about the establishment of lamp stations at places in the collieries where lamps can be relighted in the interior of the workings, so as to prevent the possibility of danger from the exposure of naked lights, and also to avoid the present dangerous practice of having to travel great distances to a lamp station in order to obtain light when the lamps have been extinguished. Every practical man in this House, whether he be owner, agent, or workman, will know how exceedingly dangerous this practice of going long distances to have the lamps relighted is. Even for this purpose alone these lamp stations would be a great been and a great preventative of accidents. I may also point out that these places, being established and known to the colliers, would, at the time of an explosion, be of special value as harbours of refuge towards which the men might make in case of emergency, instead of, as at present, being obliged to rush towards the bottom of the shaft to the one outlet—an outlet which, under such circumstances, the men are often unable to reach. Such a station as I propose should consist of a compartment of steel, iron, or other material that could be made air-tight, and strong enough to resist high pressure, internal and external. Where possible, they might be cut out of the rock. Each station should be supplied with separate intake and outlet pipes in communication with the surface. The openings or ways into the compartments should be through a series of doors or manholes, so that, by closing the same, the compartments could be cut off from the mine. It would be illusory to say that even if these lamp stations or refuges were constructed, we should succeed in preventing the possibility of colliery explosions; but still it cannot be denied that a system such as this, or places such as these, would tend to materially reduce the chances of catastrophes, inasmuch as they would provide facilities for obtaining light, and diminish the use of naked lights in places where they are now used. The hon. Gentleman may think that this is all purely imaginary on my part, and that the construction of such lamp stations would be impracticable; but I beg to assure him that it is not imaginary. I beg to inform him that in one of the largest collieries in the Rhondda one of these stations has been constructed, and has been inspected by employers and workmen together, and that all who have seen it regard it as very excellent and simple. It is in Taylor Down Colliery, and I think it has been patented by the inventor. It consists of a place of refuge to which instant retreat can be made; it is supplied with fresh air from the surface, and, the doors being-air tight, the lamps can be opened inside with perfect safety. Even in the case of an explosion—though it has not yet had the chance of standing that test—it is believed that it would answer admirably. For ordinary working purposes, however, it is doing its work in a very successful manner. I know that colliery owners will say that this question of a lamp refuge in the workings is at present in too experimental a stage to have great attention paid to it; still, as a matter of humanity, I think it should command the serious consideration of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the Amendment must be put in a slightly different form, thus—"and such lamp station shall be so constructed as to form a harbour of refuge."

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 28, after "air," insert "and such lamp station shall be so constructed as to form a harbour of refuge."—(Mr. W. Abraham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. YEO (Glamorgan, Gower)

I think the suggestion made in this Amendment is one well worthy of consideration. The idea of having an advance station in towards the main workings is very good; but I think that the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment made a very true remark when he said that it must be regarded as in a very experimental stage at the present time. At present our lamp stations are placed at the bottom of the shaft, and I think it would be a very good thing that the workmen should not be compelled, in order to have their lamps relighted, to make a long circuit of the mines in order to reach the station at the bottom of the shaft. I think that the necessity for making that long circuit frequently tends at the present time to very unwise things being done. At the same time, the plan suggested by the hon. Member seems to be only applicable to such collieries as possess the advantage of air under compression. Where collieries have compressed air and pipes circulating through the mine, there should be no difficulty in having a jet of air poured into a lamp station of this kind from the main—giving a supply of pure air, independent of the ventilation of the colliery. Supposing that such a chamber could be ventilated by some ingenious method—as it may be in the case referred to by the hon. Member—it would be a desirable thing to have one of these stations in every colliery. I do not think, however, that we are not yet in a position to legislate upon the matter. I think the hon. Gentleman has done well to call attention to an invention of so important a character; but I would urge him to be satisfied with having made his statement. Having endeavoured to fix the attention of the House on an invention that promises well for the future, I trust he will not seek to embody this Amendment in the Bill at the present moment.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I fail to appreciate the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He tells us that this matter is only in an experimental stage at present; but we have been told distinctly by the hon. Member who has brought forward the Amendment that in his constituency of the Rhondda Valley there is already a harbour of refuge constructed in a colliery on the very plan the hon. Member has mentioned. I want to know when we are going to get beyond the experimental stage? We shall certainly not do it by debating in an academical sense and doing nothing. I have risen merely to say a word in support of the principle of this Amendment, and to express a hope that the hon. Member who has brought it forward will press it to a Division.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 12—Use of explosives below ground.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal E.)

Rule 12 says that "any explosive substance shall only be used in the mine below ground as follows." Then it goes on to specify conditions. I would much prefer to see the Rule made more stringent. I would like to see the initial words altered so as to be prohibitive of the use of explosives except in certain well-defined and limited cases. In discussing the subject-matter of the clause, I am met with the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has given Notice of an Amendment of his own clause, consisting of the paragraphs from (f) to (m), which he wishes to insert in place of the existing paragraphs from (f) to (l). I presume, if this Amendment is put from the Chair in the same way in which Amendments have been put in respect to other clauses, we shall find it difficult to move Amendments, because the Motion will have to be to omit all the paragraphs from (f) to (l).

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I rise to Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

What Amendment does the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O' Connor) propose?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, before I proceed with an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member will state at once what he wishes to do.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

If I had not been interrupted by the hon. Member opposite, by this time I should have finished my statement. There is a notice of an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. TOMLINSON

again rose.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. TOMLINSON

My Amendment comes before the right hon. Gentleman's. [Cries of "Order !" and "Name!"]

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I wish to ask, Sir, whether you would put from the Chair the separate paragraphs of this clause, because I presume, if you put them in a body, much confusion would be caused? The discussion which will take place upon the hon. Gentleman's proposal will be at sixes and sevens—we shall all be at cross purposes, and at the end of our discussion we shall find ourselves no further advanced than we were at the beginning. If the separate paragraphs of this clause are put separately from the Chair we shall avoid that difficulty, and probably economize a considerable amount of time.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may inform the hon. Member that the paragraphs will be proceeded with in the ordinary way—I shall put them as they arise in the ordinary manner, beginning with the first paragraph. When we get to (f), the Question will be that the first words of the paragraph be omitted.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Will the Motion be for the omission of all the paragraphs from (f) to (1)?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; only a certain number of words in the first paragraph will be put, so as to save subsequent Amendments if the Amendment is carried.

MR. TOMLINSON

I have an Amendment on the Paper which I desire to move here. Rule 12 says— A workman shall not have in use at one time in any one place more than one of such cases or canisters. I wish to insert, after the word "workman," the words "not being a competent person appointed to fire shots." I move this Amendment for the reason that in the case of a competent person who may have very extensive duties to discharge it may be necessary for him to have a larger quantity of an explosive in use than one case or canister.

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 39, after "workmen," to insert "not being a competent person appointed to fire shots."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I shall oppose the insertion of these words for the reason that I am altogether opposed to the use of gunpowder for blasting purposes in mines——

MR. MATTHEWS

rose and made an observation which was inaudible.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I really must protest against these interruptions. I refer to the Amendment of the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) interrupts me; I refer to an Amendment of the bon. Member for Preston, and the Home Secretary interrupts me. I object altogether to the use of gunpowder in mines, and I appeal from the Home Secretary and from the hon. Member for Preston to one of the Government Inspectors—namely, to the opinion of Mr. Hall, who declares that 20 years' experience has satisfied him that more danger of an explosion is incurred in the operation of blasting than from any other cause, and also that it is largely resorted to where it would pay persons very much better to dispense with it. The Legislature ought long ago to have forbidden blasting in coal pits full of men. It has been strongly urged by Mr. Hall and other Inspectors that in a new Coal Mines Bill the law should prohibit blasting, and should require, where it does take place, that everyone should be out of the way while the blasting is being done except the shot firer. What I have to say upon that is this—that I cannot understand how anyone can consent to allow blasting to take place who admits that in such operations there is such serious danger to life and limb that it is absolutely necessary to clear the scene, as far as possible, of human beings while it is taking place. It makes an exception, of course, in the case of a shot-lighter. Why is such an exception made? It is a question of minimizing the risk. I think civilization does not require that a forlorn hope should be constituted in the shape of these blastings.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is not speaking at all to the Amendment. The sub-section is that— A workman shall not have in use at any one time in any one place more than one of such cases or canisters; and the Amendment is to insert after the word "workman," "not being the competent person appointed to fire the shots."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Amendment goes to a relaxation of the stringency of the rule. I am in favour of making the rule more stringent than it is, and limiting, not only the amount of explosive substances allowed in the field of operation, but also limiting the number of such operations. I object to any relaxation of the proposed rule. I say that if there is danger at all from one man, or 20 men, being allowed to bring these explosive substances into a mine, the thing ought not to be allowed. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) has himself mentioned gunpowder, and that is why I thought this was a proper occasion to enter a protest against the use of that explosive. Gunpowder is not necessary. You may have dynamite-soldered cartridges, which are much safer. You may effect your explosion by other means; therefore, it is reasonable to object to the use of gunpowder, especially in the face of the testimony of one of Her Majesty's Inspectors with regard to the danger attending the use of gunpowder. I think this is a point of the Bill with regard to which the Committee ought to proceed with the greatest possible care.

MR. ATHERLEY JONES (Durham, N.W.)

I do hope the hon. Member for Preston, for the purpose of saving the time of the Committee, and enabling us to proceed with this Bill and getting it finished, if possible, this Session, will withdraw his Amendment. The clause to which reference has been made by the hon. Member is taken from the Act of 1872, which provides that an explosive substance shall not be taken into the mine, except in cartridges in a case or canister containing not more than four pounds. The object of this particular clause is to prevent a number of canisters knocking about the mine without rhyme or reason. I trust the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

On behalf of my hon. Relative (Mr. H. F. Pease), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name, and that is to leave out the words "or have in his possession," in line 41. The hon. Gentleman who has placed this Amendment on the Paper represents the Cleveland iron and stone district in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and he proposes this Amendment at the request of miners and men. In that district there is no gas generated whatever, and the men feel that if they are not to have in their possession during the process of blasting "any iron or steel pricker, scraper, charger, tamping rod, or stemmer," they will be unable to carry on their occupation. These tools are used in the process of mining, in drilling holes for the shot; and my hon. Relative desires these words should be omitted from the Bill, because the tools remain actually in the possession of the men, although they are not used during the actual process of blasting.

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 41, leave out "or have in his possession."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

The hon. Baronet has not explained to us whether a man should be allowed to have in his possession tools he is prohibited from using. He is not to use any iron or steel pricker, scraper, charger, tamping rod, or stemmer; but he may have them in his possession. He is to be in the position of Tantalus—he is to have a tool constantly dangling before him, but he is not to use it.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

The clause, amended as proposed, would read— In the process of blasting, a person shall not use any iron or steel pricker, scraper, charger, tamping rod, or stemmer. A man does not want to use any of these things in the process of blasting; but he has to have them in his possession during the time he is at work.

MR. MATTHEWS

What is an iron or steel pricker, scraper, charger, tamping rod, or stemmer used for, except for the process of blasting? They are not used for the eating of a dinner.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I am sorry to have to explain. These tools are used for the purpose of making an incision for the powder. A man does not use them in the process of blasting; but he has them in his possession while the blasting is taking place; he cannot make a hole without having these tools in his possession.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

I beg to move the omission of the word "scraper" in line 42. The scraper is only used for scraping the inside of a hole. It is not capable of being used for any dangerous purpose.

Amendment proposed, in line 42, to leave out "scraper."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'scraper' stand part of the Clause."

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I have letters in my hand relating to this very word, and forwarded to me by the representatives of the Cleveland mineowners, and by the secretary to the Cleveland miners. The scraper used in the Cleveland district is an iron or steel one, and there is no danger in using such a tool, because it does not strike a light. My informants are of opinion, however, that if a copper tool is to be used instead of an iron one they will be put to considerable unnecessary expense. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter, and see by Report whether it is not possible for him to meet the wishes of the miners in this respect.

MR. MATTHEWS

I will inquire and see if I can satisfy the hon. Baronet.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COGHILL (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I beg to propose to insert after the words "where the charge has missed fire" in line 2, page 30— Provided that where an electrical apparatus has been employed to ignite a shot or shots, the workman in case of a miss-fire (if the wires used to ignite such shot or shots have been previously disconnected from the electrical apparatus) may resume work immediately after such miss-fire. The advantages of this Amendment are two-fold, and I will mention them very briefly. In the first place, the Amendment encourages the use of electrical apparatus in mines, which is a very desirable thing, as it does away with the use of the fuse; and, secondly, it prevents a great waste of time which now elapses after a shot is fired, before the workmen may resume work in the mine. Under the present system, as often as four hours or even more have to transpire after a shot is fired before workmen can resume work in the part of the mine where the blasting has taken place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 2, after "where the charge has missed fire"—insert "Provided that where an electrical apparatus has been employed to ignite a shot or shots, the workmen, in case of it miss-fire (if the wires used to ignite such shot or shots have been previously disconnected from the electrical apparatus) may resume work immediately after such miss fire."—(Mr. Coghill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I quite agree that the words of the hon. Gentleman embody a perfectly legitimate and proper arrangement; but will he do me the favour of observing that there is no prohibition against the resumption of work after a shot has missed fire? The words are totally unnecessary. Why should we put in words to secure liberty to do that which is not prohibited? I appeal to hon. Members not to propose such Amendments as this, especially in view of the amount of work we have yet to do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MATTHEWS

I will not detain the Committee long in moving the Amendment which stands in my name. Hon. Gentlemen will observe that I have framed a new set of rules with regard to shot firing. It is with great reluctance I have approached the question, because of the difficulty experienced in respect of it. Since the Bill has been drafted, however, I have received representations from various persons interested in mining in different parts of the country, relating to the manner in which the rules were drawn in the original Bill, especially Rule G and Rule H. It was represented to me that I was offering a serious impediment to the mining industry in various parts of the country. The difficulty I have felt all along in framing the shot-firing clause is to define in any language that will fit all cases the condition of safety, or the condition of danger respectively. As the Committee know perfectly well, in the present law the condition of safety is described by two features; first, that there shall be no blue flame upon the cap of a safety lamp; and secondly, that blue flame has been absent for three months. The time test, so far as I can ascertain from practical men, has given universal dissatisfaction. To talk about what the condition of the mine was three months ago is perfectly idle, and the Committee will see I felt this very strongly when I drew these clauses originally. Upon further reflection, and consideration and consultation with practical men, it was pointed out that the time test was altogether a bad one and an unsatisfactory one, and that the only value of the time test or of looking back was simply to give you an additional chance of checking any error in your inspection. Of course, the important thing is to ascertain the condition of the mine at the moment you are firing the shot. There may be error and negligence, of course, and the only value of the time test—that is, of looking back—is to get a correction by several observations. The question is, how far is it reasonably practicable or reasonably wise to carry that repetition of the observation? To go back three months, practical men say, really does no good. A colliery might be perfectly free from gas three months ago and dangerous now, or vice verâ—it may be free from gas now while it was dangerous three months ago. The only use of going back is, I say, to afford some correction of your observations at the time. The important thing is to know the condition of things at the moment you are going to fire the shot. If you look back, it is only as a means of verifying or making yourselves sure of your observations. I hope that in what I have done I have not done wrong. The Committee will see that in these new clauses I have practically abandoned the time test, except to this extent—that I have provided that you should look back for the last four inspections under Rule 4, and the Committee will remember what those inspections are. If your ventilating district has not got a clean bill of health; if you have got gas anywhere recorded in one of the four inspections, I now require that a competent person shall go to the place where gas is reported to be, and shall ascertain, by inspection, that the gas has been cleared away. Is it to be cleared away absolutely? Is it to be cleared away so that there shall not be a scintilla of gas to be found? I am told that is too much to demand for the practical working of collieries. It is enough that the gas shall be so far cleared away that the place where gas was reported is in a safe condition—that is, that it is safe to fire a shot in the ventilating district, notwithstanding that there was gas. So far for the ventilating district. Then, I have made a provision which I think is a fair and essential one—namely, that the place where the shot is going to be fired, and a radius of 20 yards of it, shall be examined by a competent person to see if it is safe to fire a shot. Furthermore, I have provided that if the place is dusty you must water it for 20 yards round the spot where you fire the shot. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) is not present because he has suggested that deliquiscent salts should be sprinkled about the place instead of water. If you apply these salts long enough before the shot is fired, so as to make the roof, sides, and floor, in a wet condition at the time you fire the shot, this process will be found to be quite as good as watering. In some cases, where the sides and roof are of clay, watering would ruin the mine, and the alternative of using a water cartridge is permitted. Finally, as before, I have framed a special rule relating to the haulage road. There have been, of late, serious and terrible explosions in haulage roads, in mines, which seem to show that light dust not only aggravates explosions, but is itself capable of producing an extensive explosion. That was the case at Elmore, and at Alltofts the explosion was apparently due to dust alone. It is provided, therefore, that in haulage roads, not only shall the conditions as to watering be observed, but that workmen shall be removed from the seam in which the shot is to be fired, and from all seams communicating with the same shafts in the same level. I submit these rules with diffidence and deference to the Committee. All I can say is, I have done my best, on the one hand to insure the safety of the miners, and on the other not to injure the mining industry. I shall be quite ready to accept any Amendment to my Amendment which the Committee may think reasonable.

Amendment proposed, In pages 30 and 31, leave out from (f) to (l) both inclusive, and insert— (f.) In any place in which the use of a locked safety lamp is for the time being required by or in pursuance of this Act, or which is dry and dusty, no shot shall be fired except by or under the direction of a competent person appointed by the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, and such person shall not fire the shot, or allow it to be fired, until he has examined both the place itself where the shot is to be fired and all contiguous accessible places of the same seam within a radius of twenty yards, and has found such place safe for firing; (g.) If in any mine, at either of the four inspections under rule 4 recorded last before a shot is to be fired, inflammable gas has been reported to be present in the ventilating district in which the shot is to be fired, the shot shall not be fired unless a competent person, appointed as aforesaid, has examined the place where gas has been so reported to be present, and has found that such gas has been cleared away, and that there is not at or near such place sufficient gas issuing or accumulated to render it unsafe to fire the shot, or unless the explosive employed in firing the shot is used with water or other contrivance, so as to prevent it from inflaming gas, or is of such a nature that it cannot inflame gas; (h.) If the place where a shot is to be fired is dry and dusty, then the shot shall not be fired unless one of the following conditions is observed—that is to say, (1) unless the place of firing and all contiguous accessible places within a radius of twenty yards therefrom are at the time of firing in a wet state from thorough watering, or other treatment equivalent to watering, in all parts where dust is lodged, whether roof, floor, or sides; or (2) in the case of places in which watering would injure the roof or floor, unless the explosive is used with water, or other contrivance, so as to prevent it from inflaming gas or dust, or is of such a nature that it cannot inflame gas or dust; (i.) If such dry and dusty place is part of a main haulage road, or is a place contiguous thereto, and showing dust adhering to the roof and sides, no shot shall be fired there unless both the conditions mentioned in sub-head (h) have been observed, or unless such one of the conditions mentioned in sub-head (h) as may be applicable to the particular place has been observed, and moreover all workmen have been removed from the seam in which the shot is to be fired, and from all seams communicating with the shaft on the same level, except the men engaged in firing the shot, and such other persons not exceeding ten as are necessarily employed in attending to the ventilating furnaces, steam boilers, engines, machinery, winding apparatus, signals, or horses, or in inspecting the mine; (k.) In this rule 'ventilating district' means such part of a seam as has an independent intake commencing from a main intake air course, and an independent return air way terminating at a main return air course; and 'main haulage roads' means a road which has been, or for the time being is, in use for moving trams by steam or other mechanical power; (l.) Where a seam of a mine is not divided into separate ventilating districts, the provisions of sub-head (g.) shall be read as though the word 'seam' were substituted for the words 'ventilating district;' (m.) So much of this rule as requires the explosive substance taken into the mine to be in cartridges, and the provisions (g.), (h.), (i.), (k.), and (l.) shall not apply to mines of clay or stratified ironstone in the has formation, which do not give off or contain inflammable gas."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'In any place in a mine' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

We have now reached the most important and probably the most difficult part of the Bill. It is but justice to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) to admit, as I frankly do, that he has given the utmost consideration to this very complicated and difficult question. I consider the Amendment now before the Committee is a great improvement on the clause as it was originally drawn. The substitution of "place" for "district" or "mine" is a very considerable improvement, but there is not yet a definition of the phrase "dry and dusty," and probably it will be very difficult to find one. It will be seen that the manager of a mine is to decide what is a "dry and dusty" place. Now, if this decision is left entirely with the manager I submit that, considering that he will be placing his mine under much severer restrictions than would otherwise be the case, he will be under a great temptation to run extra risk rather than submit to such restrictions. Where there is individual ownership and responsibility coming directly home to a particular man, that man will naturally take special pains to run as little risk as possible; but in the case of Limited Liability Companies, though the directions may not be very plainly given to that effect, it is implied that the managers should work the mine with as little cost as possible. I think it is very desirable that we should have some more strict definition than we have in the clause as it stands. I think it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department could have seen his way to laying down a general principle in regard to shot tiring. He might have laid down general principles which would have been much more effective in the direction of safety than the complicated provisions which we have now before us. How- ever, I do not at all complain; but in view of the difficulties of the question, I recognize, as I think I have done already, very thankfully that the Home Secretary has shown every disposition to deal with the question as effectively and broadly as possible in the direction of safety, and in the direction of making a practicable Bill. I have an Amendment to submit, and it is one which may appeal to the Home Secretary's mind. It is to the effect that no shot shall, be fired until the agent or manager has examined both the place itself where the shot is to be fired and all the contiguous accessible places of the same seam within a radius of 20 yards into which a safety lamp or indicator capable of detecting 1 per cent of gas is inserted. It is exactly in inaccessible places that the danger lies; and the right hon. Gentleman has already pointed out, in the statement he has made to the Committee, that in some places explosions have occurred where there was no evidence at all of the presence of gas, and where there was reason to believe that the explosion was due almost entirely to the presence of a large quantity of coal dust. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the ordinary method of examination with a safety lamp will only show 2 per cent of gas—it will not show less than 2 per cent of gas; and it has been already demonstrated by experiments that 2 per cent of gas mixed with coal dust may afford conditions sufficient to bring about a very serious explosion indeed. Now, there are indicators which are capable of detecting a much smaller amount than 2 per cent—even less than 1 per cent, I believe, can be shown—and I think it exceedingly desirable that it should be detected in as small quantities as possible. Perhaps this might be made prospective. I do not know that things are quite ripe for its application at once; but I do think that, as soon as possible, we ought to have the best scientific instruments which it is possible to secure in order to detect the smallest amount possible of gas.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment the hon. Member proposes cannot be moved at present until the first Amendment is carried to leave out certain words. The Question I have to put now is that the words "in any place in a mine," stand part of the clause.

Question, "That the words 'in any place in a mine,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words omitted.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed, In line 8 of the proposed Amendment, after the words "twenty yards," insert the words "into which a safety lamp or indicator capable of detecting so small a portion as one per cent of gas can be there inserted."—(Mr. Burt.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

I cannot refrain from expressing satisfaction at the original clause having been replaced by this clause on the Paper. Feeling strongly, as I do, the importance of providing for the safety of miners, it did seem to me that the subsection of the original clause would have worked the greatest inconvenience and hardship throughout the whole of the country. But, whilst fully admitting that I am at a loss to understand—I do not know whether it is competent for me, in discussing this particular Amendment, to deal with the whole clause, or whether I am bound to confine myself to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Amendment.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

Then, in confining myself to that, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, re-introducing a very grave element into the clause. I have already ventured to bring before the Committee the subject of a scientific instrument that detects a very small quantity of gas in a mine, and I believe that in process of a very short time those instruments will be found to be very much more simple and very much more readily available for purposes of detecting gas than they are at the present time, and that they will be brought into common use. But at the present time it would be undesirable to make it compulsory to adopt it. We are endeavouring, so far as I can understand the position of affairs—and I hope it will be made known as publicly as possible—to bring about a compromise. This clause is in the nature of a temporary compromise. It is quite clear, from what the Commissioners have told us, that it is possible before long that we may be able to adopt an explosive which will be absolutely safe; but at this stage, very naturally, a great industry cannot accept a revolution by a stroke of the pen, or by a clause in an Act of Parliament; and I cannot help thinking that it would be desirable that two or three years should be allowed to elapse until this now explosive, which we are told is absolutely safe, can be made applicable. Do not let us spoil this compromise by inserting a clause which would make it almost impracticable. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) is adopted, it is clear that before any shot can be fired some instrument must be used which will detect 1 per cent of gas. It is equally clear that no safety lamp detects anything under 2½ per cent of gas; therefore, we make it obligatory on the master of any colliery in the Kingdom before a shot is fired to use an instrument. I think that, for the time being, we must be content with the cap of the safety lamp. To that extent the Government will adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think it necessary, before a shot is fired anywhere in a mine where safety lamps are used, that the place should not only be generally examined, but that some moans should be adopted to ascertain whether there is anything approaching an explosive mixture of air and gas and coal dust within the 20 yards. I hope that in this particular clause the Government will accept, with some modifications, the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. YEO (Glamorgan, Gower)

It seems tome a mistake to assert that 1 per cent of gas in a mine could be detected by an indicator. We have no reliable indicator at our disposal other than the safety lamp. Some reference has been made to the Liveling indicator; well, we have tried that at some of our collieries, but have received very bad reports of it from our general manager. It is a mistake to place upon a colliery manager a duty which he is unable to discharge—that is to say, the duty of employing an indicator which shall show 1 per cent of gas. I would defy the hon. Member who makes the proposal to do it himself.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN (Swansea, District)

I think that, for all practical purposes, the safety of a mine would be secured by the words which are proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It will provide that the place where the shot is fired is rendered perfectly secure before the firing. I think the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman will be found in practice to be completely sufficient, because they provide that the place shall be safe for firing. Without going into niceties as to how much per cent of gas is present, the clause provides that the place shall be safe for firing. If those words are accepted, I think they will be sufficient to assure the safety of the mine under all circumstances. I must say I think it will be a very onerous position to place the owner or manager of a mine in, to require that the particular test of 1 per cent shall be imposed on him by a statutory enactment. To place him under such a condition will be a very serious matter indeed. I think it is quite right to place him under a statutory obligation to see that every place shall be safe for firing; but to say that the place shall not contain more than 1 per cent of gas, when it is evident that the test by which you would determine whether 1 per cent of gas was present is still a most difficult and most uncertain test, would be to place the manager or owner in a very onerous position. And I do hope that my hon. Friend, who is so very reasonable in all that he says, and in all that he does, in regard to this Bill, will not press this Amendment. It appears to me, and I have very great pleasure in saying it, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has met the requirements of the various interests—those of owners of mines, and also of those who work in the mines—in a very admirable spirit. I took an active part in the discussion on the first Coal Mines Regulation Bill which was ever introduced into this Souse in 1861; I took an interest in the subject subsequently in 1862; and I am bound to say that I have never known any Home Secretary—even carrying my mind back to Sir George Cornewall Lewis—who has endeavoured more earnestly to fulfil his very onerous duties of providing for the safety of the men in the mines of the country than the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary. I cannot but tender to him my grateful thanks for the earnest manner in which he has devoted his attention to this most difficult clause. I am bound to say I entirely approve of the mode in which he has met the other difficulties which he has had to encounter, and I think it must be a very great satisfaction to him to know that he has met both the requirements of the master and the man. I have received testimony from both men and masters in the great district of Glamorgan to the effect that they are perfectly satisfied with the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Not very long ago a large number of working miners came up here; and it happened accidentally that I went into the room where a large number of them were present without any of them being aware that I was going. One and all of them said to me, on referring to this clause as it then stood—"It will be a very dark day for South Wales when that clause is carried." They feared, and I believe rightly, that it would have exercised a very serious influence on our mining industry in South Wales. But they are now absolutely and entirely satisfied with the clause as it stands, and I do trust that it will be carried.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I have listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea District (Sir Hussey Vivian), and I wish to re-echo his words, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), as to the great pains the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has taken with regard to this clause. A more difficult and complicated subject a man could hardly turn his attention to, because these clauses are not clauses to fit a particular mine, but to affect the whole mining interest generally in the Kingdom. I believe that if we begin to deal with these clauses in the way of minute criticism, and if we begin to advocate the views which different districts take upon the matter, we shall never get through this Bill during the present Session. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me will agree; but I would beg them not to move their Amendments on the Paper with regard to these clauses. Let us take them en bloc, and if we find in the course of the working of them that they require amendment, when we come together again there will be no difficulty in bringing in a Supplementary Bill for the pur- pose of amendment. But if we start criticizing line by line these difficult questions, I am sure we shall not only consume the whole night in the work, but we shall consume more time than Her Majesty's Government can possibly afford during the present Session. As to the Amendment now moved, I believe I am right in saying that no safety lamp could indicate the presence of so small a quantity as 1 per cent of gas, and therefore the hon. Member drives us back to the indicator. With regard to the indicator, the Royal Commission has told us that there is not one you can rely upon without running extra risk of danger. An indicator is a thing which may indicate very accurately in the right hands, but which may indicate very wrongly if put in other hands.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I am sure no words from me are needed in confirmation of the statement of other hon. Members as to the efficient and practical manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has discharged the difficult task he has had to perform. I should like to know exactly what is meant by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), because it would give me very great pain indeed to have to go into a different Lobby to him upon this question. I should be sorry to differ from him on such a matter of importance. Sub-section 4 of Rule 4 says that the inspection shall be made with a locked safety lamp. The first part of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is met in that Rule; but what is the point? We want to know whether, by an indicator, you would be able to find 1 per cent, or any percent, less than that which you would discover by a safety lamp? If you could find even a less percentage than that, you would then prevent a shot being fired—is it that you want to do that, or that you simply want to have a knowledge of the amount of gas in the mine when the shot was tired? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain what he means by the Amendment, and then probably it will not be necessary that we should divide. I fully explained the matter as to the specification question put to me by my hon. Friend as to whether this would prevent a shot being fired. I say "No;" but it is as well that you should be aware that you have gas in a mine if there is gas in it. You cannot indicate less than 2 per cent with a safety lamp, scarcely less than 2½ per cent; but if there is 1 per cent of gas in a mine, it is as well that you should know that it is there. If the colliery managers are quite prepared to accept the risk of firing shots with 1 per cent of gas in a mine, let them do it. I should not alter the clause, but should leave it to their discretion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 142: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 386.) [11.25 P.M.]

Amendment amended, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

I feel bound to call the attention of the Committee to the Amendment standing in my name—namely, to leave out the words "in the case of places in which watering would injure the roof or floor." I think it is only fair to those who desire to use the high explosives in preference to the use of gunpowder with watering. As I understand, if these explosives are used carefully they are practically as safe as if you use gunpowder after watering. I cannot help thinking that the water cartridge is a product highly satisfactory, and I think those who want to use high explosives should not be put to the positive proof that watering would injure the mine; I think they should be allowed to decide for themselves the course which they should adopt in mining. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, line 26, leave out the words "in the case of places in which watering would injure the roof or floor."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

MR. MATTHEWS

The primary object of these sub-heads is that if you are firing a shot you must water 20 yards round. Even when there is the usual percentage of gas with dust it is likely to cause an explosion; and is it not the obvious course to take to say where you have the dust you must lay it with water? And then comes these gentlemen who are represented by my hon. and learned Friend, and they say—"If you compel us to water we shall injure our mines." I say you need not water; but, if not, you must use the high explosive with water other contrivance so as to prevent it from inflaming gas or dust. Certainly the use of a high explosive may be made perfectly safe; but in the hands of a rough workman who would not be absolutely bound down there may be sparks in one case out of 50, and therefore I say it is a concession to say that if watering injures your mine you may use the higher explosives if you use them in a particular way. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment. I think that when people can, without spoiling their mine, water in a dusty place, they should water, and it is especially the more necessary after we have discarded the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who suggested the use of a smaller indicator than the safety lamp, as it was shown that two per cent of gas, plus dust, is a condition of danger.

MR. COGHILL (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I wish to remove a misapprehension that appears to exist in regard to the water cartridge and other compounds of a gelatinous nature. In regard to this question the certificated colliery managers of North Staffordshire say— Blasting by means of ordinary powder has been given up as quite unsafe in some of the mines in this district for years, but since the introduction of the gelatinous compounds and the water cartridge with electric firing apparatus, we have been employing the system for nearly two years, and at this moment its adoption is daily increasing, and not one single case of accident has occurred while some 200,000 shots have been fired. In the question of the cost the new system compares favourably with the use of powder and old fashioned fuse, and on the average the expense is no greater, while the coal is got in an equally good if not better condition; but above all is the sense of security experienced by the men and managers, owing to the killing of the flame on the explosion of every shot. We consider that the clauses on shot firing in the Bill, as drawn, are wisely drawn, and with some slight modifications should stand. We, in North Staffordshire, prefer the Bill as it was drawn originally to the Amendments now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The following is the testimony of the partner of the former Member for North Staffordshire—Mr. Cooper—who says— We have been firing between 40 and 50 shots per day during the last 12 months, and in no single instance has any spark or flame ever been detected. In seams similar to the ones we are working, which are both hard to get and very fiery, and where it would be highly dangerous to use any of the ordinary explosives for blasting, it is a boon for which colliery proprietors cannot be too grateful. It is everything that is claimed for it—namely, a safety cartridge; and I shall always be pleased to bear my testimony as to its efficiency, both for safety and in getting the coal, to all I meet. I must say it seems to me hon. Gentlemen do not quite appreciate the value of this invention, and that they do all they can to depreciate it.

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

I have used high explosives with water cartridges for some months, and I cannot see any reason for watering; if there was any sense in it I should have done it in a moment; but it is a needless operation in the way of using water cartridges. I hope the words will be omitted.

MR. BURT

As I think the words are unnecessary I would support the hon. Member for Preston if he went to a Division, but I leave it to his own discretion to decide whether he would press it or not.

MR. TOMLINSON

I am not in the least convinced by what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that it is not a desirable alteration in the clause; but as I do not consider that I should receive that amount of support that would justify me in going to a Division I will not press the Amendment, but perhaps I may be allowed to reserve my right to bring the subject before the House upon Report if I should find it desirable to do so.

MR. MATTHEWS

I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) with some surprise support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Preston. Does he know it is an Amendment relaxing the stringency of the rules? If these words are struck out it would allow a shot to be fired with high explosives in a highly dusty place with no watering at all. If the really practical men of the Committee are agreeable I must confess that I would not stand in the way; but I must point out that the effect of the Amendment would be to allow a shot to be fired freely in a dusty place with a high explosive without any watering at all.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

I believe the experience of North Staffordshire justifies us in expressing to the full our objection to the series of Amendments put by the right hon. Gentleman, and we feel that it is very hard that where we cannot deal with our mines in the way prescribed that we should not be allowed the free use of the water cartridge and gelatinous substances. I myself have seen in the use of gelatinous substances that not a particle of spark was visible, whereas in explosions with gunpowder, with every precaution taken, there has been a stream of sparks and flame. I think it is unfortunate that we should not have had the opportunity of supporting the hon. and learned Member for Preston in this very sensible Amendment, but if it is the opinion of the Committee to accept these Amendments en bloc I hope it will be understood that they will be challenged on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON

The next Amendment I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is prepared to accept.

Amendment proposed, in line 28, after the word "is," to insert the word "so."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed, in same line, to leave out the word "so."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That that word be there left out," put, and agreed to.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

I feel it is desirable to bring before the Committee the Amendment standing in my name. The object of the Amendment is to prevent blasting with powder or similar explosives taking place in fiery mines when the full number of workmen are in the mine. The Report of the Royal Commission amongst other things showed that gunpowder was more dangerous than some other explosives, and that there were certain high explosives which, whether used in the form of water cartridges or in conjunction with porus tamping soaked with water were practically safe—that is, that they gave you a mechanical security over and above that derived from personal inspection. I may mention with regard to personal inspection of mines; I put aside the possibility of carelessness through defective watering, etc., and assume that the inspection is really carefully done; but as was represented by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), a short time ago, the greatest danger comes from the inaccessible places. Upon this subject I will read to the Committee an extract from an able mining engineer. He says— All accessible places within 20 yards of a shot shall first be swept and then watered. The question arises, what is an accessible place? There is more danger to be apprehended from places which are inaccessible. If shots were only to be fired in narrow places a solution would be easy; but in long wall and pillar workings there are so many nooks and corners the most careful man could not investigate all of them. Our arrangement at present is, before firing any shot in a long wall or other than a narrow place to take an extincteur, and play upon the roof and sides, and into all the crevices for about 20 yards from the shot. In this way we consider we lay the dust effectively, and, at the same time, avoid the danger of charging the atmosphere with fine particles which sweeping must always do. Thus there is still a danger that, however carefully the inspection is made, you may fail to discover the gas that exists, and that was the cause of an explosion which took place in Lancashire on May 26th last. What I would urge upon the Committee is this—When you have an explosive which affords you no security over and above the security you get from personal inspection, and that personal inspection is liable to error of all kinds; then, in my opinion, you are bound either to use a mechanical security, or remove the bulk of the men from "fiery" mines before you fire the shot.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment (Mr. Secretary Matthews) to Clause 50, pages 30 and 31, line 42, Rule 12, after Sub-section (i.), insert the following sub-section:— In the case of a seam of a mine which, either by reason of the inflammable gas issuing, or by reason of the joint effect of gas and dust may be deemed a 'fiery mine,' a shot shall not be fired with gunpowder or blasting powder, or other explosive which, when used with water or other contrivance, is not prevented from inflaming gas, unless all workmen have been removed from the ventilating district in which such shot is to be fired, and the ventilating districts immediately contiguous thereto, except those necessarily employed as named in the foregoing Sub-section (i.).—(Colonel Blundell.)

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not know whether the attention of hon. Members opposite has been called to this, but this is putting back with a vengeance.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN

I can safely say, Sir, if this Amendment were adopted, it would produce a very serious effect indeed upon our mines in South Wales. I do not think it possible to exaggerate the mischief that would arise to our collieries. This matter has been very carefully considered indeed; I have heard the testimony of both masters and men upon it, and I am quite sure that if this Amendment were to become law a very large proportion of our most valuable mines would be absolutely stopped; they could not work, it would be impossible. There was consternation on the part of the men, and as I said a short time ago some of them used this expression which I will quote again, that if the gunpowder was prohibited it would be the blackest day for South Wales they had ever known. Now, it must not be supposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Ince Division of South West Lancashire that we are not fully sensible of the dangers that are run in mines; but we think by providing that in all places where shots are to be fired the most careful inspection shall be made to see that no gas to any dangerous amount remains, and that these places should have the dust removed from them, and then be well damped we are quite confident no danger would occur. There are large collieries in South Wales where this precaution has already been adopted for years, and in those mines where the dust has been removed and the places have been damped no explosions have ever occurred, and therefore why we should be precluded from using gunpowder under those conditions I fail to understand. The use of high explosives is not practicable in our mines; it shatters the coal too much, and we also run the risk of its shattering the roof. It is perfectly well known that by far the greater portion of fatal accidents in mines occur from the falls of the roof, and therefore if you shatter and shake the roof you run a very great risk of bringing on those serious accidents that occur from the falls of roof. We are perfectly confident that if the rule as provided by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department is adopted that the greatest amount of safety that can be obtained will be obtained, and I therefore trust the Committee will not entertain the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

MR. BARNES

I trust the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment. Time is running on, and we desire to finish the clause.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but I am glad that I had the opportunity of bringing it before the Committee, believing that time will effect a change of opinion upon the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is inadmissible.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I did not intend to move it, as I do not wish to give advice to the Committee that I do not follow myself; but I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that, if the advice I gave to the Committee had been taken half-an-hour ago by the right hon. Gentleman's Friends, they would have been much, further forward.

Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 31, Rule 13, line 44, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I beg to move to add, after Rule 16, the following:— There shall be at least two proper travelling ways into every engine room and boiler gallery in coal and other mines.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, line 12, after general rule 15, add—"There shall be at least two proper travelling ways into every engine room and boiler gallery in coal and other mines."—(Mr. Burt.)

MR. CONYBEARE

May I ask whether we are on the 2nd Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member did not move it.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I have had my attention called to cases in which very serious accidents have occurred owing to the want of these travelling ways, and I think it very desirable that the question should be considered.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have to put the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, line 12, after general rule 15, add the words "There shall be at least two proper travelling ways into every engine room and boiler gallery in coal and other mines.

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not see any objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member, except that they require some modification; otherwise, I think there should be two travelling ways.

MR. BURT

I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he is willing to accept the principle of my Amendment, which has emanated from some of the enginemen, many of whom attach great importance to it.

MR. BARNES

I should like to know exactly what it is the hon. Member (Mr. Burt) means by this Amendment. There may be an engine-room in which the work is done by compressed air. I suppose the hon. Gentleman only means where there is steam. I will therefore move that the word "steam" be inserted after the word "every" and before the words "engine-room," in the hon. Member's Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by inserting the word "steam" before the words "engine-room."

Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the words "and other" ought to be omitted.

MR. BARNES

I move that the words "and other" be omitted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by omitting the words "and other," before the word "mines."

Question, "That those words be there omitted," put, and agreed to.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

I have a very small Amendment, of a purely verbal character, to propose—namely, after the word "place," inline 13, page 32, to insert the words "of refuge."

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 13, after the word "place," insert the words "of refuge."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

There is an Amendment standing in my name which I think should come in here. I apprehend that the Bill now before the Committee has been framed for the purpose of minimizing the number of accidents and deaths that occur in mines, and my Amendment is intended to assist in securing that result.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I rise to Order. I do not know whether there has not been some misunderstanding with regard to a second Amendment of mine preceding that of the hon. Member for the Stepney Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Isaacson). I desire to move that Amendment. It is to insert, after the word "bottom," in Rule 19, line 22, the words "including the sump, if any."

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 22, after the word "bottom," insert the words "including the sump, if any."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON

I will now resume the observations I was making when the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) interposed, as he had a perfect right to do. I think the Committee will agree with me, and, I assume, with every hon. Member representing South Wales, that, taking into consideration the tremendous loss of life which occurred in the Risca Valley in the year 1881, my Amendment, had it been part of the law for the regulation of mines at that period, would have been the means of preventing that calamity, which resulted in the sacrifice of no fewer than 164 lives. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that there shall be three consecutive shifts in all mines—namely, two shifts of eight hours for the men who go down to fill the coal, and a further shift of eight hours for men to ventilate and clear the mines. Had such a provision been enacted in former days, as I have already stated, the serious disaster to which I have referred would not have happened.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is hardly speaking to the Amendment he has upon the Paper.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON

I have only adopted the line pursued by other hon. Members of prefacing my remarks by an illustration—a course which generally appears to be acceptable to the Committee. What I am desirous of bringing before the Committee is a pro- posal by which a number of specially skilled workmen should be told off for the purpose of ventilating each mine, there being two other shifts for working and filling the coal. This plan, I believe, has never been adopted in the mines of South Wales, although I am well aware that it has been carried out in the North. I am speaking in the presence of hon. Members who have an intimate acquaintance with mining operations, and I have no doubt they will agree with this very sensible and proper Amendment. I do not think that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be a perfect measure unless this provision is inserted. I trust, therefore, that it will moot with the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman and be carried without a Division. I beg to move, as an Amendment to Rule 22, the insertion, at the end of the Rule, of the following words—"That the safety of the working places shall be insured by specially skilled men told off for that purpose."

Amendment proposed, In page 32, Rule 22, line 32, at end, to add the words "that the safety of the working places shall be insured by specially skilled men told off for that purpose."—(Mr. Wootton Isaacson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I would point out to the hon. Member that in Rule 4 we agreed to the whole substance of his Amendment.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON

In that case I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I have a small verbal Amendment to propose—namely, in line 34 of page 32, to insert, after the word "workmen," the words "employed therein."

Amendment proposed, in page 32, Rule 22, line 34, after the word "workmen," insert the words "employed therein."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I have an Amendment to move which I have not had an oppor- tunity of putting upon the Paper. It is an addition to the Rule——

MR. TOMLINSON

Before the hon. Member proposes his Amendment I have one which takes precedence of it. It relates to a matter which has excited a good deal of discussion. It is after the word "provided," in Rule 22, line 34, to insert the words "at the working place, or, if that be not convenient, then at the gate-end, pass-bye, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen," and to leave out the words "in the mine at places convenient to the workmen."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment will be to leave out the words "in the mine at places convenient to the workmen," in order to insert the words "at the working place, or, if that be not convenient, then at the gate-end, pass-bye, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen."

Amendment proposed, In page 32, Rule 22, line 34, after the word "provided," to leave out the words "in the mine at places convenient to the workmen," and insert instead thereof the words "at the working place, or, if that be not convenient, then at the gate-end, pass-bye, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not know whether it would meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) or the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who has a similar Amendment, to take it in this shape—"at the working place, gate-end, pass-bye, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen." This would simply entail the striking out of the Amendment, from the position in which they stand, the words "or, if that be not convenient, then at the gate-end."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

I would point out that the term "pass-bye" is one that is not familiar to the miners of Scotland, and I would suggest that, in order to make it clear to them, the word "siding" should be inserted in substitution for the word "pass-bye."

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not see any objection to that.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

May I ask you, Sir, to read the Amendment again?

THE CHAIRMAN

I will read it in the amended form. It stands thus—Clause 50, page 32, line 34, after the word "provided," insert the words "at the working place, gate-end, pass-bye, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

Then, I will move the insertion of the word "siding" after the word "pass-bye."

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to point out that the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposes to insert instead of the words of the proposed Amendment would have the effect of weakening the provision considerably. Our object is to secure that the timber cut in proper lengths should, in the first instance, be put in the working place, and, if that be not convenient, then we are content to have it placed at the gate-end, or pass-bye; but we are desirous that, where it is convenient, the timber so cut shall be put in the working place.

THE CHAIRMAN

Do the Committee accept the Amendment in the amended form?

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

I give notice that on the Report stage of the Bill, I will move to reinsert the Amendment in its original form.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, that the word "siding" be inserted after the word "pass-bye."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, proposed, In page 32, line 34, after the word "provided," insert the words "at the working place, gate-end, pass-bye, siding, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen,"—(Mr. Matthews.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I would suggest that, after the word "mine," it would be better to have the words "most convenient."

MR. MATTHEWS

The gate-end would be convenient; and I do not think the addition would be required.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I should like to know whether it would be in Order to move the reinsertion of the original words now?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; it cannot be done now, because the word "siding" has been inserted subsequent to those words.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

I desire, then, to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is, after the words "holding props," in line 36, Rule 22, to add the words "where they are required."

Amendment proposed, in page 32, Rule 22, line 36, after the words "holding props," insert the words "where they are required."—(Mr. W. Abraham.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I desire now, Sir, to move an addition to Rule 23, if this be the proper time.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; the hon. Member may move his Amendment now.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Amendment I wish to move is, as I have been assured, one in regard to which a very considerable amount of interest is felt, especially among the miners in the North. It is to add to Rule 23 these words— Provided that where inflammable gas has been found in a mine no minor or other workman shall ascend or descend the upcast shaft unless the downcast shaft shall, by reason of accident, or otherwise, be unavailable. I am quite sure that those hon. Members who have any knowledge of the difference between the upcast and the downcast shafts, and who have any idea of what it is to be in the upcast shaft, will at once appreciate the reason for moving this Amendment. One might almost as well be up a chimney as be in an upcast shaft, and be detained there for any space of time, as many of these miners sometimes are. The workmen, consequently, desire to be secured in their right to ascend and descend by the downcast shaft, in which the air is fresh, and is not charged with all kinds of noxious gases, especially carbonic acid gas.

Amendment proposed, At end of rule 23, page 32, to add the words, "Provided that where inflammable gas has been found in a mine, no miner or other workman shall ascend or descend the upcast shaft, unless the downcast shaft shall, by reason of accident or otherwise be unavailable."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there added."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I do not think, as far as I am acquainted with the working of mines, that the workmen would be obliged to use the upcast shaft, and therefore I do not see the necessity for this Amendment.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

It is a very unusual thing for the workmen to be in the upcast shaft; but at the same time, as it is very undesirable that they should be compelled to use the upcast shaft I strongly support the Amendment, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will accept.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I must confess that I can hardly understand the necessity for this Amendment. Rule 23 gives the workmen the option of using the downcast shaft.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I desire to say a word in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend; and if there is any difficulty about accepting it, I hope the hon. Member will press it to a Division in order to test the opinion of the Committee upon it.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I would remind the Committee that a similar Amendment has been on the Paper for weeks in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. A. Thomas).

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

That is so. There is an exactly similar Amendment on page 31 of the Amendment Paper.

MR. BARNES (Chesterfield)

I think that if this Amendment is to be adopted, it should be made simply prospective, as applicable only to new collieries, and not to those now in existence. I may refer to a case of my own, where the downcast shaft runs to one seam, and the upcast shaft to another.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

I may be permitted to inform hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment that all shafts are not 16 feet in width, and that it is a very great inconvenience to the workmen to have to ascend or descend by the upcast shaft, when the furnace is burning underneath them. In case of any mishap to the machinery, which might cause the cage to be stopped in the shaft, and compel the man in it to hang over the smoke ascending from the furnace for any length of time would be exceedingly objectionable. In saying this, I am speaking from experience, and I must add that the miners have a very strong objection, either to ascend or descend by the upcast shaft when the furnace is lighted below, unless it be in case of some emergency, such as when an accident has taken place in connection with the downcast shaft. Seeing that the Amendment has now been on the Paper for a considerable time, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not offer any excuse for passing it over, but that he will be prepared to accept it.

MR. MATTHEWS

What I say with regard to this Amendment is, that it is totally unnecessary to forbid the use of the upcast shaft. As I have already stated, Rule 23 gives every workman the right to use the downcast shaft, and I cannot see why the men should be forbidden to use the upcast shaft. If a miner is willing to descend or ascend by the upcast shaft, why should he not do so? At any rate, the rule gives him the option. I cannot understand the necessity for all these minute regulations in an Act of Parliament, where a general right is conferred.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

It is all very well to say in this House that the men may assert their right; but will they always do so? We know that in a coal mine, as elsewhere, there are men of different nervous constitutions, and there are some of them who do not care to assert their rights against the danger of their not being needed for further service in a mine. There are hundreds and thousands of cases in which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must know from his acquaintance with Staffordshire—if his knowledge of the coal district there extends below the surface of the ground—the men dare not assert their rights. Therefore, I say it is all very well to say that the Bill gives the miner the right to claim to ascend or descend by the downcast shaft; but the miners know that it would often- times be a very unwise thing for them to assert many of the rights which this Bill is supposed to confer. What I propose by this Amendment is that the miners shall as a rule and as a right ascend and descend by the downcast shaft, in order that they may not be compelled to submit to the inconvenience and danger of ascending or descending by the upcast shaft. What I desire is to secure to the men all the reasonable right that can be secured by this Bill; and therefore an absolute provision of this kind is necessary, because the mere option conferred upon them by the Bill as it stands does not give them that security.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I desire to say a word in corroboration of the argument of my hon. Friend. Rule 23 merely gives the men the right to use the downcast shaft "on giving reasonable notice." The words are— Where there is a downcast and a furnace shaft at the same time, and both shafts are provided with apparatus in use for raising and lowering persons, every person employed in the mine shall, on, giving reasonable notice, have the option of using the downcast shaft. It is obvious that any person giving reasonable notice must go to the manager or agent for that purpose, and it appears to me that, under these circumstances, the men would be almost, if not entirely, in the hands of their employers with regard to the operation of this rule.

MR. BARNES

I think that if the hon. Member who has just spoken had anything to do with collieries, he would soon find that the men will not be dictated to on these matters. They will go down and come up the way they think the proper and correct way. The rule as it stands will give them every opportunity of going one way or the other, and that I think they ought to have; but I cannot see why they should not have the option which is here provided for. I would certainly urge that if the Amendment is to be adopted, it ought to be made prospective only.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

There are many things in collieries that cannot be regulated by Act of Parliament. They must be left to the men themselves, and also to their employers; and I am sure that no employer would ever insist on his men using the upcast shaft if it was not necessary. I think that if anything can be done with this Amendment, it should be done on the Report. Then, perhaps, hon. Members would know more about it. I do not think that hon. Members who are not colliery proprietors now understand the meaning of the Amendment. And I am fully convinced that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), at all events, does not understand the wording of the Amendment as regards colliery proprietors.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

This Amendment represents the unanimous desire of the colliers of the United Kingdom, expressed at one of their conferences. It is sent here by them, and it is their unanimous wish that it should be adopted.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I submit that the Amendment has not been read yet. The Amendment is that miners should not be permitted to ascend and descend the upcast shaft when the furnace is used.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is quite unaware what the Amendment is. The Amendment before the Committee is this. It is proposed to add to Rule 22 these words— Provided, that where inflammable gas has been found in a mine no miner or workman, shall ascend or descend the upcast shaft unless the downcast shaft, by reason of accident or otherwise, shall not he available.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I intend to support the Amendment, and I do so from the experience I have had. I think it very right and proper that the upcast shaft should not be used either for lowering men down or for their ascent. I do not think the other Amendment which, follows would apply, not only for the reasons that have already been given, but because it is necessary that the upcast shaft should be kept clear. It may be said that it should only be used for ventilating purposes. However, I do not go so far as that. It may be used to bring up mineral; but it should not be used to lower or bring up men. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. FENWICK

I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that he should withdraw the Amendment; and then I will move the Amend- ment which stands on page 31 of the Amendments in the name of the Member for East Glamorganshire (Mr. A. Thomas), as an addition to Rule 23.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

My great desire is to make this Bill, in the interest of the miners, as good as possible. I may not be conversant with the details of collieries; but I have endeavoured, to the best of my power, to master the subject, and if there are any shortcomings on my part I am very sorry for it. In deference to the opinion of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and of the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. W. Abraham), who agrees with him, I shall have no difficulty in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that it will then be competent to move, as an addition to the clause, the Amendment which stands on page 31, in the name of the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. A. Thomas).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 42, at the end of Rule 23, to insert the words—"Provided that miners shall not be permitted to descend or ascend the upcast shaft when a furnace is used, unless when, through accident, the downcast shaft is not available."—(Mr. Fenwick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MASON

I beg to move that the words "when a furnace is used" be omitted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "when a furnace is used."—(Mr. Mason.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. JOICEY (Chester-le-Street, Durham)

I quite admit that an upcast shaft should not be used for the ascent or descent of minors when a furnace is used. I know of no mine where miners use the upcast shaft, except some old mines where it is inconvenient to use the downcast shaft to put men down. However, that inconvenience is not great, as it merely involves a new engine being put down. I hope, however, that the Committee will not accept the Amendment as to the furuace.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I have no objection to the Amendment of it be made prospective, but it would be difficult to adjust it to existing collieries.

Amendment and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, That the words, 'Provided, that miners shall not be permitted to descend or ascend the upcast shaft when a furnace is used, unless when through accident the downcast shaft is not available,' be there inserted.

MR. TOMLINSON

I do not think there can be any wish on the part of any miners to throw the system of working collieries into confusion. If it is desired that arrangements should in future be made, whereby it can be possible for workmen to come up the downcast shaft, let that be provided for in the future. But, as to existing collieries, let men have the option of coming up or going down by the upcast or the downcast shaft If they do not object to coming up or going down the upcast shaft, why interfere?

MR. CONYBEARE

It is not a question of men not objecting. It is well known to those who are conversant with what happens under ground, that when men object they lose their places. ["No, no!"] Yes; I am speaking of what I know. In Stirlingshire you will find that there is a victimization of that sort. We do not have the same difficulties as to upcast and downcast shafts in Cornwall, but there is the same difficulty as to the pressure brought to bear on men by their employers; and I know, from the miners in Scotland, that men do require an emphatic protection of this kind to prevent their losing their places, if they refuse to go up the upcast shaft at the bidding of their employers.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

There are two objections to this Amendment. I think it is objectionable to treat men as babies. The colliers of this country area superior class of men, and they would not submit, in the way some hon. Members suppose, to anything like imposition. I think, therefore, that a clause giving the men the option of using or refusing to use the upcast shaft would be quite sufficient. But then there is another point. If the rule is made rigid, and you say that no men shall be brought up or go down the upcast shaft, many thousands of men would be thrown out of work. That, I am sure, the Committee do not desire.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 122: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 387.) [12.40 P.M.]

Amendment proposed, in page 32, Rule 24, line 43, after the word "mine," to insert the words "not provided with a travelling outlet or drift."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

The hon. Member can hardly expect us to assent to this Amendment without an explanation of its drift.

MR. TOMLINSON

Rule 24 provides that— In any mine which is usually ėntered by means of machinery, a competent male person, not less than 18 years of age, shall be appointed for the purpose of working the machinery which is employed in lowering or raising persons therein, and shall attend for that purpose during the whole time that any person is below ground in the mine. Now, there are certain mines which have one shaft and a drift, and it is customary for men to descend by the shaft and come out by the drift. In that case, the proposed rule will not be necessary.

MR. MATTHEWS

In that case the rule will not apply. If there be a drift by which men can walk up and down, there need be no machinery to lower them or to draw them up.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

then proposed in page 32, line 44, to leave out "a competent male person," and to insert "two competent male persons of." The hon. Member said: This Amendment is also one to which the workmen attach great importance. It is intended to secure that those who have charge of machinery should not be unqualified boys of no experience, or of an experience merely nominal. It is only right that a man who is put in charge of an engine should have some experience of boilers beforehand, and if you have a person in charge of an engine of only 18 years of age, the chances are that he is not qualified, as he may reasonably be expected to be qualified, to take charge of the working of machinery which it is important should be entrusted to competent hands. To leave machinery on which lives depend in the charge of a person only 18 years of age is not to take reasonable security against accident. And if you have not only people of 18, but only one of them at a time in charge of an engine, you may run considerable risk. I therefore propose that instead of one male person of 18 years of age being in charge of an engine there shall be at least two persons whose competence is established, and who shall be of an age to have a competent acquaintance with machinery. I beg leave, therefore, now to move the Amendment which I have already submitted to the Committee with a view to moving later on a further Amendment as to the age of the persons in charge of machinery.

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 44, to leave out the words "a competent male person," and insert the words, "two competent male persons."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'a competent male person' stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I cannot think the Secretary of State will allow an Amendment of this importance to pass by without a word of comment. This Amendment is recommended to us by the workmen who have discussed the question. I would call the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that one of the worst accidents we have recently had was caused by the absence of the precautions which it is the object of this Amendment to provide. Ten persons were coming up a shaft, and only one person was in charge of the engine. That person was struck on the head and was thus rendered unable to attend to the engine, and the consequence was that all the men who were coming up the shaft were either injured or killed. When we have regard to such a calamity as this, which spread sorrow and horror through the country, I put it to the Committee whether we should not take steps to prevent the recurrence of such a calamity. The hon. Members who represent the colliers are strongly in favour of it, and would have risen to say so, if they had not expected from the Home Secretary some observations in opposition to, or in support of the Amendment.

MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

I hope that the home Secretary will accept the Amendment, for when we have large bodies of men going down deep mines and have such powerful engines as those which are in use at the present day, it is absolutely necessary in order to prevent any accident that these engines should be in charge of more than one person.

MR. BROOKE ROBINSON (Dudley)

This is an instance of what I have before mentioned, of the extreme difficulty of drawing hard-and-fast lines. The hon. Member refers to large mines and powerful engines; but does he seriously propose that with a little bit of a colliery, with not a dozen men in the mine, it shall be incumbent to have two men in the engine-house?

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

One word in support of the Amendment. This Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has the support of the leading journals connected with labour, in the country, and I have in my hand an extract from one of these journals, referring to this important Amendment. Now, that is one, and I think not an unimportant piece of evidence in support of this Amendment; but another is this. I do not think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment brought forward in its favour one argument which I believe to be most important and cogent. That is that if you have only one man in charge of machinery, an accident may happen to that one man, and then the most serious or even fatal consequences may ensue. I am now speaking of a matter that I know about. There was a case some little time ago where one man had charge of a winding-up engine and he fell down in a fit. There was no one to attend to him, or to the engine, and the consequence was that the engine was over-wound, and that a serious accident occurred. When the lives of men are at stake from accidents, the possible or probable occurrence of which no one can foresee, it is imperative that provision should as far as possible be made against such accidents.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposes. In a small mine, however, it appears to me to be unnecessary to have two men in the engine room, but where you have large engines of many horse power it is probably necessary to have more than one to attend them. As to the second Amendment, it appears to me that it would be better if it provided for one man of experience and another one learning the work instead of "two competent male persons." I think, however, there is something in what the hon. Member proposes, and if he would alter his Amendment so as to make it read that engines of a certain power should have two persons to attend to them, and smaller engines only one person, I should agree to it.

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

I must express my surprise at what has been said on this matter. One engine is quite enough for a large mine, and one man is quite competent to attend to it. It is absolutely unnecessary to have two.

MR. CONYBEARE

Suppose there is an accident in a mine and that one man is hurt.

MR. BARNES

Well, if such a thing should happen, the second man would not be able to take his place. The thing would be over in an instant. An accident would happen before the second man could prevent it.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I have had 40 years' experience of coal mines, and from that experience I can say that if you want to prevent accidents of any kind in connection with machinery, take the precaution of only employing your men for a short time. I never allow my engine-men to work for more than eight hours. I have 1,500 men constantly employed, and I never recollect having had an accident in the engine house. Two men cannot possibly work an engine—two men could not be in reach of the machines at the same time.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

Undoubtedly an engine-man handling an engine at one of our mines requires to have his attention constantly fixed upon his work. If there were two men in an engine house, depend upon it the attention of neither of them would be constantly fixed upon his work—the presence of a companion would have a tendency to distract the attention of the man really in charge of the engine from his work. If you have two men in an engine house, instead of decreasing the risk of accident you will be largely in- creasing it. At present there are at our I collieries very strict rules preventing any man but the engine-man going into the engine room. The one man sees the cages come up and go down, he fixes his attention, closely upon the engine and the cage, he is alive to his great responsibility, and everything that would tend in any way to draw his attention from these matters will increase the risk of serious accident.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

It is not intended by this Amendment that there should be two men minding the engine. As I understand it, the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment is to provide that there shall be two men in the engine house, so that if an accident happens, and the engine-man is disabled, there shall be a second person present who will be afforded an opportunity of taking the handles and managing the cage. In the event of an accident happening to the ordinary brakesman you will have a second one at hand. What is done in the North of England is this: during the time the colliers are ascending or descending the shaft, the man who manages the boiler attends in the engine house in addition to the brakesman. He is not supposed to take any part in the winding or in the management of the engine while everything is going on right. The brakesman is there, and has complete charge of the engine, but the boiler man or stoker is there as a substitute in case an accident occurs. I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Donegal is well worthy of consideration, and that it is necessary to have two competent engine drivers in every engine room. In some places where there are not a large number of men employed, and there is not a large amount of work to do, one man might be sufficient, and in other cases I would not say that both need be over 21 or 22 years of age, but I do say that in a large mine whilst the men are ascending and descending there should be a second person present capable of taking the management of the engine for a few moments in the event of any accident occurring to the brakesman. If anything unusual happens to the recognized brakesman a second person should have an opportunity if possible of taking hold of the handles and stopping the engine. It is with that view that I understand the Amendment is proposed, and I have no doubt the hon. Member who has brought it forward is quite prepared to accept some modification of it provided the general principle is secured.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

It appears to me that the object of this rule is misunderstood. It is not a rule intended to prescribe how the men shall work, but to provide that there shall be someone in the engine room, capable of rendering service—that the men shall not be left at the bottom of the pit without having someone at hand to draw up the cage. The rule does not propose to tie down managers to hard-and-fast lines. Something must be left to the discretion of managers. I must protest against the whole tenor of the observations of some of the hon. Members opposite. They seem to think that it is the only object and desire of the owners of coal mines to wreck their collieries, and to bring ruin and disaster upon themselves and those they employ.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I must say that it is with a feeling closely akin to despair that we in this quarter of the House find that whatever Amendment we bring forward is opposed by the same set of men, and that the Government does not attempt to contribute anything towards the discussion, and is content to vote without weighing our statements—at any rate, without laying before us their appreciation of the arguments which have been used on one side and the other. Let me say that, in moving this Amendment, my only desire is to take precautions to secure the safety of the lives of the men ascending and descending the shafts of our coal mines, so far as such security can be reasonably effected. I am perfectly prepared to accept Amendments or suggestions brought forward by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches opposite. I doubt very much whether many hon. Members of this House really apprehend the manifold duties which these men in charge of the machinery have to discharge. I will ask indulgence while, in a few words, I state one or two facts concerning these duties. There are special rules laid down defining the work of the engine-man; and these are amongst the things which he has to do in a good pit. The engine-man at the pit head during the hours of his shift has to remain continually in charge of, or near his engine, so as to have it constantly under control; he must take care that his engine is in good condition; he I must take care that the pumps and all parts of the machinery are in perfect order; he must see that every fly-wheel and every dangerous part of the engine is protected; he has to superintend, the work of the furnace-man, in order to see that steam is properly kept up; he has to be perfeetly acquainted, with and attend to the signals for the raising or lowering of men or materials; he has to give an eye to the cages, and to see that they are in proper condition; he is prohibited from allowing any person to have anything to do with the engine in any way whilst it is being worked; and there is half-a-page of the rules devoted to his duties in connection with signalling. This will give some notion of the very great responsibilities thrown upon the man in charge of the engine. Well, all I ask is that this man shall not be loft absolutely alone, especially in cases where there are a very large number of persons employed in the pit. I think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite is a very reasonable one. There is no reason why a boy or an apprentice between the ages of 18 and. 20 should not be employed with the regular brakesman. I should be willing to accept au Amendment in the sense of the observations of the hon. Member; but I must submit that I move this Amendment in the interests of the safety of the colliers, and that I attach great importance to the proposal.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN (Swansea, District)

I think it must be within the experience of every practical man that a divided responsibility is about as bad a thing as you could possibly have. The hon. Gentleman says that all the opposition to the proposals which are made from that quarter of the House—especially, I presume, those which he makes himself—comes from a certain number of Members in this House.

An hon. MEMBER

Not on this side.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN

I did not say that the hon. Member declared that the opposition came from a certain section on this side. The proposals of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment are philosophical and theoretical, rather than practical; and I think those who know anything about mines will agree with me that very little importance is to be attached to any of the Amendments which have proceeded from him. I must say that I think it would be a very undesirable thing that a boy of 18 should be appointed to divide responsibility with an experienced engine-man, who is charged with the very delicate and difficult operation of lowering men down and winding men up the shafts of a coal mine. What we want is to prevent the attention of the engine-men being called off from the special duties they have to perform; and we think it is of the utmost importance that no one should be in the engine room to divert his attention from his work. If you give the engine-man a boy of 18 to be alongside of him, and to be perpetually about the engine room, it might be a very undesirable thing. The various duties that the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has quoted from the special rules are duties that necessarily devolve on the engine-man, and cannot be deputed. Those duties confided to a boy of 18 years of age would, in my opinion, cause very great danger, and lead to more accidents than presently are likely to occur from the very exceptional case of some accident occurring precisely at the time he is winding up.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I am sorry to hear these words from the lips of the hon. Baronet. As to divided responsibility, we advocate nothing of the kind. The second man is not asked to be there only during the time that the men are ascending or descending the shaft; and I must say again that in this case we are only asking the few employers to adopt that which a number of the best employers do already. At large collieries the hon. Baronet must be aware that there are 18 men ascending and descending the shaft at a time. Then, considering that you have 18 lives to be risked to the hands of one man, who may be struck down accidentally, as in the case already cited, I think we are not asking too much. The largest collieries in my district are adopting this provision also; and I do not think, when you consider the number of lives that these men have in their care, that we are asking anything but what is reasonable. We do not ask for boys of 18. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal is that competent male persons should be appointed. As far as the age of 18 goes, he proposes, by his next Amendment, that 18 should be left out, in order to insert 22. Therefore the argument as to boys of 18 does not affect this matter at all. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will see his way clear to work out the Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I hope the Committee will allow me to recall their recollection to certain passages in the Report of the Royal Commission upon Accidents in Mines, in dealing with this subject. No one can doubt that this Report does point out dangers, and is fully alive to the risk of the miner's occupation; but when they come to deal with the question of the risk of movement through shafts, their language is of a totally different character. They use these words— There is, perhaps, in the whole range of engineering nothing more remarkable than the small number of accidents which attend the lowering and raising of some 420,000 persons every day through shafts. And then in the next sentence they say that in one colliery in Wales nearly 6,000,000 persons have gone down and been brought up in the course of 20 years without one single accident. With that result of a careful inquiry of a Royal Commission before us, we must, I think, while fully sympathizing with the desire of those who labour in these collieries, to deal with the risk and danger, at least admit——

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Had not they two men at that colliery?

MR. F. S. POWELL

I will come to that in a moment. When, I say, we find that is the result of careful inquiry by a Royal Commission, we must feel that, as regards the risk of raising and lowering through shafts, the way in which the process is conducted is consistent with safety. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal, who interrupted me just now, says that in a particular case to which I alluded in quoting from the Report of the Royal Commission, there were two men employed. But the argument is still the same. Those who conduct these mines use efficient arrangements, and the business is conducted so far in a perfectly safe manner; and that really brings about the point I was about to mention—namely, that the colliery managers may be left to conduct their business in this particular, according to the rules suggested by their experience. And I must be allowed once more to say, as I have said before, that there is a desire on the part of the owners of these collieries to conduct their business in such a manner as to make safe the lives of their workmen.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

If the point of hon. Gentlemen be that the appointment of two enginemen to every colliery would add to the safety of human life, I should certainly respond to it, but that I feel certain there is nothing of the kind required. The figures read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) prove how seldom accidents occur in mines in this way. Overhauling is now completely guarded against by a very plain and simple mechanical apparatus, which I have seen over and over again tried. If, therefore, in the case of the accident to which allusion has been made there had been a dozen enginemen in the room, I do not believe there would have been the least chance of their preventing the accident. I believe, with my hon. Friend behind me, that although you had two persons—a boy and an older person—in the engine room, the younger person would have to do all the work possible, while the other would look on, because it is human nature, when a boy is employed, to make him do the work. Thus the young man would have to do the work, while the comparatively older man would be looking on. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorgan (Mr. W. Abraham) said the two men were only wanted during the time the colliers were being raised and lowered; but that really meant that they would have to be engaged during the whole time persons were below, and that was the time when the inspection began in the morning until the time the men left the pit at night. If two enginemen were required where 500 men went down, they would be required for collieries where 100, 70, and 50 men went down; indeed, the Amendment would embrace collieries of all descriptions, in order to avoid a comparatively imaginary danger. All I will say is this. We are accustomed to risk our lives; 18 or 20 people together in various public conveyances, where there is only one man in charge; and I should not have the slightest hesitation in going into any colliery cage in the County of Durham, and being lowered with one man in the engine room, and in the same circumstances being brought back to the bank. I would far rather there was one man to look after this work than two.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I think, Mr. Courtney, the Government might assist in bringing this debate to a close if they would got up and state the course they intend to take in regard to this Amendment. I should like to say that there is a very great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, and especially as it is proposed to be amended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North. Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn). With regard to the distraction of attention mentioned by the hon. Gentleman behind me, exactly the same argument might be applied to the case of the stoker and driver of a railway locomotive. I am sure there is no hon. Gentleman in this House would care to ride in a railway train at the rate of 50 miles an hour, unless he knew there was the stoker to take the place of the driver in case of accident or sudden illness.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

With reference to the illustration of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), the stoker does not discharge the duties of an engine driver on a railway locomotive.

MR. BROADHURST

In the case of accident.

MR. MATTHEWS

But the Amendment says there shall be two competent men in the engine room, whose sole business would be to attend to the engine. At any rate, that is the Amendment as I gather it from the Paper. And I assure the Committee that it was only because I have been speaking too often this evening, and not out of disrespect for the Amendment, or the subject, with which it deals, that I have not risen sooner. It seems to me however, that the subject has been more than sufficiently discussed by hon. Gentleman of all shades of opinion. I shall vote against the Amendment if it is pressed. It seems to me the condition it imposes is not necessary in every mine in the country. We have engines in. steamships and locomotives on railways driven by one man for a number of hours together. Perhaps in some cases it might be safer to have two men; but in certain particular cases there was no doubt extra precautions would be taken. Why, you might have a spare footman and a spare coachman on the back of your coach if you were to carry this out to its logical conclusion.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have listened with some curiosity to see whether some colliery proprietor would not propose that the engine should work itself, and that there should be no engine man at all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) said we ought to leave all these matters of precaution to colliery proprietors and colliery managers.

MR. F. S. POWELL

No, I did not say that.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes; I certainly understood him to say so. What is the object of this Bill? It is precisely that we are not prepared to so leave matters. This is a practical question. It is a question which concerns the lives and the safety of the men who work under ground. To whom ought we to go to learn what is at fault? Why, to the men themselves—men in this House who have been engaged in these mines, and who represent miners—there are four of them who have spoken—and they are all of opinion that it is necessary for the safety of the men that there should be two men in the engine room in the circumstances under consideration. That being so, it seems to me a monstrous thing that the Government should not assent to their request.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

I would suggest that there should be some restriction to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, who moved this Amendment; say, that mines employing less than 100 men should be exempt from this proposal. Might I suggest that the Amendment be put in this way—"that in any mine employing more than 100 men under ground, two competent male persons &c."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be willing to accept the Amendment as suggested it should be amended. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman got up and deprecated the Amendment as originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal because there was a proposal for its modification by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn), which my hon. Friend at once expressed his readiness to accede to, limiting its operation to large collieries. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary were directed against the Amendment as proposed. I submit they were entirely irrelevant I do not know whether the present moment would not be the time to propose the limitation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope). If the form in which you put the Question, Mr. Courtney, be that the words "a competent male person" stand part of the clause, then I would suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal should allow these words to pass without a Division, and that then he should propose his Amendment in the limited form which has just been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I hope the hon. Member will accept the Amendment to the Amendment, and it is desirable we should now go to a Division, for I think enough time has been devoted to this discussion; indeed, I think time altogether disproportionate to its relative importance.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am of the same opinion——

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I hope that the Committee will now agree——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member for East Donegal is in possession.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I agree with the hon. Member for Morpeth that a disproportionate amount of time has been devoted to the Amendment; but I must protest that it is not my fault. In order to shorten discussion I am perfectly prepared to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

THE CHAIRMAN

In that case, it will be necessary to withdraw this Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I understood that the hon. Member would move an Amendment to mine.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; it is impossible to do that. It is a former part of the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 43, after the word "mine," to insert the words "employing not less than one hundred men."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 63: Noes 133: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 388.) [1.35 A.M.]

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I beg now to move that you do report Progress. We have been now for something like eight and a-half hours at work on this Bill, and no one can say we have not done a considerable amount of work. We have got through eight pages of Amendments, and as many more remain to be discussed. It is obvious to the meanest comprehension that it is out of the question to attempt to finish the Committee stage to-night, and I do not think any good purpose will be served by keeping us hers to a later hour. Some of us were at work until half-past 3 o'clock yesterday morning, and we have to be here again at noon to-day. I doubt, Mr. Courtney, if even your energy will be able to keep up with these constant demands upon it. I will venture to put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), whether it is possible, after we have been sitting close to our work to the extent I have mentioned, that we can be able to deliberate with any reasonable prospect of doing good work? We have to deal with a point that requires calm consideration, and I am sure we cannot, with our jaded energies, deal with it as it deserves.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

If it is the wish of the mining Representatives, who naturally take the greatest interest in this Bill, that we should now break off the Committee I will consent to do so; but with them must rest the responsibility of taking that step. The hon. Gentleman says we have made considerable progress. Well, Sir, we did make considerable progress during one portion of the evening; but I have the words of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) in my oars when he said a very disproportionate amount of time was spent on the last Amendment, and I cannot help remarking, from my own observation, that speech after speech was made with the object of delaying the progress of this Bill. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I say this openly, and it is better to say it openly than to suggest it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I make no such charge against the Representatives of mining constituencies; they have done their very best to forward the Bill, and I hope they will continue to do so. But I must remind those who take an interest in the measure that time is a very serious element indeed in this matter, and that it will not be possible to pass the Bill unless these discussions are shortened, unless those who take what I may call an academic interest in this subject will put some restraint upon their desire to speak upon it. I consent to report Progress if hon. Members representing mining interests desire that we should do so.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I do not think there has been anything in the nature of obstruction in regard to this Bill. There has been irrelevant talking, no doubt, as there always will be in connection with every subject. But I think there never has, within my own experience, been a Bill before the House discussed in a more direct and businesslike way. Therefore, I think the remarks of the right hon. Gentlemen are to some extent uncalled for. I am exceedingly anxious myself that the Bill should pass this Session, and I fear that unless we dispose of this stage at the Silting to-day (Wednesday) it is in very considerable danger. I feel, therefore, that it is very desirable we should get on a little further, and I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion in order that we may do so. At the same time, I am quite prepared to accept my share of the responsibility. Although I am anxious that the Bill should pass, it would be a still greater evil than dropping the Bill to have it passed in an imperfect shape without due discussion. All things considered, I think the Government are pressing us too hard in this matter. However, I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion now, and allow us to make a little more progress, to insure the passage of the Bill through Committee at our next Sitting.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I, also, representing a very large mining constituency, would like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth in appealing to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall to withdraw his Motion to report Progress. But I exceedingly regret the tone and language that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has made use of. It must be remembered that every line of this Bill affects the safety of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people, and we who represent mining constituencies would be grossly neglecting our duty if we did not discuss it. I may also remind the right hon. Gentleman that one of his most devoted supporters sitting behind him has moved more Amendments to the Bill than any other two Members in the House.

MR. CONYBEARE

I have been appealed to to withdraw my Motion, and I may be allowed a word or two upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has been taunting us with not being mining Representatives, and taking only an academic interest in the subject; but I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I know quite as much about the subject as himself or his Colleagues on that Bench. Moreover, I represent the Mining Division of Cornwall; no other division of the county goes by the name of the Mining Division; and at least I know as much of the wants, wishes, and necessities of miners as the right hon. Gentleman. In moving to report Progress, I did so directly in the interest of the miners of this country. At the request of my hon. Friends I withdraw my Motion, but on one condition. We are about to commence the discussion of an Amendment promoted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), which involves the question of the hours of labour, the eight hours' shift, and that, as probably the right hon. Gentleman knows, will involve a good deal of discussion. I am willing to withdraw my Motion if the Government will consent to report Progress at half-past 2. If that is not done, I will renew my Motion at that time. We are discussing a Bill of the utmost importance; it requires our close attention; but we must have a little rest, and there is but a short interval for that, seeing the hour at which we were released yesterday morning, and the time we meet again to-day.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

The next Amendment in my name is to line 44 of the Rule, to raise the age from 18 to 22.

MR. MATTHEWS

Agreed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am glad to find that something is agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 44, to leave out the word "eighteen," and insert the words "twenty-two."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question, "That those words be there substituted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I am extremely sorry to have to move this very important Amendment standing in my name at so late an hour, when it is impossible to make my case so clear and strong within the limited time at our disposal.

THE CHAIRMAN

It may facilitate discussion if I now say that the second Amendment of the hon. Member would be quite out of Order in this place. The first Amendment can be taken now, but the second cannot be moved here.

MR. BROADHURST

Then I will confine myself to the first point, which is that the man in charge of the engine shall be required to hold a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade. I would provide that the Board of Trade should appoint Examiners, and make rules for examination of persons wishing to act as engine-men. I also provide that where a man has been in charge of a steam engine for 12 months that shall free him from the necessity of undergoing examination at the hands of the Board. This is a matter well known to the House; previous Home Secretaries have had their attention called to it, and for 12 years I think it has been more or less under the notice of Parliament. Though I regret that I have had few opportunities of drawing attention to the subject since, I remember perfectly well the debate in which the then Home Secretary—now Lord Cross—said that engines and boilers had a language, and that if accidents arose it was because those in charge did not understand that language; hence the disasters that followed. With that assertion I am quite in accord, and upon it I am quite content to rest my case. Now, the proposal I make is taken from the Mines Act of 1883 for the Colony of Victoria. Our Colonies have provided this safeguard against accidents and loss of life; and this morning I was reading an official statement from an exceedingly high authority—that where the rule that men in charge of engines should hold a certificate was enforced the accidents were enormously fewer than in those mines where no such certificates were required. In 10 years, in collieries where the engines were in charge of uncertificated men, there were 35 accidents and a loss of 55 lives; while in collieries where the men held certificates, but where all other conditions were similar, there were, in the same time, but seven casualties and 19 lives lost. This goes to prove, beyond doubt, that certificates are necessary for the men in charge of steam engines, and that where the rule is enforced there is greater safety for life and property. I have no doubt we shall hear from my hon. Friends behind me instances of what we presume to be the incompetency of engine-men; and frequent disastrous accidents have occurred at mines owing to over-winding, and other accidents incident to the use of steam engines. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, now that he has accepted the Amendment raising the age of the persons in charge, will see his way to take a further step and accept nay proposal. In asking him to do this, let me say that I do not propose that the examination shall be a severe one at all, nothing like the examinations required from men who take charge of sea going engines, or men who enter the Navy. Any man with an elementary knowledge of steam engines and boilers, and able to read and write, could pass the examination I would establish. I would remind him again that I do not propose to interfere with those who have held the position of engine-men for 12 months; I would only enforce the examination upon those who entered the service within that time. I think my proposal is a reasonable one, and I am sure it will add to the confidence of the men in those to whom they have to entrust their lives, and will result in a great saving of property.

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 45, after the word "age," to insert the words "and possessing a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 117: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 389.) [1.50 A.M.]

MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton)

I beg to move, in page 33, general rule 29, at end, insert— That safety catches be attached to the cages to minimise the risk of shaft accidents, also detaching hooks to prevent over winding, with additional 'keps' on a high level to prevent descent of cage in case of hooks failing to act. The object of this is to secure greater safety for our miners. I trust that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. I do not think it necessary to make any speech in recommending it, and I, therefore, will simply move it.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

I do not think the Government can accept this Amendment. The Royal Commission fully considered these points, and so far as we gather their opinion it was that none of these devices or inventions were deserving of so much confidence as to justify legislating upon them. It would, therefore, be unsafe to accept this Amendment.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

With regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, I think you will find that they drew a distinction between safety cages and safety hooks. The detaching hooks have for a long time been in operation in a great number of mines, and have proved very effective. If the Government will not accept the Amendment—and it is much desired that they should—I hope we shall divide on it at once.

MR. PICKARD

I will withdraw that portion of the Amendment relating to safety catches.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member had better withdraw the Amendment altogether, and propose a fresh one.

MR. PICKARD

Very well, Sir; I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 33, line 42, after the word "shaft," to insert the words "detaching hooks shall he attached to the cages to prevent over-winding, with additional 'keps' on a high level to prevent descent of cage in case of hooks failing to act."—(Mr. Pickard.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 115: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 390.) [2.10 A.M.]

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I do not think it requires any discussion. I am sure that the Home Secretary will see the expediency of accepting it. It is a very small matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 34, to leave outline 10.—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)

Question, "That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Do we understand that the Government accept this Amendment?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

It is done.

MR. CONYBEARE

I did not hear it. Why do you not speak out? ["Order, order!"]

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

The Amendment standing in my name is a small one, it having reference to keeping daily records of the readings of the barometer and thermometer. If the Government intimate that they are willing to accept it, I will say I nothing whatever in defence of it; but I if the mind of the Government, or what is called the mind of the Government, is undecided, I will say a few words in support of it. I think it is self-evident that it would be a most useful thing that a record should be taken of the fluctuations of the mine. I may just say, Mr. Courtney, in order to save myself from the wrath of the First Lord of the Trea- sury—whose form I see disappearing from my gaze—that I propose this Amendment because it has been suggested to me by several Gentlemen intimately acquainted with mining affairs, and, in fact, it is their Amendment, although it stands in my name. They are most anxious that it should be accepted. Now, what I wish to bring before the home Secretary is that these records, if kept, will be very useful as showing the character of the mine. I am told that the character of a mine can be plainly seen from the barometrical changes. At any rate, that is what experts tell me. For example, a mine which is accustomed to great fluctuations is nearly always a dangerous mine. Accordingly, if the readings were to show these constant fluctuations, it would be a warning to the miners, and they would be more on their guard. In fact, I think the importance of the Amendment is self-evident; and I, therefore, do not think it necessary to waste any amount of time in proposing it. I hope the Home Secretary will at once accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 34, general rule 32, line 12, after "mine," insert "and daily records shall be kept of the readings thereof in the locality immediately adjacent."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

We are all very much obliged to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool for condescending at this late period to join in the discussion, and, with that fine humour and delicate satire which always distinguishes him, to refer to what he calls the mind of the Government. I am sorry to say that what little mind the Government has does not reach the height or the depth of this matter. Sir, the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment says that daily records shall be kept of the readings thereof—that is, of the readings of the barometer and thermometer—kept above ground in the locality immediately adjacent. I confess I do not understand that. Is it the reading in the locality; is it the fluctuation of the locality; is it the records in the locality which is the locality immediately adjacent; is it the barometer adjacent to the mine, or adjacent to the reading? I am sure I do not know Both the grammar and the meaning of this Amendment are so totally unintelligible to me that I feel compelled to reject it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I think I was justified in expressing a doubt whether the right hon. and dignified Gentleman was in possession of a mind, I because I must say that anybody who has a mind—in which I am not bound to include the right hon. Gentleman—would clearly see the meaning of this proposal. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has chosen thus to personally attack me, that the phraseology is phraseology which has been put in by experts, and by persons who know something of what they are talking about. I am quite prepared to find that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the meaning of the phraseology; in fact, Mr. Courtney, I should be surprised to find that he ever read a line of the Bill at all; for I observe that whenever a proposal is made he does not get up and say aye or no to it, for the very good reason that if he were to say a word he would at once expose his ignorance of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman need not look to the Chair for protection. I tell him my language is perfectly in Order, and I am speaking of a notorious fact; for whenever we have asked the right hon. Gentleman to express an opinion on any Amendment he has sat glued to his seat, because he did not know what was going on, and did not want to expose the depth of his ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman thought proper to make a personal attack on me. I can only say that I have put one Amendment only on the Paper, because I did not feel justified in taking a large share in a discussion on a Bill which requires the knowledge of experts, and yet I am blamed by the right hon. Gentleman because I confine my observations to one Amendment. That is very extraordinary after the remarks and charges made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I will now deal with the grammatical or ungrammatical characteristics of the Amendment. It provides "that daily records shall be kept of the readings thereof in the locality immediately adjacent." Now, you must read the matter as a whole, and therefore it is that daily records shall be kept in the locality immediately adjacent to the mine. I think that is clear to all minds except the elegant mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, so, to suit him, I am willing to make the Amendment read thus—"That daily records shall be kept in the locality immediately adjacent to the mine of the reading of the barometer and thermometer."

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool speaks of the barometer as giving an indication of the special condition of each mine. What it really indicates is the condition of the atmosphere—it does not show the state of the mine, nor does the thermometer.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

The hon. Gentleman misapprehends my meaning. If you had a record for a considerable period of the readings of the barometer and thermometer it would enable you to gain some idea of the character of a particular mine.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I feel sorry I cannot keep up the liveliness of the debate. I can only say we are not particular as to the phraseology of the Amendment; only give us the substance of it.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I do not see the object of having the readings of the barometer and thermometer posted daily.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

The object is simply this. There are a number of miners who do take a deep interest in the state and condition of the mine, and they wish to know what the readings of the barometer and thermometer are day by day, so that they may ascertain it for themselves. If the Government had understood the Bill they were dealing with they would have idealized that that was our object; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would, when asked a question, give an answer instead of forcing a Division, and would, moreover, give reasons for his refusal, I think it would be very much better for all of us.

MR. MATTHEWS

I really do not think I ought to be subjected to such a reproach by the hon. Member. I have, time after time, answered questions put by him. If he intends the reproach to apply to the Government in a general way, then I would point out that he himself has not answered the statement of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Tomlinson), that though a knowledge of the barometrical condition of a district might be of importance, yet the separate barometrical condition of a particular mine could not possibly be of such importance as to require a daily record to be kept. There is not such a difference between one record and another as to make it of the slightest moment. It is the general barometrical condition of a district that is important. I want to point out that omission to do a thing ordered by this Act makes a man liable to a penalty, makes him guilty of a criminal offence and liable to be dragged before a magistrate; and to say he shall keep a daily record of the readings of the barometer and thermometer to be at the service of every man really seems to be pushing the case too far. Any workman who takes an interest in the subject can himself keep a record of the readings of the barometer and thermometer in the various mines; and, therefore, I hold that this Amendment is not necessary.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

We have already legislated that whether there is gas or no gas there shall be a thermometer and a barometer at every mine. I believe there would be very little trouble in taking daily readings of these, and advantage might arise now and then from having these readings recorded. If the hon. Member will provide that a record shall be kept at the principal office of the mine it would simplify matters, and perhaps prove useful.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am astonished that hon. Members do not perceive the real object of the Amendment. The clause provides that a barometer and a thermometer shall be placed in a conspicuous place, near the entrance to the mine; but if you have a barometer and thermometer which are never consulted, which are as if they were not, so far as inspection by those in charge of the mine is concerned, of course this clause is of no use. Now, the object of this Amendment is to secure that it shall be the duty of the manager to see not only that the thermometer and barometer are placed above ground at the mouth of the pit, but that, being there, they shall be scruti- nized every day. I know that barometrical pressure is a matter of importance, and I know, also, that too much significance can be attached to it. But it is allowed that if there is a decrease suddenly, then the issue of gas will be far greater than when the pressure is much higher and the gas kept inside the coal. That being so, we want to secure that the observations necessary to be made are made, and the only way to secure that is to keep a record.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

I do think it would be just as well to keep a record at every mine. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is aware—and I hope this will not be considered merely academic—that, at the conclusion of their inquiry, the Commissioners expressed some doubt whether the barometrical pressure had anything to do with exhalations of gas; but then their attention was drawn to some remarkable experiments carried on in Prussia, which they say may lead to very important conclusions as to the escape of gas from decrease of atmospheric pressure. They allude to these experiments, and point out the great value of keeping a daily record of barometrical pressure. As to the thermometer, I am not quite sure of its value.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

Just one word. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might accept the Amendment. It is a simple matter, and I do not think any mineowner will object to it. It can easily be done, and it is of some value. It will be valuable in this sense, that miners will have an opportunity of comparing notes on the variations of the barometrical pressure, and the influence that atmospheric change may have had on past dangers, applying that experience to apprehended danger. I think the hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might, if only to save time, accept the Amendment.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself has already admitted that the barometrical readings of the district would be very valuable. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; he has admitted that. But then I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the majority of the miners would have no chance whatever of seeing such readings of the district if they were not recorded at their own mine. Probably the next colliery would be four or five miles away. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will concede this Amendment. I feel inclined to commend the Government for the consideration shown to us; but, since their rejection of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard), I am sorry to say they have shown very little inclination to adopt any suggestion of ours with the object of increasing the safety of miners.

MR. WOOD (Durham, Houghton-le-Spring)

I cannot see any objection whatever to the proposal. Indeed, so far as I know, the readings of the barometer are closely watched and recorded at every well-managed colliery.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I can see no objection to the Amendment, and its adoption may prove very useful.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, if not this particular Amendment, one to the same effect; for I am quite sure it will be very useful for reference with other indications in respect to the liberation of gas if readings of the barometer are noted at particular hours, and the record kept at the pay office or head office of the mine.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

To enable the right hon. Gentleman to find an interval for the consideration of this point, which has been so pressed upon his attention, I beg to move that we now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I would certainly strongly advise my hon. Friend to withdraw that Motion if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will signify his willingness to accept an Amendment in the sense of that moved. I do not ask him to accept these particular words.

MR. MATTHEWS

My only reason for objecting to the general adoption of the rule is to save the little owners from the trouble and expense. By the large proprietors it is done, or could be done without difficulty. But I am thinking of the little collieries employing some eight or 10 men, where the duty of keeping a record of these readings might, with a limited staff, be attended with endless bother and trouble. But, rather than spend more time upon it, I will accept the Amendment, asking the Committee not to make it too stringent, to entail too great a burden generally.

MR. HINGLEY (Worcestershire, N.)

May I suggest that the register should be kept at certain places in the colliery district?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I suppose it will be best to introduce the Amendment on Report. In agreeing to withdraw the Amendment, I would just observe that this is the second time we have forced the right hon. Gentleman the home Secretary to eat his words.

MR. CONYBEARE

I fail to see any argument against my Motion. We have reached a time when we might fairly knock off work on this Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion for the present, and I will then withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CONYBEARE

I now make the Motion to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

MR. MATTHEWS

In assenting to the Motion, I hope I may make an appeal to hon. Members to really finish the Bill at our Sitting to-day. I am quite sure this can be done if we set to work with an earnest endeavour to make progress.

MR. FENWICK

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we are just as anxious to make progress as he is; but we are not disposed to rush the Bill without consideration; we would rather not have it at all. I think we have reason to complain that the Government have treated us unfairly in leaving this Bill, which affects 500,000 lives, to be disposed of in a few Sittings at the very end of the Session. We are anxious to make progress; but I say again we are not prepared to rush this Bill through the House.

MR. A. J.WILLIAMS

I quite agree with that. As to the remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), I would just say that we waited on while other Business was proceeded with from day to day, and from week to week, waiting for this measure with the greatest patience; and in the discussion we have exorcised the greatest forbearance, and shown a desire to treat the Bill in a broad and liberal spirit. I trust this will be recognized, and that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman will not be repeated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.