COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 383.]

HC Deb 03 September 1887 vol 320 cc1072-125

(Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered.

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

moved, after Clause 73, to insert the following Clause:— Section thirty-eight of ' The Public Health Act, 1875 ' (which relates to privy accommodation for any house used as a factory or building in which both sexes are employed), shall apply to the portions of a mine which are above ground, and in which girls and women are employed, in like manner as if it were herein re-enacted, with the substitution of ' those portions of the mine' for the house in the said section mentioned. Clause (Application of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 38,)—(Mr. Secretary Matthews,) — brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.

MR. HERMON-HODGE (Lancashire, Accrington)

, in moving the insertion of the following clause after Clause 4:— Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State, by reason of the thinness of the seams or of any other exigencies affecting any mine or class of mines, situated in the counties of Lancaster or York, that boys between the ages of ten and twelve years should be allowed to be employed in or about any such mine or class of mines, either above or below ground, such Secretary of State may, if he think fit, by order allow the same, any provision contained in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always, that no boy under the age of twelve years shall be so employed—(a) For more than six days in any one week; or (b) if he is employed for more than three days in any one week for more than six hours in any one day; or (c) in any other case for more than ten hours in any one day; or (d) otherwise than in accordance with the regulations hereinafter contained with respect to the employment of boys in a mine below ground, said, the object of the clause was to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a discretionary power to allow boys known as half-timers to be employed in coal mines in the counties of Lancaster and York. That had been the law hitherto throughout all England; but in the Committee stage of the Bill the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had moved an Amendment, which was accepted by the Committee, which would have the effect of putting a stop to the employment of boys under 12. He (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) himself had no interest in the matter; but he knew thousands of miners who were, together with their employers, unanimous in asking the House to give them the privilege of having boys under 12 years of age in the pits. Deputations from the masters and men had waited upon the Home Secretary in the matter, and Petitions had been signed by the men and also by Boards of Guar- dians and other public bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire; and a general feeling existed amongst the men that the Bill, if passed in its present shape, would be little better than the death warrant of the coal-mining industry in the thin-seam districts. The work of coal miners was carried on in different districts under circumstances, conditions, and customs, which varied as much as the dialect spoken by the men in the pits; and he believed the Home Secretary would admit that the great difficulty he had to face in framing this Bill was the impossibility of passing one hard-and-fast measure which would meet the different requirements of the different localities throughout England. This was a case of local necessity. The hon. Member for Morpeth had great influence in questions of this kind, and he hoped that he would give this matter his serious consideration. The hon. Member had recently stated that he meant "to stick to his guns "on this matter. He did not ask the hon. Member to abandon his guns, but to lay them in a different direction, and to limit the range of his artillery so that it would not touch Lancashire and Yorkshire. A very large proportion of the half timers employed in pits worked in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Figures showed that out of the 311 boys under the age of 12 employed in mines throughout England, 308 were employed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and only three elsewhere. The hon. Member for Morpeth might do what he liked with the three boys whom he represented in Northumberland so long as he allowed him (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) to do as he pleased with the odd 300 whom he represented in Lancashire and Yorkshire. There were many other districts where this power might have been exercised, but had not been exercised. Surely the fact that, practically speaking, all the boys under 12 were employed in this particular district to which he referred, and that no boys under that age were employed elsewhere, established primâ facie grounds for the belief that in other places there was no need for their employment; but in the limited district to which his clause would apply there was a necessity, and a great necessity. His whole case was based on the fact that the boys, all of them, were employed in a limited district. If the 311 boys were distributed in driblets, so to speak, all over the whole country, he should have no case to present to the House. With regard to the position of the hon. Member for Morpeth in the House, no doubt it was a delicate one, as he was the Representative of a particular class, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the Representative of a section of a particular class. The hon. Member had great influence in matters of this kind, and a correspondingly great responsibility. It was by his Amendment that the age had been raised from 10 to 12. It must be fresh in the hon. Member's mind what had taken place at the great meeting of miners held on the Saturday before Bank Holiday on Blyth Links. The hon. Member for Morpeth then said, in a speech to which he had already alluded, that he had been approached in this matter subsequent to the proceedings in Committee by a considerable number of coal owners, and also, the hon. Member for Morpeth proceeded, he was sorry to say by a number of working miners. Why the hon. Member for Morpeth should have been sorry to learn, the wishes of the men on this matter from their own lips he was at a loss to imagine; it was satisfactory, however, for the House to learn that the hon. Member for Morpeth had been in direct communication with the men on this point, as it would tend to remove the impression that the men were not free to act as they pleased in the matter. He had pointed out that the coal got from the mines in his district was three feet thick or under; but that was not to be compared with the thin seams of Lancashire and Yorkshire—seams which were only two feet thick and under. This fact made all the difference in the world in the working of the coal. The hon. Member for Morpeth knew how excited miners became if they thought, rightly or wrongly, they were unjustly or unfairly treated; but all he could say was that the miners on whose behalf he spoke believed that this was a deliberate attempt on the part of those who were interested in the thick-seam coal mines to crush out those who worked in the thin-seam coal mines. [Laughter.] He saw hon. Members opposite smiled; but it was no laughing matter to men who feared they were about to lose their means of earning a living. He would be the last man to bring any charge of unworthy motives against hon. Members opposite; but he thought it his duty to inform them of the feeling which existed. In Northumberland, and other parts of England where these thin seams were worked, the seams were either underlaid by fire clay or surrounded by ironstone or by friable roofs; but in Lancashire and Yorkshire the thin seams were not worked in conjunction with fire clay, and the roofs were of hard shale, which it would be dangerous and expensive to remove. To work in these seams the boys must be taken young, as older boys were a size too big, and did not take kindly to the work, and the difficulty of getting them was very great. Ninety per cent of the men now working in these mines entered at the age of 10. It could not be said that the boys were overworked, because they were only underground some four and a-half or five hours daily. Apart from the thinness of the seams, there was another reason why this district should be exempt from the operation of this Bill. The pits were situated in the hills where Lancashire and Yorkshire marched, and they were surrounded on the one side by the cotton mills of Lancashire, and on the other by the worsted mills of Bradford. Half-timers at 10 years of age were allowed to work in these mills; and was it likely that when boys had been trained in them for two years they would leave at 12 years of age and go down the pits? The evidence taken before the Select Committee proved that unless the boys were allowed to enter the pits at the same age as they entered the factories, the result would be that they would go to the factories instead, and the pits would be absolutely stripped of boys. Neither could it be said that the work was injurious to boys. [" Oh, oh ! "] It was only on the ground that it was injurious to the boys that the House was justified in refusing to allow their parents to tend them to this particular work; yet nothing of the kind was set forth before the Committee. There was no evidence at all before the Committee showing injury to these boys beyond the merest sentimentalism, and a belief in a state of things underground which, if it had been true, would only have been an argument against the employment of boys in pits at any age. A case certainly had been mentioned in Committee of a miner whose growth had been stunted by work in the mines in his youth; but, on the other side, he might point to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick), the development of whoso physique had certainly not been interfered with by this kind of labour, although the hon. Member had himself told the House that he was at work in the mines when he was 10 years of age. In a similar manner, he might point to the hon. Baronet on that side of the House (Sir George Elliot), who had had a corresponding experience. The health of the hoys, he contended, was not injured in any shape or way. If it were, would it not at once be apparent in the way in which they did their lessons? The Report of the Education Department called especial attention to the fact that, though 50 per cent of the half-timers in England were employed in Lancashire, yet the percentage of passes in Lancashire was higher than that of any other county. From schoolmasters, from medical men, came evidence that the half-time work of boys in mines in no way checked their mental development or bodily physique, and that they would compare favourably with half-timers employed in factories. Beyond all, as having a general bearing on the coal trade generally, he argued that accidents were likely to be more frequent in mines where the men had not been properly trained; and, beginning as boys at half-time miners, they had a more complete training. When they knocked off the employment of 300 boys in a limited district, he believed the Committee acted upon imperfect acquaintance with the facts, and therefore he raised the question again. The State was now asked to undertake duties of the most onerous description, and to regulate the great industries of the country in the most minute particulars. Was it possible to suppose that the State could instantly carry out those duties, unless a certain amount of elasticity was introduced into measures of this kind? If the State was to undertake quasi-parental duties, it must have quasi-parental discretion; and it was on these grounds he asked the House to give in that limited district, that limited discretionary power to the Home Secretary. By hard-and-fast legislation, such as that to which he objected, industries might very easily be crushed out of existence, and when once they were destroyed the State could not restore them.

Clause (Employment of boys between ten and twelve years in certain cases,)— (Mr. Herman-Hodge,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time. "

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

said, he wished to point out that the statistics of the Registrar General showed that, even allowing for accidents, mining, compared with many other occupations, was very healthy. If a boy went down a pit, he was more likely to live than if he worked in a factory. Upon what principle, he asked, were hon. Members tabooing a particular industry by preventing boys from following the occupation of mining in Lancashire and Yorkshire, whilst, at the same time, they were driving them into the worsted and cotton mills, where the mortality returns were higher by 10 per cent than the mining mortality returns, which wore below the average?

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

said, he regretted that this question should be renewed again after having been so very decisively disposed of in Committee. The hon. Member (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) was within his right; but if all Members interested in any point followed his example, there would be no hope of the Bill passing. He would admit that deputations had come, and Petitions and Circulars had been sent to the House of Commons, apparently evincing a keen interest on the part of miners in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; but he had reason to believe that for the deputations and Circulars the coalowners had found the money, that they had been pulling the strings, and that the movement had not been so spontaneous as the hon. Member seemed to think. The hon. Member said that Petitions in support of the proposal had also come from Boards of Guardians; but children were apprenticed by Boards of Guardians to coalowners until they were 21 years of age, and therefore these bodies had a direct interest in the matter. The hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that in the North of England there were no thin seams; there were both thick and thin, half of the coal which was obtained in Northumberland and Durham being obtained out of coal seams which were under three feet in thickness. They had also factories on the Tyne, and yet they found they could work their thin seams without the inhumanity—for he could call it nothing else, and he urgently protested against it—of sending their young children into the mines, and so to twist and dwarf their forms to adapt them for working these thin seams. He was quite prepared to make this provision of the Bill prospective, and exempt boys now employed, so as to allow boys between 10 and 12 years of age now employed to go on, and thus give the owners time to adapt themselves to the altered circumstances; but further than that he and his friends would not go.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 54: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 444).

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

, in moving in page 4, after Clause 11, to insert the following New Clause: — When the workmen employed in contract work underground in any mine to which this Act applies are dissatisfied with the hours prescribed it shall be lawful for such workmen to apply to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State may make a special rule for such mine, and subject to such reasonable conditions as he thinks proper, and so as to enable the workmen to be brought to the surface without unnecessary delay, said, that in some parts of Scotland the hours were very long, being in some instances 10 hours a-day. He understood the Home Secretary had given a verbal promise to his hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. S. Williamson) to the effect that he would be prepared to make such an order as that proposed wherever it might be found necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had shown his appreciation of the question. The discussions that had taken place had, he (Mr. Mason) believed, convinced him that such a rule might be necessary in the circumstances indicated. But while that was satisfactory so far as it went, it was possible that future Home Secretaries might not take quite the same view; and he (Mr. Mason) therefore wished to have in the Bill a provision whereby, when the Home Secretary was approached in a reasonable way, he would put such a rule in operation where necessary.

Clause (Workmen to be taken to the surface under certain conditions),—(Mr. Mason,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time. "

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

said, he was sorry he could not accept the clause in the form in which it appeared upon the Paper. It would entirely alter the mode of the special rules which rested upon arbitration, and substitute, in this particular instance, an altogether different method of arranging differences. Sections 51 and 53 provided the machinery for settling such points; and while he quite adhered to the pledge he had given to the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, he thought the wishes of the hon. Member would be accomplished by introducing into Sections 51 and 53 additional words, by which the Home Secretary could interfere, if a rule was, in his opinion, insufficient to prevent accidents or for the safety of the miners. He would propose, therefore, to insert the words, "safety and convenience of the persons employed in the mine."

MR. MASON

said, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

, in moving to insert, in page 26, after Clause 50, the following New Clause for the establishment of an accident and insurance fund:— There shall be established under this Act a fund to make provision (a) for the relatives of persons killed in the mines; (b) for workmen injured in the mines; (c) for workmen who, having been employed underground for not less than ten consecutive years, and are forty years of age or upwards, and unable, through old age or infirmity, to continue at work; such fund shall be contributed to in equal parts by (a) the workmen employed in the mines; (b) the mine owners; (c) the lessors of the minerals; and shall be administered by district committees, and elected in equal proportions by the three subscribing parties. Each such committee shall frame such rules as may be required for the proper administration of the fund within their district. Such rules and districts shall be approved by the Secretary of State. The lessor or lessors shall contribute to the fund a percentage of the rent or royalty receivable by them; the mine owner or mine owners shall contribute a percentage of the rent or royalty payable by them; and, where the landlord works the mine, he shall contribute both the landlord's and tenant's share; the workman or workmen shall contribute a percentage of the wages earned by them, and such percentage shall be deducted by the employers and handed over to the properly appointed treasurer of the fund. No person shall be eligible to vote or have a seat on the committee who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, said, it was absolutely required that something should be done to provide for those who suffered, not only from the terrible accidents which every now and again occurred, but also from those smaller and almost daily occurring accidents in connection with the work of coal mining. In the recent accident in the Mid Division of Lanarkshire 73 men lost their lives, and a feeling of sympathy was aroused on behalf of those who had been left destitute through the loss of their bread-winners. They immediately set about raising a fund to make provision for the widows and fatherless children, in order that the latter might be educated and brought up in a similar way as they would have been if their fathers had been spared to them. But very great difficulty was found in getting up a fund sufficient to enable that to be done. They made an appeal to the citizens of Glasgow. The Lord Provost acted spontaneously in calling a meeting, and the citizens of Glasgow responded very readily and gave liberally to the fund. The sum calculated to be required was £18,000; but he was sorry they had not been able to obtain that sum. They had only obtained about £11,000 up to the present time. The landowners in the county where the accident took place had not, in his opinion, done their duty in connection with the contributions they made to the fund. Some of these were drawing very large sums of money from mineral rents and royalties. One of them in his (the Mid) Division of Lanarkshire was reported to be drawing £100,000 to £120,000 a-year. He was appealed to for a subscription—he was not going to name him—and he contributed the miserable sum of £50, which was altogether inadequate for the purpose they had in view. Property had its duties, as well as its privileges, and he thought it was very desirable they should en- deavour to get at these parties who would not do their duty. He did not think he was asking anything very extraordinary when by his clause he proposed to compel the mining royalty receivers to contribute one-third towards a permanent accident insurance fund. They also asked that one-third should be contributed by the mineowners, and one-third by the miners themselves. He thought that would be a fair arrangement. He believed the men would be willing to go into an arrangement of that kind, which would distribute fairly the incidence of the sum which would be required for the establishment of a permanent fund for the maintenance of the people who suffered by accidents in mines. He thought if they got powers from the Secretary of State to set up a Board, elected one-third by each of the contributing parties, such Board might represent the area of a county, or a Mining Inspector's district. That seemed to him to be a fair and equitable arrangement. The men themselves, in the North of England and elsewhere, had done a great deal in the direction of providing funds. Now, he did not propose to interfere with those funds in the slightest degree, or to interfere with anything now existing; but he believed if such an arrangement as he proposed were made, it would compel reluctant and unwilling landlords who were reaping so much from royalties to contribute a fair share to the fund. It might be objected that the proposal approached to national insurance. He denied that entirely. It had nothing to do with national insurance. It simply asked those who really derived profit and benefit out of the working of a business which was profitable to all the three parties concerned to contribute. National insurance would compel parties to contribute who never derived any benefit, and many would be compelled to contribute who were not interested or connected with the matter in any way. It might also be said, and probably would be by some, "If you begin this, you may as well apply it to railway servants, and to other industries." Well, if a case was made out for applying this to other branches of work, let each be discussed on its merits; but, in this particular instance, he thought a good case had been made out for the necessity of such a fund for the benefit of those who were exposed to the constantly - recurring accidents in mines. The idea was not entirely new, so far, at all events, as mineowners were concerned. He had been handed by a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench a letter sent to that right hon. Gentleman, which showed very clearly the benefits which might arise from such an arrangement. The writer—he would not give his name —said— It is a matter of fact that for a long time I have taken a great interest in such a fund as is suggested. Some years ago I was the means of arranging a scheme between the employers and employés at a colliery in South Staffordshire, and in my 21 years' experience there was nothing I had greater pleasure in. Rules were arranged, and the employers contributed 25 per cent on the employés contributions. The employers had one-fourth in the number of the Board of Management, the remaining three-fourths being composed of the workmen. Voting and everything else was arranged on the same principle. We also did what we could to get the lessor to contribute; hut we did not succeed. One invaluable advantage was that the employers or their representatives and the employés met periodically on common ground, in a pleasant way, and there was opportunity of which general advantage was taken to adjust questions between masters and men in a mutually satisfactory manner. The good feeling which it fostered was, I can assure you, very pleasant to witness. It seemed to him (Mr. Mason) that if they had such a Board as that the opportunity would be given to the parties interested to meet, and many questions of dispute as to wages and other matters could be very conveniently settled by it.

Clause (Accident and insurance fund,) —(Mr. Mason,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time. "

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

said, that everybody must sympathize with the motives of the hon. Member in the proposal he had made; but he (Mr. Matthews) feared it would be impossible for the Government to accept the clause in it present shape. The hon. Member must feel that his scheme, laudable as it was, would not be workable without the addition of a great number of other clauses. Machinery for compelling these contributions, for the organization of the body which was to administer them, for giving it legal form and shape, and for enabling somebody to set about collecting contributions would have to be arranged. He did not know the number of lessors, or of mineowners, everyone of whom would be legally bound to contribute. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Baird) had framed a very valuable Bill, and arranged all details on this subject, that extended to four or five pages, and provided all the necessary machinery. It was obvious, unless all this machinery was supplied in this case, that the benevolent intentions of the hon. Member would fail to have any practical effect. Prince Bismarck had in Prussia introduced a scheme of this sort, but applicable not merely to coal mines, but to all dangerous occupations. If we were to embark on legislation of this kind, we ought also to include railways and other dangerous occupations. It was an extremely interesting subject to discuss; but he trusted that the hon. Member would see that they could not, at the present stage and at that late period of the Session, deal with it in a single clause.

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

, in supporting the clause, said, that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) had placed before the House the way in which he wished the scheme to be carried out, and the classes who were desired to contribute. In regard to the objection of the Home Secretary, that the clause needed other provisions to make it workable, he (Mr. Graham) presumed the right hon. Gentleman did not wish them to fight out the whole question in Scotland unaided by the advice of himself and others who had access to facts which the people living in the district did not possess. It was very evident that the mining industry was a much more dangerous industry than almost any other, not even excepting that of the railways. All the miners in Scotland whom he represented were perfectly agreed as to the advisability of the institution of such a fund as that proposed by his hon. Friend; and he hoped the clause would be pressed to a Division, in order to take the feeling of the House on that important subject.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

said, he was glad to receive the expressions of sympathy which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to the principle of the establishment of an accident fund of this kind. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, the miners of the North of England and elsewhere in different parts of the country were by voluntary association doing for themselves what it was proposed to do for the miners by the clause now under discussion. Many of the coalowners had acted generously—he might even say munificently—in support of these funds; but others had given nothing at all, but had contented themselves with meeting their legal obligations. He had always felt that that was not sufficient, considering the risk and danger which attended mining operations, but that all parties interested in mines should contribute in some sort to the support of the widows and orphans who were left destitute through accident. But it must not be forgotten that this was a very large and complex question. Even the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, who had given great attention to the matter, had not completely matured his scheme. He simply said that a certain percentage should be contributed. But it was necessary in legislation to be more precise than that, and it was also necessary to have some machinery, which the clause did not provide, to carry out this scheme. He thought that if this subject was one for legislation—and he was not quite clear about that—it should be dealt with by a separate Bill, to which the House could, when it was before them, devote all the time and attention which the subject so eminently deserved and required. Holding these opinions he could not, of course, but concur in the expression of opinion that the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire would do well not to press this question to a Division on that occasion; but, of course, on that point he would exercise his own discretion.

MR. MASON

said, that after the expression of opinion he had obtained from the Government, and from his hon. Friend (Mr. Burt), having no desire to imperil the Bill by prolonging the discussion, he thought he would be acting judiciously if he asked leave to withdraw the clause. Ho wished to state, however, that, in his opinion, the Bill framed by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Baird) was an utterly unworkable Bill.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following clause: — A register of miners' agents shall be kept at the Home Office, for use by a Secretary of State and the Inspectors under this Act, whenever it may be deemed necessary or convenient to correspond with the body of miners in a district. Clause (Register of miners' agents to be kept at Home Office,)—(Mr. Sexton,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, '' That the said Clause be now read a second time. "

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

said, he objected that such an obligation should not be imposed on the Home Office, unless there was a provision compelling miners' unions to send in all such names. He would promise that the Home Office would do its best to keep up such a Register.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

said, he thought the undertaking sufficient.

MR. SEXTON

said, he would withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

moved to insert the following clause, after Clause 80: — The provisions of this Act shall not (a) prevent a boy under the age of twelve years who before the commencement of this Act is lawfully employed in any mine below ground from continuing to be employed in a mine; nor (b) prevent a boy or girl who, before the commencement of this Act, is lawfully employed above ground in connection with any mine from continuing to be employed above ground in connection with a mine, in like manner and subject to the same provisions and regulations as before the commencement of this Act, and the provisions of the Acts repealed by this Act, with respect to the employment of such boy or girl shall continue to apply accordingly. Clause (Temporary saving for employment of boys and girls between ten and twelve,)—(Mr. Tomlinson,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he hoped the House would see no difficulty in accepting the clause, as it would be accepted by the Government.

MR. BURT

said, he was willing to accept it as a compromise; but lion. Members had shown themselves in such a combative humour when the same point was raised earlier that he would be justified in dividing against the proposal. He would not, however, follow an evil example.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added.

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

, in moving the following New Clause:— In Scotland, no workman shall be employed below ground in any mine to which this Act applies (except in cases of emergency) for a longer period than eight (8) consecutive hours, and for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty-four hours, when the mine is worked on the single shift system. The period of such employment shall be deemed to begin at the time of leaving the surface, and to end at the time of returning to the surface, said, he knew the clause would meet with considerable opposition; but it was a singular fact that all the Members for Lanarkshire, irrespective of Party, were agreed upon the question. The clause was framed to avoid opposition as far as possible. It was framed to apply only to Scotland, where there were 65,000 miners—men who dug the coal they talked about here—united as one man in their demand for the clause. He did not claim for one moment to represent the minors of Scotland more than any of the other Members for Scotland who had miners in their constituencies, except on this one clause; and on that he claimed to be their spokesman and to speak for them. He knew that not a single voice would be raised from the miners in Scotland to controvert or traverse one single proposal that he should lay before the House. It was said he was asking for a new thing. One would think he wished to subvert the Constitution by taking out the Mace from the Table and pawning it, or something of that sort. It was said that Parliament had never interfered with adult labour, and that this was a question which should be left to individual exertion— that the miners in Scotland were strong enough to agitate for themselves and to get what they wanted carried into law. Whether or not the miners in England were strong enough to agitate for themselves and get their wishes carried out, the miners in Scotland were not able to do so. In proof of that he would allude to the strike now going on amongst the Broxburne shale miners. Those men had lowered the hours of labour by organization. What had happened? They were now on strike, simply and solely because their employers had been able to break up their organization, and would not open the mines, unless the miners consented to work 9½ hours from bank to bank. More than that, 800 of them—120, as the Home Secretary said—were that very day being evicted from their homes. And in what condition? Anyone who knew the miners of Scotland would know the miserable condition those men were in—that little by little they had disposed of their wretched goods and chattels. He (Mr. Graham) appealed to anyone who had seen the eviction of a miner's family whether a wretched rickety table, a dirty chair, and a few pots and pans did not constitute their whole household gods? In the face of a scene like that they were to have political economy—supply and demand — and the mumbo-jumbo of books thrust down their throats. They were to sit there prating and prating, and 65,000 men who came to them in their simple faith were to go away empty-handed. He had been challenged to produce a single instance where a properly accredited body of working men had passed a resolution in favour of the Eight Hours' Movement. The Trades Unions Congress at Nottingham in 1883 unanimously passed a resolution to that effect, and the Trades Council of Glasgow in January of this year unanimously passed a similar resolution. Were those not properly accredited bodies of workmen, whose opinions went for something on this subject? But he supposed it would be said that trades unions, as a whole, had not spoken out, and given them their opinion. Far be it from him to attack trades unions; but he wished to supplement trades unionism. Where trades unionism was too weak to protect the working classes, he wished Parliament to step in and give them that protection by giving them an eight hours' day. It had been said that they would be opening the gate to other questions of a vastly wider scope by accepting this Amendment. If they did so, he for one would be glad, because he wished to see this principle applied to every trade in the country. But before sitting down he would like to say this. If they passed this eight hours' clause, and he had great hopes they would do so, it would not interfere one jot, tittle, or iota with any other district where the men had already obtained by their own exertions what he was now seeking for these miners in Scotland. The clause only fixed a maximum. It did not force the men to work up to that maximum, but, of course, it said that beyond eight hours they should not work in the mine. It was a question of great importance to the future welfare of the miners in Scotland, and if hon. Members opposite, who, he was willing to believe, were anxious to do what they could for the miners, could not vote with him, he entreated them not to vote against him, but to walk out, and not defeat those who really knew what they were talking about, and who did know something about the matter. On this question he claimed to be the practical man, and that those who disagreed with him were the academicians. The question was none of his raising. For his sins and theirs, he had been speaking lately in every mining district in Scotland, at some 63 or 64 meetings, and at every one of them a resolution was unanimously carried in favour of eight hours a-day. The miners of Scotland were looking to this House to help them in this matter, and he hoped every Member would bring a fair and unbiased judgment to bear upon the question.

Clause (Eight working hours) (Scotch Mines,)—(Mr. Cunninghame Graham,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time.

MR. H. F. H. ELLIOT (Ayrshire, N.)

said, he was sorry he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, although he confessed that it was brought forward with the object of remedying evils which undoubtedly existed. No doubt, the miners of Scotland—in Ayrshire, at any rate—were in what might be called a bad way. They had to work nine and 10 hours a-day, and no one who knew anything about work in mines would say that 10 hours was a reasonable period. But he doubted very much whether he would better their position by this clause. It was framed on an entirely wrong principle. It would, he believed, be injurious to the employers; but it would most of all be injurious to the miners themselves. In his opinion, there was no more precious possession to a workman than the power to sell his labour; and it was far better that a man should, if he liked, work 10 hours and make more money than that he should work a shorter time and earn less. It was true that the hon. Member, if he did not represent all the miners of Scotland on this question, represented at least a large majority, say three-fourths, of them; yet he (Mr. Elliot) could not support the new clause, because he did not believe it to be in the interests of the men themselves that it should be adopted. What he had always told the men, and by so doing he had angered the employers, was that they should do all they possibly could to strengthen their union, and thereby make the best terms they could, and sell their labour on the best terms they could secure, but not to introduce this restriction of labour.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he hoped the discussion would not be prolonged. The matter had been thoroughly threshed out in Committe, and it was quite obvious that the Government could not on the third reading pass by a side wind what would practically amount to an Eight Hours' Act, and he therefore trusted that the clause would not be pressed.

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

said, he had hoped that as the clause was confined to Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman would have seen his way to accept it.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said, the hon. Member (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) was not representing his constituents in the matter, for he (Dr. Clark) received a number of letters from North Ayrshire miners, who were very anxious to have an eight hours' measure passed. He was glad the hon. Member had so clearly expressed his views upon the subject; but it was to be remembered that the clause was not an Eight Hours' Bill generally, but a clause that would apply to only a portion of the men. The Home Secretary must surely consider that eight hours' absence from the sunshine, eight hours in the bowels of the earth, and in a fætid atmosphere, was quite long enough for one day for any man. It was quite possible that if the House rejected the clause, the Scotch miners, who hitherto had not been so well organized as the English miners, would organize for the purpose of enforcing its provisions by their own action; but still it would be a greater boon if the House agreed to give it them now. If the House was going to legislate in accordance with the wishes of the miners of Scotland, they would certainly pass the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—-Ayes 24; Noes 84: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 445.)

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

, in moving the insertion of the following New Clause: — In any action by a miner for wrongful dismissal, it shall be competent for such miner, notwithstanding that he has received legal notice of dismissal, to prove that he was dismissed without just or reasonable cause, and thereupon he shall be entitled to such compensation as the court may deem fit, said, he would call the attention of hon. Members to a case in which a miner had been unjustly dismissed for refusing to work for 24 hours "on end." He contended that in all cases of dismissal, a workman should have the right of forcing his employer to prove that the dismissal was right and equitable, even although the ordinary notice had been given.

Clause (Compensation to miners for wrongful dismissal,)—(Mr. Conybeare,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he was sorry he could not accept the proposal, as he considered the provisions already in the Bill were sufficient. At present, although hardship might sometimes arise, it was sufficient reason at law for a man's dismissal, that it should no longer suit an employer to keep him in his employment; but the present clause would introduce an entirely new principle— namely, that although a master acted within his legal right, he must pay compensation unless he could prove that there had been what the hon. and learned Member called "a just and reasonable cause" of dismissal. The clause would also make employment permanent, continuous, and for life, and there was no reason why a principle of that kind, if adopted, should not be extended to employments of every kind.

MR. BURT

said, the difficulty he saw in the way of the adoption of the clause was not that pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman—that if it was incorporated in the Bill, it would be necessary to extend its provisions to other employments. That, if the principle itself were sound, would not, in his opinion, be a fatal objection; but he thought on the ground of equity if an employer, after giving his workmen proper notice, was liable to have his conduct challenged, then a workman who caused his employer inconvenience by leaving his employment, although he in his turn might have given proper notice, must also be liable to have his conduct challenged. It was obvious that it would be very difficult to carry out a provision of this kind. If the House would do anything to prevent or remedy injustice or hardship, he should be very glad to see it done; but he must say that after the best consideration he had been able to give to the matter, he did not think that the clause in its present shape could be adopted by the House, and he therefore hoped that it would not be pressed.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was aware the clause was greatly in advance of existing legislation, and he would therefore withdraw it.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CONYBEARE

in moving the insertion of the following New Clause:— No miner shall be required to take or occupy any house belonging to the mineowner as a condition of his employment, and in all cases where miners occupy houses belonging to the mineowner it shall not be competent for such owner to deduct the rent from the wages due; and every miner so occupying a house shall be entitled to one clear month's notice to quit before being ejected therefrom, said, he did not know whether the rumour was correct that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was inclined to look with some favour upon his clause if a modification was made from a month's notice to a fortnight's. At present, miners in the North of England and in Scotland occupied cottages built by the owners, the rents of which were deducted from the wages in advance; and on the occasion of strikes, or when there was a difference, the men were at the mercy of their employers, and were liable to be turned out at a moment's notice. He had visited the miners of Scotland recently, and he had seen their miserable dwellings, not fit for pigs, far loss human beings. In many cases, the condition of those villages was of the most distressing character. There was one village which he had in his mind called Paradise; but anything more opposite to one's usual idea of Paradise it was impossible to conceive. No provision was made in most of those villages for anything except the coarsest appetites and passions of the population, such as gin palaces and public-houses. There was nothing like a reading-room in many of them, and in some cases there was not even a chapel or a church. At that very time, a great many people were being evicted in connection with a strike going on in Scotland. He had a letter asking him to attend a meeting that day, and in that letter they said that after a struggle of seven or eight weeks, they were being evicted simply to force them into acceptance of their employers' terms, which were 17 per cent reduction, although the average wage was not more than 3s. 6d. per day, the abolition of the nine hours from bank to bank, and the enforcement of the condition that the men should not be allowed to combine for their mutual protection against arbitrary demands on the part of their employers. In placing this clause upon the Paper he was the spokesman of the miners of Scotland. It was not of his own motion that he had brought this matter forward; but because he had seen the misery in which the men lived, and because he had attended a large number of meetings, at which resolutions were unanimously passed on the subject; and therefore he felt it his duty to speak in their behalf in this House.

Clause (Occupation of cottage not to be a condition of hiring,) — (Mr. Conybeare,)— brouqht up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time,"

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would admit that hardship might occur in some cases; but it seemed to him unreasonable on the other hand, that any man, because he was a miner occupying a house, should necessarily be entitled to a month's notice to quit. If he paid his rent weekly, he was entitled only to a week's notice in the same way as any other occupier who was not a miner. Hundreds of thousands of the working population of this country had only a weekly tenancy of their houses, and were liable to be turned out at a week's notice. That part of the clause, therefore, was unreasonable. Then the hon. and learned Member would not allow the rent to be deducted from the wages; but the House, when dealing with the Truck Act this Session, allowed that to be done. As to that portion of the hon. and learned Member's clause, providing that a miner should not be required to occupy a house belonging to a mineowner as a condition of his employment, that, he thought, would be a hard and unreasonable thing to do. Therefore, while hoping that the miners in Scotland were not treated harshly in this respect by their employers, he did not think the proposed clause was a wise way of procuring relief for any hardship that might exist.

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

said, that this was a question which did not affect Scotland alone, because, in Yorkshire, all the mining communities were very much affected through want of freedom on the part of the colliers to reside in houses of their own choice. It was held in many quarters of the House to be a very wrong thing to eject tenants in Ireland; but, in this respect, the colliers at a great many collieries were quite as much deserving of sympathy as the Irish tenantry, for not only were the colliers obliged to take houses belonging to the colliery proprietors, and not only were the rents stopped from their wages, but they could be ejected without substantial notice. The miner ought to be allowed to live in a house the rent of which was not above his means. In some places in Yorkshire notices were issued now and then by the colliery proprietors stating that if the men did not live in their houses they should be compelled to leave their work. If anything could be done to obviate this evil, he trusted the Home Secretary would do it. There were cases of men in Yorkshire working two or two and a-half days a-week, and receiving 3s. 6d. or 6s. a-week, and very often when they ought to receive wages the whole amount was struck off by their employers in respect of rent for the houses they lived in. To such a condition were some miners reduced that he remembered it being said that the best dinner the miner had was a stolen turnip dinner on Sunday. If colliers could get houses to suit them at 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. a-week it was unfair to them to compel them to pay from 4s. 6d, to 6s.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he was sorry to think that Her Majesty's Government had not been able to meet the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Conybeare) half way. What the Home Secretary had pointed out with regard to miners paying their rent weekly, and being therefore entitled only to a week's notice, was all very well when the wages were paid weekly; but in some districts of Scotland, under one pretext or another, the miners were only paid once every 10 days, or every fortnight. Therefore, he claimed that the argument of the Home Secretary entitled these men to a clear fortnight's notice. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the hon. and learned Member for Camborne were to substitute a fortnight's notice for a month's notice in his clause, the Government would meet them half - way and accept the clause thus altered? He did not wish to charge any harshness upon the employers; but they had undoubtedly taken advantage of existing circumstances, which were not taken advantage of by the employers in Northumberland during the recent 16 weeks' strike. He hoped they would get some favourable expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would meet them half-way in this matter.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

said, he thought the offer now made by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Cunninghame Grahame) might well be accepted by the Government. He thought a fortnight's notice, at the very least, would in many instances give an opportunity for meeting the difficulties and disputes which often arose between the masters and the men. When certain action was taken for eviction it only aggravated these difficulties.

MR.DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E)

also supported the suggested compromise of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire. This was a matter which caused a great deal of distress in Lanarkshire. He endeavoured, when the Truck Bill was before the House this Session, to provide a remedy by a clause which he proposed; but he was not successful in that effort. The argument then used was that his clause was not very suitable for a Truck Bill, and he admitted it had some force; but it could not be advanced on the present occasion, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to accept the clause modified as suggested.

MR. CONYBEARE

Has the Government anything further to say on this matter?

MR. MATTHEWS

Perhaps with the indulgence of the House I may be allowed to answer the question. I have only to say that the Government cannot accept the clause as modified.

MR. CONYBEARE

Then we will divide.

Question put,

The House divided: —Ayes, 40; Noes, 80: Majority, 40.—(Div. List, No. 446.)

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I beg to move the following Clause: — For the better protection of workmen, and to avoid as far as possible strikes and other disturbances of labour, it shall be competent to either party to a trade dispute to apply to a stipendiary magistrate for arbitration thereon. The said stipendary magistrate shall at once notify the other party to the dispute, and invite them to appoint three persons to represent them as arbitrators, who, with three appointed by the party making the appeal, shall compose a court of arbitration, which shall he presided over by the stipendiary magistrate, or by one of his substitutes, who shall act as umpire to decide on points in which the arbitrators may differ:—(1) All expenses incurred under this section shall be assessed by the magistrate who presides, and shall be borne in such proportions as he may determine. (2) All investigations under this sections shall be held in open Court. (3) Any person who without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie on him) either fails, after having had the expenses (if any) to which he is entitled tendered to him, to comply with any summons or requisition of a Court holding an investigation under this section, or prevents or impedes the Court in the execution of its duty, shall for every such offence be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds; and in the case of a failure to comply with a requsition for making any return or producing any document, shall he liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day that such failure continues. (4) No person shall act as arbitrator or umpire under this section, who is employed in, or in the management of, or has a pecuniary interest in the mine or mines to which the arbitration relates. (5) The appointment of arbitrators under this section shall be in writing, and notice of the appointment shall be forthwith sent to the other party to the arbitration, and shall not be revoked without the consent of that party. (6) If within twenty-one days either of the parties fails to appoint three arbitrators, the arbitrators appointed by the other party may proceed to hear and determine the matter in difference, and in that case their award shall be final. (7) The Court shall have for the purpose of the arbitration the following powers—namely:—(a) Power to enter or inspect any mine or part thereof, the entry or inspection whereof appears to the Court requisite for the purposes of the arbitration; (b) Power, by summons signed by the Court, to require the attendance of all such persons as it thinks fit to call before it and examine for the said purpose, and for that purpose to require answers or returns to such inquiries as it thinks fit to make; (c) Power to require the production of all books, papers, and documents which it considers important for the said purpose; (d) Power to adminster an oath and require any person examined to make and sign a declaration of the truth of the statements made by him in his examination; (8) The decisions of the Court shall be final and binding on all concerned after such arbitration has been held as herein provided for; and it shall not be lawful for an employer to employ workmen on any other terms than those decided on by the Court, nor can any workman sue for any remuneration other than that awarded him by such Court. The clause is an effort on the part of the miners of the North to apply some sort of machinery whereby strikes dangerous to industry and to the workmen may be avoided. It is a system of the desirability of which the miners themselves are convinced. They have gone into the matter minutely, and their opinion is made up upon it. It may be an imperfect attempt; but still it is an attempt to do away with all those quarrels between employers and employed which have such a dangerous and damaging effect upon the coal industry. I will not labour the question, but will leave the House to decide upon it.

Clause (Provisions for arbitration,) — (Mr. Cunninghame Graham,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time"

MR. MATTHEWS

said, this was, no doubt, a very interesting question; but he was afraid the Government could hardly accept the hon. Member's proposal in its present form. As it was drawn, it would call on the Stipendiary Magistrates to become the managers of collieries in their district; because it applied to any trade dispute whatever, in which if there were disagreement between the arbitrators, the Stipendiary Magistrate should be called upon to decide. The providing of machinery for arbitration required more careful consideration than could be given to the subject upon this clause.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he had no wish to waste the time of the House, but he wished to have the question ventilated. He was glad the Government did not express an absolutely adverse opinion, and he thought it would be advantageous if they were to hear the views of some of the miners' Representatives on the subject.

MR, BURT

stated that in principle he was entirely in accord with his hon. Friend who had appealed to him. In the North of England, as was pretty well known, the miners had always advocated arbitration. Strikes were discreditable both to employers and workmen, or to the parties, whoever they were that were responsible for causing them; at the same time, he did not think that, at the present moment at any rate, it would be practicable to adopt a system of compulsory arbitration—and with out compulsion it was no use having such a principle embodied in an Act of Parliament. He did not think the colliers in the North of England would like to be compelled in all cases to go to arbitration. Whilst in favour of the principle of arbitration, and disposed to advocate it to the utmost extent in the place of strikes, he did not think the time had yet come to make it a subject for legislation.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause (Accident and insurance fund).

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he would not move the clause, as it had already formed the subject of discussion.

Clause 12 (Payment of persons employed in mines by weight).

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "shall," to insert the words '' unless the mine is exempted by order of a Secretary of State."—(Mr. Barnes.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 37, to leave out from the word "weight," to the word "accordingly," in line 38, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "Actual weight gotten by them of the mineral contracted to be gotten, and the mineral gotten by them shall be truly weighed at a place as near to the pit mouth as is reasonably practicable." — (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

MR. BURT

said, he and those associated with him preferred the clause in its original form. He was sorry that a full explanation had not been vouchsafed on the Amendment. Not having had time to fully consider them, he was not prepared to express a definite opinion on the many Amendments introduced by the Home Secretary, and he should prefer to take a Division against one in order to record his protest, leaving it to the Government to carry them on their own responsibility.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the Amendments he had placed on the Paper to Clauses 12 and 13 were the only ones he had put down, except such as were suggested in the course of the proceedings in Committee. The Amendment now before the House, and some consequential Amendments, were intended to meet the decision given by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of the Nether-seal Coal Company. That decision was a most startling one. It amounted to this, that every ounce of mineral, whatever it were—coal, stone, or anything else got out of the mine—must be paid for, unless the deductions from that gross amount were ascertained by the banks-man and the checkweigher both being present, and that, for instance, any ascertainment of the deduction by "Billy Fairplay" would be of no avail at all if the checkweigher was not present; so that the owner washable to pay for half a ton of stone brought up with half a ton of coal. That was a result so unjust that he could not allow the Bill to pass with those defects in it. The changes he proposed to introduce were to this effect. He provided that the deductions might be ascertained in three ways. First, by any special mode that might be agreed on between the owner and the men. That let in all such arrangements as the use of a "Billy Fairplay," and the establishment of a certain average percentage for dirt, stones, and so on. Secondly, ho provided that the workmen might, if they thought fit, have a separate checkweigher on the spot to determine the deductions together with the banksman or representative of the owner; and, lastly, if the workmen did not care to appoint a checkweigher, or if that checkweigher was culpably absent, then the banksman or man appointed by the owner was empowered to go on alone and determine the deductions: He had endeavoured to protect the interests both of the owner and of the men. The deductions would, he thought, be fairly made under the plan which he proposed. Of course no one would wish that an owner should he compelled to pay for stone as if it were coal. He very much regretted to have to introduce the Amendment on the Report stage; but, in view of the decision to which he had referred, he felt he would be very much to blame if he did not attempt to clear up the point.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

asked if the decision referred to was not based on the fact that the "Billy Fairplay" was situated 40 yards from where the checkweigher was, and he therefore could not superintend the operation?

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

said, he thought the Amendment reasonable, and hoped that after the explanation of the Home Secretary, which must be held to be satisfactory, the opposition would be withdrawn.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

expressed his obligations to the Home Secretary for the trouble he had taken in the interests of the workmen, and regretted that as the matter was one of vital importance to the men, he and his Friends would be obliged to divide the House.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

, at the request of the men of South Staffordshire, hoped that the hon. Member would divide the House

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

regretted that the hon. Member felt it necessary to take the sense of the House on the matter. He would point out that it was not a hard-and-fast law which was proposed, but one that could be amended in case of necessity. He thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Home Secretary. He himself had not as yet had time to consider the effect of the Amendment; but he should support it, feeling sure that the right hon. Gentleman had only introduced it to meet a difficulty which might arise.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 87: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 447.)

Question. That the words ' Actual weight gotten by them of the mineral contracted to be gotten, and the mineral gotten by them shall be truly weighed at a place as near to the pit mouth as is reasonably practicable,' be there inserted,

—put, and agreed to.

MR. HERMON-HODGE (Lancashire, Accrington)

, in moving, in page 5, line 11, to insert the following sub-section:— Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State, in the case of any mine or class of mines, to be expedient that the persons employed therein should, upon the joint representation of the owner or owners of any such mine or class of mines and the said persons, be paid by any method other than that provided by this Act, such Secretary of State may, if he think fit, by order allow the same, either without conditions or during the time and on the conditions specified in the order, said, there were many localities in which the men were now paid by measure and were satisfied. Why should the House step into a district where masters and men were satisfied with the basis upon which wages were paid and force upon them a system which they did not want? This alteration was in the interest of small collieries, which ought not to be saddled with the expense of providing weighing machinery and a check weigher.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 11, after the word "other," to insert the words "where it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State, in the case of any mine or class of mines, to be expedient that the persons employed therein should, upon the joint representation of the owner or owners of any such mine or class of mines, and the said persons be paid by any method other than that provided by this Act, such Secretary of State may, if he think fit, by order allow the same either without conditions or during the time and on the conditions specified in the order."—(Mr. Hermon-Hodge.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he should support his hon. Friend's Amendment. He would give one instance. A colliery owner had written to him, saying that lie had a colliery which he kept open simply for the purpose of supplying coal for a pumping machine, and asking whether he must have a weighing machine, merely in order to ascertain the pay of the one or two colliers who got the coal. He (Mr. Matthews) thought the clause would apply only to a few cases such as this, and would thus avoid instances of hardship.

MR. FENWICK

thought this was rather an ingenious way of inserting an Amendment which had already been negatived by the House, and stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), but which he was not in his place to move when it was called. He (Mr. Fenwick) had a most decided objection to the House being asked to leave it optional on the part of the employers and employed to say how they would pay and be paid. In every mine, a man should be paid according to the actual amounts of mineral which was got out of it, but if this Amendment were agreed to, it would simply enable the Home Secretary to exempt any colliery he thought fit from paying by weight. There was nothing in the proposed sub-section to confine the change to small collieries, and, that being so, he had no doubt they would have large collieries exempted from the provisions of the Bill as well as small ones, if the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was agreed to. He sincerely hoped the House would reject the Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that the Home Secretary had accepted it.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he was accidentally absent when his Amendment was called; but ho did not think it was necessary for giving effect to the present Amendment, and ho hoped the House would support it. Last night, he was met by a deputation of miners, representing a district where there was a number of small mines, and they expressed a unanimous opinion in favour of a proposal of this kind.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said, he felt it to be his im- perative duty to oppose every attempt made in that House not to have the mineral obtained from collieries strictly weighed. He took up a strong position against a similar Amendment when the Bill was in Committee, and he must do so again now. There were small collieries which might benefit by the proposed change, and perhaps, if the present Home Secretary remained in Office always, the sub-section would do no harm, as no other than small collieries would be allowed to avail themselves of it. But the right hon. Gentleman had not got a permanent lease of the Office of Home Secretary, and they did not know who might succeed him. What was known was this, that, previously, collieries employing as many as 500 or 600 men had been exempted from legislation, because the owners had sent round and asked the men to consent to their views. The men were prevented from meeting together, and, as a result, they had been induced to consent to agree to things which they never would have done had they been allowed to assemble together. He hoped the House would not fall back and enable a vicious system to be practised, which, however, would be the case if the Amendment were accepted.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he entirely repudiated the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Abraham), that the colliers of England and Wales were not free. There was all the difference in the world between the Home Secretary giving in exemption in so many words, and doing so on the joint representation of the masters and men. He thought they were perfectly competent to fight their own battle, and that they would not agree to a joint representation under this clause unless their interests were well served. It would be going too far to prevent mineowners and colliers coming to an agreement if they desired to do so.

MR. BURT

said, if the proposal had simply been to exempt small collieries and small mines, employing say 30 men, ho should not have objected to it. But it had been brought forward in a plausible form which struck a blow at the system of weighing generally, and therefore he was bound to oppose it to the utmost of his power. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had said that the laws of England were not like those of the Medes and Persians, and were capable of being amended in the future. But if the proposal of the hon. Member for the Accrington Division of Lancashire (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) was adopted, and the Bill became law—as he (Mr. Burt) hoped it would very soon do—it would not be very long before it would require alteration, because of the inclusion in it of the proposal of the hon. Member for the Accrington Division. What the miners' Representatives wanted, was that this measure should be a settlement of matters affecting them for a few years; but he assured the Home Secretary that if he accepted the Amendment in the form in which it had been proposed, it only opened the way to further agitation, and next Session a Bill would have to be brought in to amend this Act.

MR. PICKARD

said, he could not allow the clause to be passed without raising a strong protest. If the proposal of the hon. Member for the Accrington Division of Lancashire (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) was accepted, it would mean this, that every colliery owner would be able to say— "I will not have my coal weighed, if I can get my men to say they do not want to have it weighed." Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, after all the trouble he had taken with the Bill, wish it to come to that? That the coal should be weighed, no matter what the colliery owners said, was the main principle of the Bill, and all he could say was that the workmen claimed the support of the colliery owners in getting a Bill passed which should, by the efficiency of its provisions, be able to be kept in operation for 10 or 15 years. But if the Home Secretary accepted the invidious and insidious clause proposed by the hon. Member for the Accrington Division, it would nullify a vital principle of the Bill, which would not then be worth the paper it was printed on.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he thought it would be a pity—as the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends behind him were practically at one—if they did not come to an agreement on the point. He thought both Parties would, be satisfied by the insertion in the proposed new clause, after the word "mines," the words "employing not more than twenty men underground."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet.

Amendment amended, by inserting, after the word "mines," in line 2 of the Amendment, the words "employing not more than twenty persons underground."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

Question, That the words ' where it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State, in the case of any mine or class of mines employing not more than twenty persons underground, to he expedient that the persons employed therein should, upon the joint representation of the owner or owners of any such mine or class of mines, and the said persons be paid by any method other than that provided by this Act, such Secretary of State may, if he think tit, by order allow the same either without conditions or during the time and on the conditions specified in the order,' be there inserted.

—put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Appointment and removal of check weigher on part of men).

Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "weighing," to insert the words "or the determination of deductions."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. F. H. ELLIOT

, in moving to amend the clause by providing that in mines— Where no check weigher has been appointed by the workmen, any workman whose hutch is challenged, shall have the right to be brought to the surface to verify the weight and contents of the hutch, and shall, if he desires it, be taken down again to his work. said, that in certain mines in North Ayrshire, where there were no checkweighman, the men were allowed to come to the surface to verify the weight of the hutch; but they were not allowed to go down again into the mine, and thus they lost the remainder of their day. This was considered a great grievance, which he wished to remedy by his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 26, after the word "just," to insert the words, "where no check weigher has been appointed by the workmen, any workman whose hutch is challenged, shall have the right to be brought to the surface to verify the weight and contents of the hutch, and shall, if he desires it, he taken down again to his work."— (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member, as it would not be workable. If there was a grievance in any particular mine, it could be dealt with by special rules.

MR. FENWICK

said, he quite agreed with the view of the Home Secretary.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, the case could be met by putting aside hutches that were challenged.

MR. PICKARD

said, that the practice suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) prevailed at some collieries, and he did not quite agree that the working of the Amendment would be impracticable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 27, leave out sub-section (7), and insert the following sub-section: — (7) If the person appointed by the owner, agent, or manager to weigh the mineral impedes or interrupts the check weigher in the proper discharge of his duties, or improperly interferes with or alters the weighing machine or the tare in order to prevent a correct account being taken of the weighing and tareing, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Prohibition of single shafts).

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 14, to leave out from "yards" to the end of sub-section (b), and insert— And there shall be between such two shafts or outlets a communication not less than four feet wide and three feet high, and in the case of communications made after the commencement of this Act between shafts and outlets, not less than four feet high.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Exceptions from provisions as to shafts).

Other Amendments made.

MR. MATTHEWS

, in moving to insert in Clause 18 the following new paragraph: — The foregoing provisions of this Act as to the dimensions of the communication between two shafts or outlets, shall not apply to any mine or class of mines so long as the same is exempted therefrom by order of a Secretary of State by reason of the thinness of the seams or other exigencies affecting that mine or class of mines, and so long as the conditions (if any) annexed to the order of exemption are duly observed, said, that representations had been made to him that in thin seam districts, although the shafts might be a mile or more apart, the seams were so thin that in working the coal you did not get anything like a height of four feet, which was now the increased height required.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 12, after the word "observed," to insert, as a new paragraph, the words,— "The foregoing provisions of this Act as to the dimensions of the communication between two shafts or outlets, shall not apply to any mine or class of mines so long as the same is exempted therefrom by order of a Secretary of State by reason of the thinness of the seams or other exigencies affecting that mine or class of mines, and so long as the conditions (if any) annexed to the order of exemption are duly-observed. "—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

MR. HERMON-HODGE

entirely endorsed all that had fallen from the lips of the Home Secretary, and earnestly begged the House to accept the clause which was essential to the working of the thin seamed mines in the constituency which he represented.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said, the hon. Members upon the Government Benches spoke as if there were no thin seams except in the parts of the North of England with which they were connected. If they went down to South Wales, and saw seams there only 22 inches wide, they would acknowledge that there were thin seams somewhere else than in their district.

MR. FENWICK

said, he thought the Home Secretary would be well advised if he withdrew the Amendment. It was an entirely new Amendment, for they had no opportunity of considering it in Committee.

MR. BARNES

supported the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 53: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 448.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Proceedings and powers of boards for appointing examiners).

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 15, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words "and that the examinations and qualifications of applicants for second class certificates shall be suitable for practical working miners."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he proposed to omit from the Amendment the words "working miners," and to insert in their place "underlookers or overmen."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "working miners," and insert the words "underlookers or overmen." — (Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' working miners' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhonnda)

said he could not assent to the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Tomlinson's) proposal, as its effect would be that working miners would be excluded from the examinations.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that all that was wanted was that only qualified men should be able to become managers or under-managers. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In Committee he had promised that the examination should not be such as to exclude working miners from those positions, but they ought to secure men who were likely to be qualified for the work.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

said, he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to exclude working miners from filling the higher positions in mines, but such would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Preston.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he thought the Amendment of the Home Secretary would be better unamended.

MR. FENWICK

objected to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Preston —the words" practical working miner" —covered all that was desired by the words "underlooker or overman."

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said, he also took the same view as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fenwick).

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he had no desire to exclude practical miners. All he wished was, that the men appointed managers should be fit for the responsible position of underlookers or overmen.

MR. PICKARD

said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friends that by the Amendment working miners would be shut out from examination. There were many working miners who were not under-lookers or overmen, but who were quite capable and prepared to pass the examination.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he would withdraw his proposed Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and, in doing so, he trusted he might be allowed to explain that his only desire in moving it was that the most competent working men should be appointed to the higher positions in mines.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 34 (Plan of mine to be kept at office).

MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM (Cheshire, Hyde)

, in moving an Amendment that the plan should show the workings up to a date not more than three months previously, or such longer period not exceeding six months as the inspector may determine, having regard to special circumstances existing at any particular mine, said, he did not wish to reverse the decision of the Committee; but the Amendment he now proposed had the approval of the Representatives of the mines in his constituency.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 14, after the word "previously," to insert the words "or such longer period not exceeding six months as the inspector may determine, having regard to special circumstances existing at any particular mine," — (Mr. J. W. Sidebotham.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the Committee agreed to "three" months, and he did not think the House would be disposed to reverse the decision arrived at.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 16, line 39, leave out "two chains to one inch," and insert" that of the Ordnance Survey of twenty-five inches to the mile."

Clause 35 (Notice to be given of accidents in mines).

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made: —In page 17, line 21, leave out from "accident," to "unless," in line 23, and insert— Until the expiration of at least three days after the sending of such notice as aforesaid of such explosion or accident, or until the visit of the place by an inspector, whichever first happens or.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Appointment of inspectors of mines).

An Amendment made.

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made: —At end of Clause, insert as a new sub-section— (5.) The salaries of the inspectors and the expenses incurred by them or by a Secretary of State in the execution of this Act shall continue to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 (Notice by inspector of causes of danger not expressly provided for).

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made: —In page 21, line 11, leave out from beginning of line to "and," in line 16, and insert— If the owner, agent, or manager fail, when no objection is sent as aforesaid, to comply with the requisition of the notice within ten days after the expiration of the time for objection, or when there has been an arbitration to comply with the award within the time fixed by the award, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 (Annual reports of inspectors).

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 31, at the end of Clause 43, to insert the words,—" And where a special examination of a mine, or any portion thereof, has been made by an inspector of mines at the request of the workmen employed in such mine, the inspector shall forthwith make and forward a report of said examination to the Secretary of State."-(Mr. Pickard.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not accept the Amendment, the object of which he failed to perceive. He further objected to it on the ground that it would only lead to confusion. He would, however, be quite ready to issue a general instruction to the effect of the Amendment. The Inspector made examinations for a variety of reasons, and if there was any matter of consequence connected with it, he always reported to the Secretary of State. But this proposal might lead the Inspector to believe that it was only in the special case referred to that he ought to report.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Formal investigation when directed by Secretary of State).

MR. PICKARD

, in the sub-section providing that the formal investigations under the clause should be heard in open Court unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State, moved to omit the words giving the Secretary of State discretionary power in the matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 2, to leave out from "shall "to" hold."—(Mr. Pickard.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

assented to the proposal.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 (Provisions as to arbitrations).

MR. PICKARD

said, he wished to amend Sub-section 4, which stood as follows:— The appointment of an arbitrator under this section shall be in writing, and notice of the appointment shall be forthwith sent to the other party to the arbitration, and shall not be revoked without the consent of that party. He wished to leave out the words '' other party to the arbitration, and shall not be revoked without the consent of that party," in order to insert the words "umpire, and shall not be revoked without the consent of the umpire."

Amendment proposed, In page 23, line 28, to leave out from the word "the" to the word "party," in line 29, and insert the words "umpire, and shall not be revoked without the consent of the umpire."— (Mr. Pickard.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that this was the first of a series of Amendments, the scheme of which he could not agree to. This was an arbitration between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the mineowner on the other, and the hon. Member had such confidence in the Secretary of State that he would make him appoint the umpire. Well, he (Mr. Matthews) did not think that was an arrangement which would give satisfaction to the coalowners. There were other objections to other parts of the scheme, but there was one part to which he could assent—namely, that in which the hon. Gentleman proposed that the umpire in all cases of reference should be either a County Court Judge, Stipendiary Magistrate, Recorder, or Registrar of a County Court. He was prepared to accept the latter proposal with some slight amendment.

MR. PICKARD

said, that under the circumstances he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made: —In page 24, leave out Sub-section 10, and insert the following Sub-section:— Every person who is appointed an umpire under this section shall be either a County Court Judge, Police or Stipendiary Magistrate, Recorder of a borough, or Registrar of a County Court.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

suggested that the word "sheriff" should be inserted with reference to Scotland,

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that would be done in the clause applying the Act to Scotland.

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Worcestershire, Evesham)

said, he wished to move an Amendment to Sub-section 7 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge). He explained that the section, as it at present stood, provided that in the event of an arbitrator dying or becoming incapable of acting before an award had been made, or for seven days refused or neglected to act, the party by whom such arbitrator was appointed might appoint some other person to act in his place, and if he failed to do so within seven days after notice in writing from the other party for the purpose, the remaining arbitrator might proceed to hear and determine the matter in difference, and in that case the award of the single arbitrator should be final. The Amendment was to the latter part of the sub-section, to provide that the remaining arbitrator might '' act alone in the appointment of an umpire, and in hearing and determining conjointly with him the matters in difference." The Amendment would secure that the arbitrator and umpire should sit together. It would avoid the necessity of separate hearings and in that way save trouble and expense to the parties.

Amendment proposed, In page 24, line 1, sub-section 7, to leave out from the word "to," to end of sub-section, and insert the words "act alone in the appointment of an umpire, and in hearing and determining conjointly with him the matters in difference." —(Sir Richard Temple.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it was impossible to accept both the scheme of arbitration in the Bill, with the modifications which he had already accepted as proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Pickard), and the proposal now made by the hon. Baronet. There was one point in the hon. Baronet's Amendment, however, which might be accepted with advantage—that was to say, the proposal that the umpire should be able to sit at the same time as the arbitrator. By that arrangement, they would always have a lawyer sitting on the arbitration. With that view, he bad prepared the following Amendment in these words: — Arrangements shall, whenever practicable, be made for the matter in difference being heard at the same time before the arbitrator and umpire.'' That would be an additional sub-section which would come after Sub-section 14 —as the first of the sub-sections regulating the conduct of the reference.

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE

said, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman perfectly satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, after sub-section 14, to insert as a new sub-section—" Arrangements shall, wherever practicable, be made for the matter in difference being heard at the same time before the arbitrator and umpire."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he saw a difficulty in the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that it would render it necessary for the umpire to take part in every inquiry.

MR. MATTHEWS

That, no doubt, is a disadvantage; but you must take the advantages with the disadvantages.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 (General rules).

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he wished to draw attention to Rule 2 (Ventilation of mines). The rule stated— Where a fire is used for ventilation, the return air, unless it it is free from inflammable gas, shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway. He proposed, after the word "ventilation," to insert "in any mine newly opened after the passing of this Act."

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 3, after the word "ventilation," to insert the words "in any mine newly opened after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 4, to leave out the words "unless it is free from inflammable gas," and insert the words "unless it be so diluted as not to be inflammable."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

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

MR. BURT

said, he thought that this Amendment would be a serious detriment to the Bill.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it was agreed in Committee that the requirements with regard to a dumb drift had been prospective only. The Amendment he was proposing would carry that out. It had appeared to him that there were no mines that were absolutely free from inflammable gas; although there were many where they contained gas, it was not in sufficient quantities to be in the slightest degree dangerous. In such cases there could be no need for the stringent regulation contained in Rule 2.

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

said, that the Royal Commission had attached the greatest importance to the words as they stood in the Bill, and he trusted the Legislature would not countenance the carrying of the return air of any kind in a colliery over a furnace.

Question put, and negatived.

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

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

moved, in Rule 4, page 27 (relating to the inspection of a mine), an Amendment to make it clearer that no contractor for getting minerals from the mine should be qualified to make the inspection.

MR. FENWICK

said, he must insist on the importance of preventing anyone who was personally and directly interested in the working of the mine from being entitled to make the inspection of the mine, and from deciding whether it was safe or not.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he would point out that the Amendment would attain that end better than the wording of the clause as it stood.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he must insist upon his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendments made:—In page 28, line 28, after "machinery," insert '' the state of the guides and conductors in the shafts;" and, in line 12, leave out "and the guides or conductors therein."

MR. WOODALL

moved to amend the 9th rule, dealing with the construction of safety lamps, by providing that the lamp should be "provided by and be the property of the mineowner."

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 8, after the word "used," to insert the words "they shall be provided by and be the property of the mineowner, and."—(Mr. Woodall.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment. He questioned the advisability of making a general rule in the matter.

MR. WOODALL

said, that unless some substantial reason were given for the non-acceptance of the Amendment, he should feel bound to press it. The object of the Amendment was to remove uncertainty, and to make universal what was the practice in all well-regulated mines, thereby throwing the responsibility on the mineowner.

MR. BURT

said, he was sorry the Home Secretary could not see his way to accept the Amendment, which was of the utmost importance, because a great deal of danger arose from the imperfect construction of lamps which the workmen were compelled to provide themselves with in many cases. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the Home Secretary would be able to alter his decision.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not realize the danger that arose from a miner supplying himself with a cheap but imperfect lamp, and thus exposing, not only his own life, but the life of every other man in the mine.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he thought it desirable to accept the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that the Bill contained provisions against the use of improper lamps, and it was not likely the danger indicated would arise. He thought that as long as they provided that a safety lamp was used, it was unnecessary to go into details as to whom it should belong. He had received several representations, including one from Mr. Woodman, the Inspector in South Wales, to the effect that the men were more careful of the lamps to see that they were in proper order when they were their own property, and that, in fact, personal possession was an element of safety, and to insert the Amendment would be rather prejudicial to it. He would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) that it was the Inspector's duty to see that no improper lamps were taken into the mine. If the lamps did not conform to rule, if they were so constructed that they would not be safe in the swiftest current of air, then the use of such lamps would be an offence, and they would be excluded.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 74: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 449.)

Amendments made.

MR. BURT

moved that all lamps should be enclosed in cases capable of effectually preventing the gauze from being exposed to the full force of the current of air. He thought it necessary that there should be some sort of definition of what was meant by properly protected lamps.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 13, after the word "lamps,'' to insert the words "unless they are enclosed in cases capable of effectually preventing the gauze from being exposed to the full force of the current of air."— (Mr. Burt.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause as worded met all the requirements of the hon. Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

, in moving the introduction of the following as a new sub-section: — It shall be in the power of the manager or sub-manager of such mine, or part of a mine, to direct a search to be made of any person, or of the clothes or belongings of any person, who may have entered, or who may be desirous of entering, the workings, with the view of ascertaining whether such person has in his possession, or under his control, any of the contrivances, articles, or apparatus prohibited under Sub-sections 3 and 4 hereof. Provided always, that such search shall be undertaken by the manager, sub-manager, or person appointed by such manager or sub-manager, in the presence of the person whose belongings are to be searched, and that the person so to be searched, or whose clothes or belongings are to be searched, may call a workman or other person to witness the search, said, the question was whether they should put sentiment before personal safety. It was a question of sentiment versus life and death. The Amendment was important in the interest of the workmen themselves, who were the greatest sufferers in any explosion, and he meant to go to a Division so as to determine who were in favour of the clause and who were not. He would call attention to the evidence in relation to the Udston Colliery disaster, showing that matches were found upon many of the men who lost their lives, and matches might have been the cause of the explosion. Without such a search, he did not see how it was possible to carry out the prohibitory clauses, and it was almost necessary that workmen should have the power, by informing the manager, of checking the carelessness of a fellow workman, which might endanger all their lives.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed. In page 29, line 33, after the word "shot," to insert the following sub-section: — (5.) It shall be in the power of the manager or sub-manager of such mine, or part of a mine, to direct a search to be made of any person, or of the clothes or belongings of any person, who may have entered or who may be desirous of entering the workings, with the view of ascertaining whether such person has in his possession, or under his control, any of the contrivances, articles, or apparatus prohibited under sub-sections (3) and (4) hereof: Provided always, that such search shall be undertaken by the manager, sub-manager, or person appointed by such manager or sub-manager, in the presence of the person whose belongings are to be searched, and that the person so to be searched, or whose clothes or belongings are to be searched, may call a workman or other person to witness the search."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it would be highly desirable if, as a matter of good feeling and arrangement, men did allow a friendly overlooker to search; but he did not think it desirable to insert such a provision in the Bill.

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

, in supporting the Amendment said, he thought it a monstrous thing that the lives of all the workers in a colliery should be at the merey of the carelessness of one single reckless or careless man who disregarded the rule.

Question put, and negatived.

Other Amendments made.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 42, after the word "where," to insert the word "coal."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WOODALL

moved an Amendment, with the object of exempting managers from the obligation of watering a mine when using explosives, when the latter were not of a flaming nature. When water cartridges were used, there was no danger from sparks, and there was no necessity to adopt the trouble- some expedients required with powder cartridges.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 43, to leave out from the words "or (2)," to the word "unless," in page 31, line 1.—(Mr. Woodall.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he had spent hours over the Bill, seeking to find out what was and what was not indispensable, and the result was he could not accept such an Amendment. Certainly, water cartridges were most desirable things, and carefully used by an expert might, without danger, be exploded over a barrel of gunpowder. Not so, however, in the hands of a rough collier, who might jam the cartridge into a hole, letting all the water escape in the process. They ought, therefore, to persist in the provisions for watering all round the shot holes. The preponderance of opinion was in favour of that course being followed, and therefore he could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. BARNES (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

said, he must deny that the water cartridges were roughly used by inexperienced men. They were used by men whose special duty it was to fire the shots, and not a spark came from them.

MR. PICKARD

said, he trusted that the Home Secretary would stand to the Bill, which was by no means stringent on the point.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, to insist on the same precautions being taken with water cartridges as powder cartridges would lead to their disuse, and they were acknowledged the safest form of mining explosives.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said, he also trusted the Home Secretary would adhere to the Bill. Experience had shown that safe as they usually might be, the water cartridge sometimes failed. Where explosions had occurred, it could be shown that fire had been stopped where the colliery was damp. He could convince anyone of the advantages of watering, if he could show him the scheme introduced in South Wales for the watering of roof, walls, and sides, which cooled the atmosphere and made work more pleasant.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

moved the addition of a sub-section providing that shots might be fired in mines on the conditions contained in the following words:— '' 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.

Amendment proposed, In page 31, line 4, at the end, to add the words "or (3) 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."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, his hon. and learned Friend's proposal meant in a dry and dusty mine a shot might be fired with gunpowder and without watering, on condition that not more than ten men might be killed. To such a proposal he could not assent. The removal of the men was no protection against an explosion. It only limited the disastrous effects of the explosion, and confined it to the men whom it was absolutely necessary to have present. He considered the proposal would be a most dangerous relaxation of the rule.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

said, he muse point out that the removal of the workmen from the mine was the safest course to take when shots were being fired. The right hon. Gentleman took upon himself the most serious responsibility if he forbade the use of that precaution.

Question put, and negatived.

Other Amendments made.

Rule 25 (Means of signalling for working shaft).

MR. PICKARD

proposed the following Amendment: — Within six months after the passing of this Act, in every such shaft of any mine employing below ground at any one time fifty or more persons, the winding rope shall have attached a detaching and suspending hook or other automatic apparatus to detach the rope and suspend the cage in case of over winding.

Amendment proposed, In page 33, line 33, after the word "shaft" to insert the words, "Within six months after the passing of this Act, in every such shaft of any mine employing below ground at any one time fifty or more persons, the winding rope shall have attached a detaching and suspending hook or other automatic apparatus to detach the rope and suspend the cage in case of over-winding."—(Mr. Pickard.)

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

MR. HINGLEY (Worcestershire, N.)

said, he thought it would not be wise to make the provision of this invention compulsory. In the Midland Counties they pulled up the men at half-speed, and they have not had an accident. It would be better to leave mineowners, workmen, and Inspectors a discretion in the matter. Moreover, the proposal was one which would not be applicable to all cases. He did not wish to say one word to detract from the merits of the detaching hook, which was a very ingenious invention, and no doubt, under some circumstances, might be the means of saving life. The apparatus was not, however, infallible, and cases had been known in which it had failed. In the old mining districts of South Staffordshire and Worcestershire there were about 1,000 pits, and at very few of them were there pits frames suitable for detaching gear. That being so, the detaching hook at those collieries would become a positive source of danger, and might result in loss of life. Personally, he should not have any objection to applying the detaching hook to the pits with which ho was connected; but moat of the miners were averse to it, and one which he adopted some years ago was objected to by them, and really failed in use. It must also be borne in mind that many of the mines in the Midlands were now being rapidly worked out, and the consequence was that it would not pay the owners to erect new frames in order that they might use detaching hooks.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the Royal Commissioners on Accidents in Mines had expressed the opinion that whilst the safety hooks at present available might have contributed to the prevention of accidents from over-winding, the automatic steam brake constituted a better protection. Under these circumstances, he thought that, instead of adopting the Amendment, it would be well to provide that if at any colliery there was no detaching hook, the rate of speed at which men were taken up or down a shaft should not exceed two miles an hour.

MR. PENWICK

remarked that it would be a great hardship to reduce the rate of speed in some collieries where it now was as much as could be done to get out the coal at a sufficient rate. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that these detaching and suspending hooks were already largely in use in the large and better-managed collieries of the Kingdom; and the lion, and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had them at nearly the whole of his collieries. A Circular was issued in 1879 by Viscount Cross, who was then Home Secretary, in which that right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the occurrence of accidents through over-winding, and the consequent breakage of winding ropes. The right hon. Gentleman further drew the attention of mine managers and agents to the invention of the automatic apparatus, with the object of providing for the safety and the lives of working miners, and expressed a hope that the managers would give the subject their earnest consideration, with the view of having such appliances introduced in case they had not already been adopted in the mines under the charge of the managers to whom the Circulars were addressed. That Circular, he (Mr. Fenwick) might add, had the support of nearly every Inspector of Mines in the country. He would quote from various Inspectors' letters evidence bearing upon this question. The Inspector for the Newcastle district said that motives of economy should have no weight at all whore danger to life or limb was even remotely possible. The Inspector for the Durham district said that, in his opinion, there was a necessity for the use of safety hooks in every instance whore winding machines wore used for the winding of men from mines, and where consequently life was entrusted to human weakness. He would also mention a case in which 10 lives were saved in consequence of the use of these detaching and suspending hooks. Seeing that the spirit of the Bill was to provide greater safety for working miners in following their dangerous avocations, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see his way to accept the Amendment. It had been objected that the expense of providing this machinery in small mines would prevent their working; but he would point out that the objection was met by the Amendment, which would not interfere with mines in which less than 50 men were employed. There were over 3,000 of these hooks now employed in mines, which number was rapidly increasing; and he submitted that their use ought to be made compulsory.

MR. MATTHEWS

suggested that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickard) should withdraw his proposal in favour of an Amendment which he (Mr. Matthews) would propose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, the following Amendment made:—In page 33, line 33, after the word "shaft," insert— If in any mine the winding apparatus is not provided with some automatic contrivance to prevent over-winding, then the cage, when men are being raised, shall not he wound up at a speed exceeding three miles an hour.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 4, to leave out from the word "number," to the end of line 5, inclusive.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. BURT (for Sir JOSEPH PEASE), the following Amendment made:—In page 35, line 21, leave out from "no person "to" workman," in line 24, both inclusive, and insert— No person not now employed as a coal or ironstone getter shall be allowed to work alone as a coal or ironstone getter in the face of the workings until he has had two years' experience of such work under the supervision of a skilled workman, or unless he shall have been previously employed for two years in or about the face of the workings of a mine.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda) (for Mr. A. J. WILLIAMS) (Glamorgan, S.)

proposed the insertion of the following Proviso:— There shall be established at one or more central places in every district, to be selected by the Inspector for such district, a station or stations, which shall be provided with such apliances and apparatus as the Inspector shall consider necessary for exploring purposes, and for succour and relief, in case of colliery accidents. The expense of establishing and main- taining such station or stations, as well as the expense of employing men for the purpose of keeping in efficient order, managing, and using such appliances and apparatus, shall be borne and paid by the urban sanitary authorities and the rural sanitary authorities respectively comprised within each such district in such proportion as shall from time to time be apportioned by the Local Government Board. In proposing that Amendment, he did so because he believed that if such a provision had been in force in former years a number of valuable lives might have been saved.

Amendment proposed, in line 24, at end, add— There shall be established at one or more central place in every district, to be selected by the inspector for such district, a station or stations, which shall be provided with such appliances and apparatus as the inspector shall consider necessary for exploring purposes, and for succour and relief, in case of colliery accidents. The expense of establishing and maintaining such station or stations, as well as the expense of employing men for the purpose of keeping in efficient order, managing, and using such appliances and apparatus shall be borne and paid by the urban sanitary authorities and the rural sanitary authorities respectively comprised within each such district in such proportion as shall from time to time be apportioned by the Local Government Board," —(Mr. W. Abraham.)

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

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that, as the proposal involved expenditure which was to be chargeable to the rates, it was out of Order.

MR. W. ABRAHAM

said, that under the circumstances he would only move the first part of the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

observed that in that case the proposal would necessarily be inoperative.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 31, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Pickard.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 17, to leave out from the word "Act," to the words" he may," in line 19.—(Mr. Woodall.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.

Resolutions [2nd September]reported.

First Resolution postponed till Monday next.

Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

House adjourned at five Minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.