HC Deb 12 September 1887 vol 321 cc415-44

Lords' Amendments considered.

Lords' Amendments, as far as page 4, line 14, agreed to.

Amendment, in page 5, to leave out "twenty," and insert "thirty," read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

Surely the Home Secretary will give the House some explanation why he accepts this Amendment.

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

was understood to say that representations had reached him from various quarters to the effect that the limit had been somewhat too closely drawn.

MR. FENWICK

Hon. Gentlemen will remember that it was the Home Secretary who suggested the insertion of "twenty" as a compromise.

MR. MATTHEWS

No, no !

MR. FENWICK

Anyhow, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of very great importance to the miners of the United Kingdom. I am sure he must be aware that consider- able feeling exists among the mining community upon this question. It is a matter which we have been agitating upon since the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and considerable importance is attached to this subject by the mining community. I certainly hope that the Home Secretary will not move to agree with the Lords on a question of such vital importance, unless the Government intend that the whole Bill shall be reconsidered at no very distant date, I hope they will not be disposed to accept the alteration in this and other points made by the Peers. I sincerely hope that the Government will not move to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I have moved to agree with the Lords.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

Does the hon. Member seriously mean to say that the alteration in this Bill from 20 to 30 is so important a matter that it will destroy the effect of the Bill, and render it necessary to introduce another measure next Session? The object of the Amendment is to relieve certain small mines from the obligation of having coal weighed. The only cases in which it can be done will be where the owner of the mine, those who work in the mine, and the Home Secretary are all of one mind.

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

It is to be assumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or the Member in charge of the Bill, has taken steps to ascertain the effect of the reach of this Amendment. I therefore ask him if he will be good enough to inform the House, from the statistics at his proposal, what are the number of coal mines in which less than 30 men are employed? In other words, I ask what will be the effect of this Amendment; and I would ask whether, from the light that inquiry throws upon it, it is not clear that, though it may be looked upon as a matter of detail, it is, in fact, an important Amendment, extending the class of mines themselves which would have to be included in the exception? I should like to ask how many of these mines there are?

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

This provision which the Lords interfered with was a compromise suggested by the colliers themselves, and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Govern- ment; I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

There is a term used here which is not "miners" but "persons," and it covers everyone who is employed in the pit. Well, I am informed that the number of "persons" employed in the pit is very much larger than the number of "miners." Therefore the extension is really one in favour of the original Amendment. I hope the House will not hesitate to acquiesce in this very remarkable Amendment of the House of Lords, which is entirely the spirit of the original change.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

MR. MATTHEWS

I have no right to speak again; but I may just be allowed to say, perhaps, that I have not got the statistics the hon. Member asks for, or, at least, I do not think so. I would point out to the hon. Member that mines with less than 30 men working in them are exempt from the necessity of having a certificated manager. I was originally in favour of having no limit in this matter; but as the hon. Member seems to be in favour of it, I willingly accept it.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to tell the House that after all the work and all the debates here our decisions are to be reversed by a small number of noble "minors "in" another place? "I trust the House will disagree with the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments, as far as Amendment, page 28, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment, page 30, line 29, agreed to. Page 30, line 29, leave out from "inflammable," to end of line 30, the next Amendment, road a second time."

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

MR. FENWICK

I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not intend to agree with the House of Lords in this Amendment. This is an alteration of grave and serious importance. It means leaving out an Amendment moved originally by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). The words which it is proposed to strike out of the Bill have reference to the exclusion of the Davy, Clancy, and Stephenson lamps. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, who have gone extensively into this question, it has been found by experiment that the Davy, Clancy, and Stephenson lamps under certain conditions are not at all to be relied upon for purposes of safety. In their Report the Commissioners say that in certain currents the Davy and Clancy lamps cease to be safety lamps, and that the Stephenson may even cause an explosion. Also on page 491 they say that an explosive current with the very moderate velocity of 400 feet per minute is a current in which the Davy lamp ceases to afford protection for more than a few seconds. But they say that when those lamps are protected or encased in proper tin cases, as is now done in all well regulated collieries, an entirely different state of things is obtained. No doubt, the application of certain mechanical contrivances to the Davy lamp may convert it from a dangerous to one of the safest lamps in common use. That shows the immense importance of this question; and I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not agree with the Lords and their Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon it, I shall be disposed to take a Division upon the question. The question is one of very vital importance affecting the safety of the miner, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with the Lords.

MR. MATTHEWS

It ought to be our desire to prohibit the use of any lamp which will not withstand the current ordinarily prevailing in mines. But in a case where a protected or unprotected Davy lamp will resist the ordinary current of the mine there is no reason why it should not be used, irrespective of the fact of its being protected. I have had representations from persons all over the country saying that they own unprotected Davy lamps which are thoroughly safe in the mines in which they are used. It would be a great injustice to insist upon these men obtaining new lamps. Then, again, even from a sentimental point of view, I think it was hardly to be expected from the Representatives of the miners of this country that they should object to the use of the Davy lamp. To say that the Davy lamp is unsafe and dangerous to the miner is as flagrant a piece of ingratitude on the part of the miner as it is possible to conceive.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

Circumstances have proved to the miners of this country that what they have been in the habit of looking upon as one of their great sources of safety has in reality proved to be a source of very great danger. I would point out that in their Report the Royal Commissioners, on page 117, say that it has long been known that if the atmosphere becomes inflammable the Davy and the Clancy lamps, and in a less degree the Stephenson lamp, become unsafe in currents having velocities much below those encountered in well regulated mines. The Commissioners go on to say that the ordinary Davy lamp becomes unsafe before a velocity of 400 feet per minute; that the Clancy lamp will almost certainly cause an explosion in a current having a velocity of 600 feet per minute; and that the Stephenson is unsafe in a current of 800 feet per minute. They do not stop here; but add— From the information supplied to us by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and others currents having a velocity of more than 400 feet per minute are now frequently found in working places. I think it is conclusively proved that these lamps are not safety lamps, but that in reality they are danger lamps. Under these circumstances, this House will fail in its duty to the mining community of the country unless they restore the Bill to the position in which in this respect it left this House.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

Perhaps I may say a few words on this matter, as the Amendment which was adopted in Committee stood in my name, though it was actually moved in my absence by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth. This is a somewhat technical matter, and I placed the Amendment on the Paper, providing that a safety lamp shall not be taken to be a Davy, Clancy, or Stephenson after the most careful perusual of the Report of the Commission upon which this Bill is professedly founded. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) has very courteously listened to all the suggestions which have emanated from those who have practical acquaintance of the matter, and I trust he will see his way to reconsider his decision upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has road a letter from one of the members of the Commission in which particular mention is made of the Midland coalfields. I am a Midland coalowner, and I take an entirely different view from that taken in the letter in question. I do not wish at this hour of the morning (2.5) to make a speech; but I desire most emphatically to endorse all that has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. W. Abraham). In my judgment this Bill falls short of the requirements. It does not go so far in regard to safety as the progress of mining since 1872—the date of the last measure—warrants. I entirely agree with the policy of not prescribing what safety lamps shall be used. That would be going entirely beyond the function of Parliament; but I do think we may go so far as to say what are not safety lamps. The public expect that we will keep the Bill in the shape in which it left this House. I earnestly entreat the Home Secretary, in the interest of the safety of the mining community, of whose wishes I have some knowledge, to adhere to the Bill as it went up to "another place."

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

I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well in this matter to adhere to the Amendment made in Committee.

MR. PICKARD (York, W. R Normanton)

I am only sorry the Lords have dealt with such matters as really affect the safety of our miners. I trust the Home Secretary will disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I do not know whether I ought again to ask the House to observe that it is proposed to pick out three lamps—lamps which are already condemned as unsafe in mines were the currents are strong. The Royal Commission have said of these lamps that with the velocity ordinarily prevailing in large collieries they are unsafe. I am sure hon. Members who understand mining practically will not deny there are mines in which the air current is less than 400 feet per minute. In these mines these lamps are perfectly safe, therefore why prevent their use in such mines and oblige them to adopt lamps which are quite proper in rapid currents, but quite unnecessary in mines were the currents are not so strong? It means a loss of two or three days to disagree with any of these Amendments, and therefore unless they are vital to the operation of the Bill, I ask the House not to disagree with them.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

What is the loss of two or three days in the House of Commons compared with the loss of life? One would suppose that the convenience of Members of the House of Commons was the most important thing in the Kingdom. These words were included in the Bill at the instance of the Representatives of miners. The men who are the most strenuous in the support and advocacy of these words are men who have a practical personal detailed acquaintance with the working of mines. It is said that the preceding words of the clause provide all that is necessary. What are the preceding words of the clause? Wherever safety lamps are used they shall be so constructed that they may be safely carried against the air current ordinarily prevailing in that part of the mine. It is not against the air current ordinarily prevailing you require protection. Explosions take place where certain exceptional circumstances are present. A fall of roof may induce a very considerable increase of current. With a fall of roof you not only have an increase in the air current, but you have a disengagement of air which renders that portion of the mine exceptionally dangerous. In view of these circumstances, those who have worked in mines, those who know what it is to be present at an explosion, ask the House to include these words so as to prevent the use in mines of lamps which have already proved to be in many cases little more than man traps beset with danger to large numbers of men. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seriously asks the House of Commons to consent to an Amendment for the reason, forsooth, that its rejection might involve a delay of two or three days. To whom? To 200 or 300 Gentlemen who may find it more convenient to be out in the country than in London. It seems to me that such an argument is unseemly, and is altogether unfit for a Minister in whose hands to a great extent the safety and the lives of the miners has been placed.

MR. TOMLINSON

Let me say a word in deprecation of the idea that there is any difference of opinion in any part of the House as to the desirability of securing by every possible means the safety of miners. What is objected to is the specifying of particular kinds of lamps. The adoption of the Amendment of hon. Gentlemen opposite may give rise to the opinion that the lamps which are not condemned are safe. I believe there are other lamps as equally untrustworthy as the three which have been mentioned. It is certainly undesirable that we should make a condemnation which might lead men to think that the lamps not condemned are safe.

MR. CONYBEARE

The logical conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he can add to the list other lamps which are unsafe.

MR. TOMLINSON

I do not know which they are.

MR. CONYBEARE

I should like to say that, so far as I have been able to gather in the course of the discussion, and from the Report connected with this matter, which is certainly a technical one, with which we are not all intimately acquainted, is that it is not only falls of the roof but changes in the atmosphere which may alter the conditions beneath the surface, and may lead to the air current ordinarily prevailing being so intensified in rapidity as to make these lamps dangerous. The argument of the Home Secretary simply leads towards this—that we are to wait until such test has been applied to these lamps as results in a fatal explosion before we condemn them. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] That is precisely what the argument of the right hon. Gentleman tends to. I must say it is a very great pity that the Lords do not follow the judicious advice of the old adage, "A cobbler should not go beyond his awl." These words are recommended by men who are practically acquainted with the details of the subject. The Lords seem to be very glad to take the royalties, but to be perfectly regardless of the safety of the miners.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is not respectful to the other branch of the Legislature.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) () Cornwall, Bodmin

It is to be regretted that this debate should be confused by such references as those which have just been made, but I must remark that an hon. Member (Mr. Wood) who sits behind the Home Secretary, and who has practical acquaintance with this matter, has supported the appeal made from this side of the House that the words inserted in Committee by this House should be retained. I have not heard from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) any serious argument against the retention of the words, and the argument of the Home Secretary is, at the best, that we may lose two or three days if we disagree with this Amendment. I should like to know whether there is any reason to believe the Lords are so devoted to the exclusion of these words that they will insist upon their opinion if this House sends the message that they cannot agree with them, because if the Lords are not prepared to come to a struggle on the point, there will be no delay whatever.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 74: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 479.)

[2.20 A.M.]

Amendments, as far as Amendment, page 33, line 38, agreed to.

Page 34, line 34, leave out from the first ("age") to ("shall"), in line 35, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Matthews.)

MR. PICKARD

This was another point which occupied a great deal of the time of the Committee. A great deal of conversation took place, and eventually the provision was left in its present form. I am bound to say that the House of Lords have not had sufficient consideration for our workmen. I trust that the House of Commons, however, will stand to the original wording of the Bill. If the Government intend to break down on this point, I must say that they are adopting an altogether unjustifiable course. If they wished to give way, why did they not do it in Committee or on the Report stage, rather than in the House of Lords? I must say that I think the Government made a great mistake in putting up anyone in the House of Lords to move those Amendments, because it would have this result—that it will enable the miners to say that all they gained in this House they practically lost in the House of Lords.

MR. MATTHEWS

I think the hon. Member must be speaking of some other Amendment—he must be dealing with some later rule, and not that which is affected by the Lords' proposal.

MR. PICKARD

I thought we were dealing with Rule 26.

MR. MATTHEWS

No, no.

Question put, and agreed to

Amendments, as far as Amendment, page 35, line 22, agreed to

Page 35, line 22, after "hour," insert "after the cage has reached a point in the shaft to be fixed by the Special Rules," the next Amendment, read a second time."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Matthews.)

MR. FENWICK

DO I understand that the right hon. Gentleman moves to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment?

MR. SPEAKER

No; the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill moves to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

This Amendment is suggested by practical persons, who say that in very deep mines—in mines 700 yards in depth, for instance—if you limit the distance at which the cages can be lowered and brought up to three miles an hour, the result would be to keep 200 or 300 men for hours unnecessarily down in the pit before they could be brought up.

MR. FENWICK

I must say that I am surprised at the Home Secretary moving to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. We accepted the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in Committee on this matter, and now, on the strength of a representation he has received from some quarter or other, he says if you retain the speed named in the Bill the workmen will have to remain at the bottom of the pit some two or three hours before they can be taken out. As one representing the miners, I say let them remain if it is a question involving the safety of life and limb. If the owners are not prepared to erect suitable headgear, and if they are not prepared to fix detaching hooks to their ropes, then by all means reduce the speed in lowering men down a mine or in taking them out. We accepted the right hon. Gentlemen's Amendment, because we knew what the effect of it would be—because we knew it would have the effect of compelling the owners to erect adequate head-gear and detaching hooks to their cages. We knew perfectly well that the owners would not suffer the loss which would be involved in reducing speed to three miles an hour. As a matter of fact, this is a question which really affects the lives of the miners. We wish to make the Bill as effective for the preservation of the men as we possibly can. I do not say that hon. Members opposite are not as desirous as we are of considering the safety of the men. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that in moving, as he does, to agree with the House of Lords, the direct effect will be to strike a blow at a provision in the Bill which provides for increased safety. Is there any hon. Member in the House who has had any experience of coal mines, and who is directly connected with coal mines, who does not know that where mines are well managed and regulated they have detaching hooks upon the cages. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) has detaching hooks attached to all his cages, as I pointed out in Committee, and I believe that every other hon. Member interested in coal mines also has detaching hooks attached to his cages, thereby endeavouring to secure the safety of life and limb of those engaged in working in the mines. You refused in Committee to make it compulsory, and because you did that you inserted in the clause a provision limiting the speed at which men may ascend and descend a shaft. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a stand somewhere against the Lords' Amendments. I confess, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whilst we were discussing another question of equal importance, that to reject the Lords' Amendments would involve a delay of two or three days, I have very little hope for any other Amendment however important it may be. It would seem as though the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind to accept holus bolus every alteration which has been made in the Bill since it left this House. If all these Lords' Amendments are accepted, the miners of this country will be bound to commence another agitation immediately, in order to have the Bill amended in the next Session of Parliament, for I maintain that the principles the House of Lords have struck out are fatal to the interests of the miners, and fatal to the objects of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has any regard for his own work, I would ask him to agree with us in this matter. I hope my hon. Friend will press his objection to the Lords' Amendment to a Division.

MR. TOMLINSON

I do trust that this Amendment will be considered calmly. What is it? It is suggested that in some cases it will not be wise to require speed to be slackened for the whole distance of the depth of the mine. Sometimes it is easy to adopt general rules, and sometimes there is oven danger in following them, and I think it is only reasonable to ask that latitude should be allowed under such circumstances. I do not see how peril can arise by leaving this point to be dealt with by the special rules.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I really wish to know what this House intends to do for the safety of our miners. We are not going, upon the question of detaching hooks, to be put off by a consideration as to the speed of the winding—put off simply on the recommendation, not of a court of practical miners, not of those who represent the working miners, but simply because eight or 10 old gentlemen, who know nothing of the subject—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman disregards my ruling, if he speaks in that manner of the House of Lords. I warn him.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I shall certainly not disobey your ruling, Sir; but what I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is whether we are not going to do something for the miners—whether, as he has been appealed to by the miners' Repre- sentatives, he will not fake heart, and venture to move to disagree with those gentlemen to whom we owe so much respect.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I have had 40 years' experience of mines, and I have employed as many as 1,500 hands. I have the strongest objection to the employment of detaching hooks. I have never used them, and I have had no accident. I know cases in which they have been successfully used; but my own experience is that you will obtain safety by taking care and not having too long lines.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

I quite agree with hon. Members opposite that this is a matter which can be discussed without heat, because we are all endeavouring to arrive at a practical conclusion with regard to the safety of those employed underground. I cannot see that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) quite touch the Amendment, as I understand the provision as to the speed of winding was inserted in the Bill on the suggestion of the Home Secretary by way of a compromise. I do wish the right hon. Gentleman had not listened to some of the suggestions that have reached him since the Bill reached "another place," and that he had stood a little firmer to this and other compromises arrived at here. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has told us that unless the Lords' Amendment is accepted, it might result in the men being left underground for a considerably longer time. No practical men will agree with him. A big mine, in which, say, 700 men are employed, will be laid out on the best scale, and the machinery will be such that the detaching hooks are of the best description; there will be no such consequences as those suggested. But, on the other hand, the words proposed by the Lords will give rise to complications. The particular point will differ according to the views of a number of different people. It is a much simpler thing either to fix a detaching hook or a certain rate of speed than some people seem to imagine. At all events, I hope we shall, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) suggested, consider the matter in a calm spirit. If I may make a suggestion it is that the Government should not apply a mere Party majority to it. This is not a Party matter at all, and if a Division be taken upon it, it ought to be decided on its merits. I have reason to believe that the last question would not have been decided as it was if it had been decided on its merits.

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

It is argued that winding at a high rate of speed is dangerous, yet hon. Gentlemen would permit it at the highest rate of speed provided there be a detaching hook at the top. The fact is, a low rate of speed is only required half way to prevent overwinding; and the first of these provisions is to prevent overwinding, and not to regulate the low rate of speed.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I should be the last to suggest any unworthy motives to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I must say it is somewhat unfair of them to interpret our action in this matter. What we ask for is that those detaching hooks should be placed in every mine. As practical men we know that after all the speed has not so much to do with it. The question of speed did not arise on this side of the House. It was a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as a compromise. The employment of safety hooks is not only of great importance to the workmen, but likewise to the mine owner. When a rope snaps the cage is smashed. It is of advantage to the mineowner that his plant should not be destroyed; and it is an advantage to the miners that they should not lose their lives or their limbs. I hope the House will consider this question seriously. I am sorry to find that when a little expense is involved—[Cries of "Question !"] Well, the fact remains that the protection of the lamp used would not cost more than from 8d. to l0d. Our Amendment was rejected. This is a question of expense.

MR. MATTHEWS

I rise to Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not upon any question of expense, but upon the question whether speed of three miles an hour shall prevail from the bottom of the pit to the top?

MR. W. ABRAHAM

What I meant to convey was that it was unfair to meet us with the question of speed. What we want to secure is the employment of safety hooks; and it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who suggested the question of speed as a compromise. Now the question of speed is given up. By a side wind we lose everything.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 66: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 480.)

[2.50 A.M.]

Page 36, line 36, leave out "or have been," the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Matthews.)

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

This Amendment of the Lords is, and is recognized as being, a very important alteration of the Bill as it left this House. Rule 38, to which it is an Amendment, provides for the periodical inspection of a mine, on behalf of the workmen, by men drawn from their own body, or by other persons of their own choosing, and it provides that persons so chosen shall either be indeed practical working miners, or persons who have been practical working miners, and the effect of the omission of the words "or have been" is that the class from which the Inspector on behalf of the workmen may be drawn will be restricted to those who now are working miners, and it will disqualify for the duties of Inspector all those who, having been practical working miners, have ceased to act as such. Now, I believe this clause, as it at presents stands, is the pearl of the whole Bill. The provision for the inspection of the mine by the men themselves, or their representative, is calculated to do more to save human life in mines than all the other provisions in the Bill put together; and the working miners throughout the country recognize its value. It is valuable not only to the men, but also to the coalowners themselves, because men who, with the knowledge of practical workmen, inspect the mines will be able to draw the attention of the Government Inspectors to any shortcomings in the administration, to any defect in the material, and to any blot in the scheme of working. They will be able to put the mineowners themselves on their guard against impending peril; and it will do much to save human life, as well as to prevent wasteful accidents and loss of capital. But, Sir, what do we find? We find that an effectual attempt was made in Committee in the Upper House to cut down the class of men from whom these Inspectors might be selected on behalf of the men, and among the Papers issued by the House of Lords—which are practically public Papers—is a list of the Amendments moved to this Bill. I have it in my hands now, and it is endorsed "Amendments to be moved in Committee by Viscount Cross." Every single one of these Amendments which we have sent down to us from the Lords, was moved by one man, and one man only, and we can remember what his attitude was towards those miners when he was in this House. There was nobody more blatant in his talk about the interests of the mining population than Sir Richard Cross. [Order, order !] I am speaking of one who was a Member of this House when possibly some Gentlemen opposite did not occupy seats here. I am speaking from my own personal recollection, and no one who heard Sir Richard Cross in years gone by talking about the mining population, the dangers of working in mines, and the necessity for Coroner's inquests being attended by representatives of the miners, could have conceived it possible he should have fathered this wretched, niggling, list of Amendments. Now, this Amendment strikes out the very pearl of the Bill—the clause which provides the best possible safeguards and furnishes the best possible security for employers and employed alike. Sir, I hope that the House will not agree with this Amendment. The whole question was discussed—and thoroughly discussed in Committee of this House long ago. The clause as it at present stands is different from that which the Government introduced. I myself moved an Amendment almost precisely equivalent to the existing words of the clause; but I thought it better to consent to a slight modification of my wording in order to secure the support of a coalowner, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease.) The result was that the clause was amended in the manner in which it stands. But, Sir, the Lards propose to destroy what, I believe, to be the very best part of the Bill, and I set such store upon this provision—I regard it as so exceedingly valuable for the miners, that I believe it would be better for them to reject the Bill altogether than to accept it in this mutilated form. And I do so for this reason. I believe that, though they might suffer for a few months, yet in the end they would gain because the maximum of to-day would be the minimum of next Session. You cannot possibly go back from the point you have reached in your present Bill, and next Session, probably, you would secure a very much better provision—a very much better Act for the miners. My counsel, therefore, to them would be to reject the Bill altogether, rather than submit to this mutilation. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has already told us that the rejection of this Lords' Amendment means a delay of three days. As has already been pointed out, it means that you are to submit to anything the Lords choose to send down in the way of Amendments, lest you should be inconvenienced by a few days' delay here. Why, Sir, the suggestion is monstrous—it is monstrous on the part of the Government, and it is unworthy of the House of Commons—it is an inducement to the House of Lords in future Sessions to send down unreasonable restrictions upon provisions and measures sent up by the House of Commons. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are crying "Question!" Sir, it is past 3 o'clock in the morning, and I am not surprised some Gentlemen find it difficult to follow me. Even the Home Secretary himself seems somewhat exhausted. But this, to me, is a matter of great significance, and hon. Members might well consider it worth their while to make an extra effort to safeguard the lives of men employed in coal mines. At any rate, I shall not be hurried by unfair shouts of "Question !" and I say it is a dangerous and monstrous argument to put forward, that, because the rejection of any of these Amendments sent down by the Lords will entail a delay of two or three days, therefore the House of Commons is to submit to the mutilation of a Bill of this description. My advice to the working men of this-country is to see that the Amendments of the Lords are treated upon their merits, and not according to the convenience of Ministers. I also believe that the working men of this country will never get justice—that coal miners and every other class of men will never get justice until they make not only this Assembly, but every assembly respect their wishes. I believe also that before the working men of this country get justice the Hous9 of Lords will have to be bridled.

MR. FENWICK

This is the third exceedingly important alteration that the House of Lords have made in this Bill. Amendments have been thrown out by the House of Lords which were accepted unanimously by this House, and I think we have exceedingly good ground for complaint in the action of the Government in this respect, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal. The Home Secretary and the whole House accepted an Amendment on this point, and yet the responsible Minister in the other House undertakes to throw out the Amendment to which we attach so much importance, and the Home Secretary when the Bill comes back here simply moves to agree with the alterations which have been made, and in this manner gets out of a difficulty the Government would have had to face at the time the Bill was being considered in Committee of this House. I say that we have very grave grounds for complaint against the Home Secretary, and against the Government generally, for their treatment of this Amendment. We have already endeavoured to point out to the House that miners throughout the country attach, and rightly attach, the utmost importance to this subject. Now in all well-regulated mines, I may inform the House, the managers not only offer no objection to inspection, but they actually court inspection by the miners, or by anyone whom the miners may appoint, for the simple reason that they know that when the inspection is made there will be nothing to which the Government Inspectors can find fault, because everything that can be done is done every day the miners work—everything is done that can possibly be done to secure the life and limbs of the miners. It is only in cases where there is a want of proper management that difficulty is experienced by the miners. In these cases the owners not only object to workmen inspecting their mines under the existing Act, but as was stated in Committee, if the workmen insisted on taking advantage of the Act of 1872, the first opportunity that presented itself would be taken to dismiss the men who had thus persisted in maintaining their rights. It was in order to prevent such cases of hardship as those to which I have referred occurring in the future that we urged on the House, and especially on the Home Secretary, the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, which provided that any two practical workmen—any two persons not being mining engineers, who are or have been practical miners, might be appointed to inspect mines. That is to say, when I go back to my constituency, which I hope shortly to do, if the miners of any constituency wish to appoint me as Inspector to inspect any particular mine, I have the liberty to do so under the clause as sent up to the Lords. But if this Amendment be agreed to, as I am certain it will be, for the Government will certainly beat us in the Division, the effect will be that, however desirous my constituents may be to appoint me to act in the capacity of Inspector, they will be effectually debarred from doing so by the provisions of this Bill. I will ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to support me if they consider that such a provision or such an object as this is a fair and laudable object. All we ask is that we shall have the fullest liberty to inspect the mines, and it is simply by thorough inspection that confidence can be created in the minds of miners as to the safety of the conditions under which they are compelled to work. And I here declare that the House of Lords have deliberately struck out one of, if not the best, provisions that were contained in the Bill. We are asked quietly and tamely to acquiesce in the action of the House of Lords. I tell you sincerely that the miners in the country will not tamely acquiesce in the alterations made in the Bill, and such is the importance I attach to the provision I shall deem it my duty to agitate until the provision is granted to working miners so that they may have the power, not only to inspect the mines for themselves, but also to call in any two persons who are or have been practical miners to examine the mine in their interests. I repeat I shall hold myself free to agitate in order that that power may be granted to the miners—a power to which they certainly attach the utmost importance. I am very sorry—I am exceedingly sorry—that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has accepted these three very serious Amendments that have been made by the House of Lords. I did hope when he and his Government had acquiesced in this House in these Amendments that no interference with them would be supported in the House of Lords by any responsible Minister of the Crown—that, at any rate, it would only be attempted by some independent Member of the Upper House. But here, when the right hon. Gentleman has practically and tacitly agreed with us and the Bill has been sent up to the House of Lords, a responsible Minister of the Crown moves from his place there to throw out the Amendments on which we had agreed, and to which we attached the utmost importance. We shall take a Division on this question; we shall, I am aware, be beaten, but we shall leave this House with the full determination to agitate until the power contained in this provision before it was mutilated by the Lords is granted to us.

MR. MATTHEWS

Before this Bill reaches its last stage, I must protest against the assumption of hon. Members opposite that they, forsooth, are alone the persons who care for the working miner and his safety. The hon. Member for East Donegal has lectured us upon our gross neglect. We do not accept that blame, for we are as anxious as anyone can be for it, I say that now once and for all. In the meanwhile we adhere to the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Morpeth who, I think, can claim to represent the English working classes as fairly as anyone. We think that if practical working men either belonging to the mine or not belonging to the mine, are allowed to inspect it, there is ample guarantee of security, and, although nobody appreciates more than I do the value of the services of the hon. Member for a Division of Northumberland, who spoke just now, I think, that an actual practical working miner would be better qualified to inspect a mine. The best man to be selected for the purpose must be a man working in the mine itself, or in an adjoining mine, because he is in constant touch with the men. I only desired to say one word to defend myself. I am charged with having accepted this clause when the Bill was before the Committee of this House, and I am told that I am consequently bound to reject this Lords' Amendment. Now, on the contrary, I myself suggested that these three words should be omitted, and it was only on account of the accidental form in which the question was put from the Chair, that I was prevented moving the omission.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I am sorry to have to inflict any remarks of mine upon the House at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I feel bound to do so because I consider that the wishes of 60,000 miners in Scotland should be studied before the convenience of Gentlemen sitting here. I have been amongst the miners since the Report stage of this Bill, and I therefore speak with a knowledge of what their wishes are. As soon as the Lords' Amendments—or rather Lord Cross's Amendments—were ascertained in Scotland, I had 30 or 40 telegrams from different mining districts in Scotland, urging me to come up to London to oppose this particular Amendment. The Home Secretary knows as well, and even better than I do, why the Scotch miners are so urgent on this question, and why this Amendment has raised such intense feeling in Scotland. It is that men whom the miners in Scotland look upon as their leaders would be do-barred from inspecting the mines if this Amendment were carried. These leaders are men of superior intelligence; they are trusted by the men in their respective districts, and not only would the carrying of the Amendment cut out from appointment the check-weighers, but also the miners' agents. I should like to ask the Home Secretary what argument, except a sentimental one, he has why miners' agents should not be employed to look after the safety of these men amongst whom they have grown up. Why should they not be appointed to these responsible situations? It is all very well for the Home Secretary to seek to stifle our arguments by using the name of the hon. Member for Morpeth. Nobody respects him more than I do myself, but he does not speak for Scotland in this matter. I do, and I tell this House plainly, on behalf of the whole mining population of Scotland, that this Amendment will be opposed to the bitter end. I perfectly agree with the hon. Member for East Donegal, and with the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland, that we would very much rather the whole Bill were lost than this Amendment by the Lords were carried. I hope that I am not trenching upon dangerous ground, but it does seem a curious thing that an Assembly which is not elected by a popular vote should dare to dictate to us, who are elected—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! "Dare to dictate "are words which the hon. Member must withdraw. I have already twice cautioned him. If he does not apologize, I shall name him to the House. I ask him to apologize for having directly disregarded my authority.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I regret to say that, as this is a matter of conscience, I cannot apologize.

MR. SPEAKER

Then I name you, Mr. Graham, to the House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Graham be suspended from the Service of the House."—(Mr. W. H Smith.)

A Division being challenged,

MR. SPEAKER

Who will act as Tellers for the Noes?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I will.

MR. CONYBEARE

And I will.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

So will I.

MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)

And I, too.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

And I.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! Will hon. Gentlemen keep Order?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 44: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 481.)

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I wish to know if I may be allowed to make a personal explanation. I desire to apologize to you personally; I had no wish to be guilty of any discourtesy towards you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER

No doubt, if the hon. Member will apologize for the expression, the House will be willing to rescind the Resolution.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

My desire is, Sir, to apologize to you personally. I cannot withdraw my opinion as regards the House of Lords.

MR. SPEAKER

I understood the hon. Gentleman to express regret for the words used, and to withdraw them. It is the custom for Members of this House to speak respectfully of Members of the Upper House, and I understood the hon. Member to express regret for having spoken disrespectfully.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

No; I was saying that I wished to apologize to you personally.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! There is no necessity for an apology to me personally. The apology is duo to the House. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

then withdrew.

The following is the Entry in the Votes:— Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Member for the North Western Division of the County of Lanark, having been named by Mr. Speaker as disregarding the authority of the Chair. Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Graham be suspended from the Service of the House."—The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes, 44. Mr. Speaker then directed Mr. Graham to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken on this question has admitted that this question of inspection is of the greatest importance to the miners, that it is of vital importance so far as the safety of life and limb in the mine is concerned, that the miners should be allowed to appoint two of their own number to make a true report as to the state of the mine. It is painful for me to make the statement I am about to make, but it is based upon facts which can be proved if necessary. The importance of the examination—whether the report on it be true or false—is only found out whenever a great accident happens. If an explosion occur you find that the mine owner before the Coroner's inquest will ask himself for the report made by the miners of the last inspection of the mine in which they work, and unless that report is a true one—unless a proper inspection has been made, the Coroner's jury are led to a false conclusion. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to call the attention of this House to the necessity of replacing the words struck out by their Lordships, and, although hon. Members opposite may be impatient, I would suggest we have plenty of time to deal with this between now and six o'clock. We are told that great importance is attached here, as it should be, to the opinion of the hon. Member for Morpeth. But, after all, what did he say? He said he would rather leave it to the miueowners in his district to settle this matter, and if those who are seeking a true inspection of their collieries are wise in their generation, they would agree to the clause as sent up to the Lords. But what is the case in the Welsh collieries? Before the men are allowed to make this inspection, in some parts of South Wales, the manager demands 24 hours' notice before he will permit it. What does that 24 hours mean? It means 24 hours of sweeping, of carrying yards of canvas, while otherwise they would never think of carrying it. It means 24 hours preparation for the inspection. How can an inspection made under these conditions be an inspection of the ordinary state of the colliery? It is impossible; and, therefore, a report made on such an inspection would be nothing but a sham report of the true state of the colliery. And such a report, if made and laid before a Coroner's inquest, would only lead to a false conclusion being arrived at; it would mislead both Coroner and jury. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to road the report on the last explosion which occurred in South Wales, what will they find? They will find this practice to prevail—that when the examiners, going their rounds in the morning, find gas, they are compelled to come back again the same evening to the same place, and if by that time the gas had been cleared away, then they are not to report that they found it, so that, in addition to 24 hours' notice of the inspection, you give another 12 hours to clear away the gas, and if at the end of that time the place is clear of gas, then no report is to be made of the discovery. You may say that the men are fools if they do it. But they do do it, and hence the necessity of an independent man being allowed to make these inspections as we recommend. No one here will deny for a moment that upon these examinations of the collieries the best owners rely, in order to get a true report as to the state of the mines. The examinations are a check against their own managers, and in the best regulated collieries, as has already been stated, the owners themselves are in favour of this examination. The managers are not always willing that the examination should be made. I solemnly declare here that in allowing these words to be taken out of the Bill the Government will cause their Act to be weakened to a great extent, and the miners of the country, who, like myself, were prepared ungrudgingly to give them the credit that was their due for the tendency they had shown to increase the security for the safety of life and limb in the mine, will be driven to the conclusion, seeing that on three vital points, involving the safety of life and limb, the Government have given way, that they are defeating, not us, but their own Bill, and in so doing they give the miners very good reason indeed to open again and at once their agitation. No matter what Government is in power, whether it be Tory or whether it be Liberal, if the Mines Bill fall short of giving that protection to the working men in the mines to which they are entitled, they must agitate until they get the benefit of an inspection made by independent men whom the managers cannot turn off at a day's notice.

SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff)

I confess that when I saw in the papers this Amendment had been made I was astonished; but I will ask my hon. Friends whether it is of any real service to prolong this debate? We have seen repeatedly to-night that the Government are supported by a largo majority in maintaining these Amendment. In regard to this particular Amendment, the Government must know that it is the most indefensible Amendment that could possibly have been introduced. They are perfectly well aware of that, and they must also be aware that the mineowners themselves do not object to the working men selecting their own representatives to inspect the mine. The change has been introduced apparently out of wantonness; but the Government must and will incur a large amount of odium in consequence of this Amendment. At the same time, it is four o'clock in the morning at the fag end of the Session. We have no power to force the Government to do what we wish, for they have a large majority, and I must congratulate them on securing the attendance of so many of their supporters. I agree with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to this Amendment, that it will be their duty, under the circumstances, to do all they possibly can to get this corrected at the earliest opportunity.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I hope that before the House passes away from this matter the Government will agree to disagree with this Amendment by the Lords. I am not prone to take part in any discussion of such a subject as the present; but I have sufficiently attended to this debate to be led to form a very strong opinion. One thing appears to have been agreed upon, both in this House and the Lords, and that is that there should be some independent inspection in these cases by men directly appointed by the miners. Now, what reason can be fairly urged that ought to have any weight with this House; why the free selection by the men of miners for the duty of inspection should not extend to those who are past miners and who have the confidence of those still at work? There may be working miners in large numbers fit for this duty; but in 99 cases out of 100 the men themselves would be incapable of pointing out one man amongst themselves fit for such a duty. But, in the case of those who have been minors, and are now independent of employment in any particular mine, I say that they would be perfect judges as to which of them was well fitted to fulfil this duty. With all respect for the House of Lords, I say that this does appear to be an extremely objectionable Amendment to send back to us. We sent up to them a Bill, giving to the operative miners free power to choose somebody on their behalf to inspect the mines. The Amendment now sent down to us says—" You can choose some of your own number, but you cannot choose anyone who, having passed from among your number and acquired a higher situation in life, possesses the confidence of your class. You cannot appoint him; we shall exclude all such men from your selection." I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and Her Majesty's Go- vernment will listen to the remonstrances on the part of those who have no desire to inflame the popular passions in regard to this matter, and that they will reconsider the question whether it is not worth while that two or three days further would be well expended in trying to induce their Lordships to have the good sense not to insist on this Amendment.

MR. PICKARD

I think it is only fair, seeing that the hon. Member for Morpeth has been so often alluded to, to say that the hon. Member gave a very different version of his idea on the matter, compared with that suggested by the Home Secretary. He said, speaking personally, that in all well-regulated mines he should consider that two men out of those mines would be fit and proper persons to inspect the mine. But we know, as a matter of fact, that in all well-regulated mines, although the managers may be there when the men make the inspection, they do not take the trouble to turn those men away or make it impossible for the men to continue their work there. The hon. Member for Morpeth said that, speaking for the general body of workmen of the United Kingdom, he felt bound to acquiesce in this Amendment. I think, therefore, that we have been ufairly treated in this debate, and if the hon. Member for Morpeth had been here he would have put the right hon. Gentleman right. What is the object of this provision. It is that two persons should be appointed to examine the mine. Their only function is to report, and if the report states that there is any real danger in the mine, the manager—or the men who make the inspeotion—are bound to sand forward that report to the Home Secretary, or to the Inspector for the district. We have been told during the debates in this House that the object of the Amendment is to prevent demagogues being allowed in the mine for the purposes of inspection. Agents in Durham are allowed to inspect the mines, and I think the same takes place in Northumberland. I do not think so far as mine managers are concerned, that they have any real objection to the clause as it stood before amended by the Lords. There is another idea which seems to have been imported into this matter, and that is, that the men about to be appointed are to become perma- nent Inspectors. I think the House may take it for granted that the miners of Yorkshire and of the United Kingdom have more regard for their pockets than to appoint men to be permanent Inspectors of mines. As I look at this question, it appears to me the Government left it to the House of Lords to take away from us what the Government dare not take away from us when the Bill was being considered in this House. I do not blame the House of Lords for their action in this matter; but I do blame the Government for accepting the Amendment. The Government knew exactly our position. We told them that, time after time, men who have faithfully reported the results of their inspection have, if not actually turned away from their employment, been sent into a bad or wet part of the colliery to work, and have been made so uncomfortable that they have had eventually to leave the colliery. I myself stated in this House that from one colliery alone, so far as I could gather, 31 men had been exiled. Some have gone to Canada, some to Australia, and some to America; others have migrated to other parts of this country in order to obtain employment. It is only fair for me to state that if this rule stands as it now is, although it will give the men power to select their Inspectors from men in neighbouring collieries, it is not likely that the owners or managers of those collieries will suffer their men to leave their work in order to inspect a neighbouring colliery. And even if they do, the men will have the same fear of being turned away from their work by some foolish manager. The Amendment will not alter the 30th rule in the 1872 Act one iota. Now, we have another addition to this rule which is not in the present Act. It is that these men finding danger in the mine must send their report to the Inspector for the district. Their names will no doubt, in consequence, be blazoned abroad throughout the country, and it will make it more difficult for them to get work in other collieries. We are pleading for the safety of the miners. Our object is not to have two men appointed as Inspectors to, as in the past, simply make an inspection when an explosion takes place. We do not want in the future to do, as we have had to do in Yorkshire in the past—to go cap in hand to the manager, and ask will he allow us to go down the mine and see that it is in proper order, and then, if he refuses, have to wire to the Home Secretary and appeal to him to interfere. Yet that will be the case in the future, unless we guard against it. The men ought to have perfect freedom to appoint whom they choose. I do not say that we, their Parliamentary Representatives, have any more right than anybody else to be appointed, I have no desire for any such work; it is dangerous work after an explosion has taken place; but I do claim the men should be at liberty to appoint whom they choose, and we appeal now to the Government to stand by their Bill and disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE

I do not think that it is of much use appealing to the Government. They have long since shown themselves deaf to all appeals. I recommend my hon. Friends to appeal instead to their countrymen, to make it plain who are their friends in this House, and to point out to them that the House of Peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

I have not interfered during the discussion on this Bill in its various stages through the House, but it has not been because I have lacked a deep sympathy with my hon. Friends in their work. But not being technically acquainted with, that work, I have simply been satisfied with following them into the Lobby. In fact, I had one Amendment which I put down to the Bill in Committee; but finding that one of the Members for Durham also had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, I stayed out of the House in order that he might move it, as I thought it would come with greater force from him. Now, Sir, I take it that these Amendments are sent down from the House of Lords for our consideration, and that they are not sent down to us to swallow in their entirety just as they come down. If Ministers say there is no time at the present period of the Session to send them back to the House of Lords in the event of our disagreeing with them, then I say the responsibility rests with them and not upon my hon. Friends who represent the miners in this House. My hon. Friends have, time after time, urged the Government to bring forward this Bill at an earlier period in the Session, so that it might receive that consideration which a measure of this eminence requires. But they have driven it off to the very end of the Session, and now that we have the miners appealing to a Minister, on a very important point, to make a concession with regard to the Lords' Amendments, he will not do so, because he says that it is too late. Nay, it is not too late; it is not too late if the lives of the miners are to be considered. We have sat here from January down to the present time, another day more or less—three or four days more or less will not matter to some of us who have not to go away immediately to our pleasure. We want to make this Bill, if we can, a perfect Bill, and I even now implore the Government to see if they cannot reconsider this Amendment, the grounds of objection to which my hon. Friends in the most pathetic and eloquent language at their command have described. I am sorry to differ from my Friend the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff; but I must say, that if the Government refuse to reconsider their decision, I shall advise my hon. Friends not to cease their fight, but to take the Government and their Supporters once more through the Lobbies. It is not the first time we have divided the House on a great principle, and I implore my hon. Friends to do it again.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 61: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 482.)

MR. FENWICK

I rise to say, that considering the utter hopelessness of getting any concession from the Government, after consultation with my Friends, we have agreed to allow the remainder of the Amendments to go.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.