§ MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the last Report of Mr. Hall, Inspector of Mines for the Liverpool District, viz., "The hours of labour of women and boys are longer under the new Act of Parliament than what was the custom under the 1872 Act;" and, whether it is true, so far as this district is concerned, that the intervals for meals provided for in the Act of 1887 no longer count for labour, as under the Act of 1872; and, if so, whether such practice is in conformity with the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to 123 this statement. The provisions in the Acts of 1872 and 1887, both as to limiting the period of employment and as to meal times, appear to me identical, but the wording of the provisions in the Act of 1872 was certainly equivocal, and the practice consequently varied. In some districts meal times were not counted for labour; in others, including Mr. Hall's, they were counted, not, however, in all the mines of the district; and since the Act of 1887 they are no longer counted for labour; and this appears to me to be in conformity with the Statute. It was not, I think, the intention of Parliament to limit the hours of women, boys, and girls employed above ground to eight and a-half hours per diem, or to make them shorter than the hours prescribed for boys below ground.
§ MR. FENWICKMay I ask whether boys under 16 years of age can be kept in a mine for more than 10 hours at a time?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe Question which the hon. Member asked me related to the employment of boys above ground.