§ *MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)moved: "That this Bill be now Read a Second time." He explained that he was in charge of the Measure simply owing to the accident of the ballot. The principle of the Bill, he understood, had been before the House for many years—18 or 19 years. The Bill of 1895 was referred to a Select Committee, but it was in the end lost. The present Bill was very much modified in consequence of the advice given by the Select Committee. The object of the Bill was principally to grant certificates to persons in charge of boilers and engines, but it did not apply generally. It did not apply to any boiler or engine used exclusively for domestic, agricultural, or farming purposes, or to any boiler 626 used in the service of Her Majesty, or to any boiler or engine used by a railway company, or to any boiler or engine used on board a steamship having a certificate from the Board of Trade, or to any road traction engine or steam roller. Those limitations were made after the 1895 Committee. The principle of the Bill was such that the Measure might be called a Mining Bill. Briefly, the Bill dealt with the boilers and engines used for winding workmen or minerals up or down the shaft of a mine. The men in charge must hold a certificate, and these certificates were divided into classes. First, a person taking charge of any boiler or engine as described in Clause 6 of the Bill must hold a first-class certificate; and, secondly, a person taking charge of any other boiler must hold either a first-class certificate or a second-class certificate. He might say that the Bill was supported not only by the Trade Union Congress, but also by the mining population almost to a man, amongst whom there was a great demand for competent men to take charge of this machinery. There were 733,000 men engaged in and about the pits of the country, and 580,689 men were employed underground. The House would see the great importance of having properly-qualified winding men engaged, so that the men who went into the pits might have confidence that their lives were safeguarded. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew there were objections to the Bill. In the Debate on the Bill of 1895 the Member for Wolverhampton spoke of the Bill as "grandmotherly legislation." ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted that strong exception might have been taken to the interference of Parliament in matters of this kind, but this was not the first time that Parliament was asked to interfere. In the Debate which took place in that House in 1862 on the Bill for granting certificates to seagoing engineers, Mr. Milner Gibson, who was in charge of it, used words on which the present Bill might be based. He said:—"Engineers have important duties to perform. Life and property are intrusted to their care, and it is desirable that there should be some test of qualification." It might have been thought that this would have put a limitation to the supply of seagoing engineers, but that was not so, and he believed that it would be the same 627 under this Bill. The second interference which took place was in 1887 on the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, but there was no test of competence, and that was the point which they wished to deal with. He should leave the question of engines and go to that of boilers, and here he thought a stronger case might be made out for examination. He would like to see the Bill for the inspection and registration of boilers passed. He thought that with proper inspection, registration, and management the present evils would be mitigated. The reports of the inspectors of the Board of Trade showed that during the last three years there were 297 boiler explosions in this country, through which 92 persons were killed and 187 injured. The reports showed, moreover, that 117 of these explosions were caused by deterioration or corrosion of the boilers or safety valves, 86 by ignorance or neglect of the attendants, 76 by defective construction, and 18 by miscellaneous circumstances. They contended that if a man were a qualified attendant with technical knowledge he would be able to detect much of the deterioration which took place at present. There was an enormous risk from these explosions. In 1895, near the town where he lived, there was an explosion of 12 boilers owing to a defect in one boiler. In that case there were 12 men killed and eight injured. He spoke from personal experience of the iron and steel trade, having spent 17 or 18 years in it as a workman, and he had known some hundreds of men to leave their work almost at a moment's notice for fear of an explosion of boilers. These men ought to be thoroughly safeguarded in the execution of their work. In the large clubs and hotels in London the boilers for the generation of the steam power necessary for the electricity, &c, were fixed in the basement. If a boiler explosion took place in one of these clubs or hotels, as was possible, it would be a most serious matter, and the men in charge of the boilers should be qualified men. He thought there was a strong case in favour of this Bill, and hoped he had convinced the House that the experiment tried in 1862 with regard to sea-going engineers should be extended, especially to engineers engaged at the pit mouth of the collieries, and also to those in charge of boilers and engines throughout the 628 country. He had great pleasure in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)thought he should be able to show that no case whatever had been made out for this Bill. The explosion cited by the hon. Member, in which 12 persons were killed, arose not from any ignorance on the part of the man in charge or the inspector, but from a defect in the boiler, and the remedy would be an inspection of boilers rather than the examination of attendants. As to the frightful risks which the hon. Member said were run by persons who lived in clubs and hotels, he would point out that the hon. Member had been very careful to exclude all such cases from the operation of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The promoters of the Bill did not believe in it, he thought, for they had exempted Her Majesty's service, steamships, railways, traction and steam rollers, and, above all, they had exempted domestic and agricultural labourers. ["Hear, hear!"] If there was a class of people in charge of boilers more ignorant than another surely it was the agricultural labourer, or the cook or housemaid to whom they intrusted the charge of so many boilers. He thought the Bill came at an extremely inopportune time in view of the proposals which the Government were going to make in regard to employers' liability. He understood that the Employers' Liability Bill, when introduced, would provide for all accidents from whatever cause, except when due to a man's negligence. The hon. Member had referred to the Reports issued by the Board of Trade for three years, but he would take instead last year's Return, which showed that there were only 14 cases of explosions which the inspectors attributed to ignorance or neglect. Of these five took place at sea, to which the Bill would not apply, and of the remaining nine cases only five caused any injury or death. Let them examine these five cases. The first was occasioned by the coil being stopped up. Of course a man did not require to be examined to know that that must not be stopped up. The next case was one where they were short of water. That clearly was a case of neglect. The next was a case where the attendant omitted to drain the steam from the pipes; that was clearly also a 629 case of neglect, and it was a ease to which the Act could not apply, because it took place at the works of Messrs. Whitworths. Clause 6 said that the Act did not apply to persons who were under the constant supervision of some qualified persons, and that would clearly apply to Whitworths. And so he found only two cases which such an Act would affect. In one of those cases there was an impact of water, and the inspector said that probably the valve was opened suddenly; and the only remaining case was where a boiler was short of water, and the poor fellow who attended to it was killed. In that instance the inspector said the accident probably arose from some misapprehension on his part. So the whole of this enormous case which had been presented to them resolved itself into one man killed and one man injured, and it was very doubtful even if in those cases any examination would have prevented the accidents happening. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, look at the infliction upon trade which such a Bill would cause. Every engineer in charge of an engine of five horse power must be a certificated person. He dared say that in any ordinary works there would perhaps be 100 engineers of that sort, and everyone must have a certificate, and supposing one man stayed away for a day, they must have a duplicate. At any rate they must have a large number of additional certificated men. Then look at the expense in which those poor fellows would be involved in presenting themselves say in London for examination.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)said the Bill only contemplated the examination of engineers at winding engines at the pit mouth.
§ *SIR A. HICKMANThat is not in the Bill.
§ *MR. J. SAMUELLook at Clause 6.
§ *SIR A. HICKMANsaid that Clause 6 provided that persons taking control of any boiler or engine not confined to pits, of live horse power or upwards, must hold a certificate, and in order to present himself in London say, for examination, for the purpose of obtaining such certificate, a man would be involved in an outlay of 30s. or £2. That he considered a very serious imposition. ["Hear, hear!"] But if the examination did not take place in London they would want an army of 630 travelling examiners, and was the Home Office prepared to provide those examiners to go throughout the country? It was quite certain that if the Bill were to become law that no hon. Gentleman connected with it would be able to show his face in the Black Country as a candidate, and if he did he was sure he would have no chance of being returned. [Cheers and laughter.] The main objections to the Bill were, first, that it was not wanted, and, second, that it was mischievous because it removed the responsibility from those persons who ought to bear it to those persons who ought not to bear it. ["Hear, hear!"] He challenged the promoters of the Bill to produce one single instance either of death or injury to life that this Bill would prevent or affect in any way whatever. There was more injury from accidents in the streets of London in a single day than was occasioned by boiler tenders in years; but would hon. Members propose that every driver of a vehicle must pass an examination, or would they contend that he would be any better for passing it? He trusted the House would not pass the Bill, and he begged to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
§ MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. The Bill, he said, was intended to save loss of life and prevent injury by explosions of boilers, but if passed in its present form it would result in much hardship and inconvenience, and would interfere with the arrangements at present existing in regard to the control of engines and boilers. He was quite willing to admit that no amount of inconvenience caused by the Bill should be allowed to stand in its way if it could be shown that the passing of it would really save life and injury, and he did not think anybody in that House would hesitate to support it if he thought that result would be secured. But he might say, on the other hand, that no statistics had been placed before them which would make out that to be the case. They had no reason to believe that the accidents alluded to would have been prevented by it, and before they said that the Measure would prevent loss of life and explosions he thought the promoters of it should show the House the number of men who 631 had lost their lives or who had been injured by the absence of such a Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He was perfectly convinced that no examination would diminish the number of accidents which occurred. All those things happened, if not through defects of construction through the negligence of the men, and the fact of a man having passed an examination would not make any difference. The number of men employed at boilers at the pit mouth had been referred to, and the number of people who worked in mines affected thereby had been alluded to, but on the railways of the country the proportion was much higher, and yet no provision was made in the Bill in regard to them. Why had they been left out? The fact of the matter was, he was entirely of the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that hon. Members who brought in this Bill year by year had no faith in it themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] When it first came in every kind of boiler was included, but each year the Bill was whittled down smaller and smaller. He objected to the Bill because it was unnecessary, because it would do no good, and because, if it was to be a good Bill it should be infinitely more extensive than it was now. If the Bill was to become law it must be a Bill dealing with boiler attendants universally. They must include locomotive engineers, those on ships, and those who had charge of domestic boilers and boilers for agricultural purposes. Either make it a universal Bill—and then it would be so large that, in his opinion, it would never be carried—or abandon it altogether. In his humble opinion it was not wanted, would very much interfere with trade, and the sooner it was given up the better. [Cheers.]
§ *MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said he wished to put briefly before the House one or two reasons why he supported the Bill, but before doing so he would endeavour to remove the somewhat captious objections that had been taken to the principle of the Bill. Whenever a wide and comprehensive Measure dealing with a large subject was brought in, the promoters were told that they were utopian and impracticable; whenever a modest practical Bill was introduced it was described as ridiculous. He contended that the Bill before the House, objectionable though it might be in one or two minor 632 respects and capable of improvement in others, was a practical demand that erred on the side of moderation; and if the Bill was ridiculous and unworkable, as was contended by its opponents, the responsibility for that rested with the past opponents of the principle of the Measure—in a modified form with the present opponents of it—who for the last 10 years had caused the promoters to whittle away many of its most important features. A more ingenious argument that was to be used against the Bill was that there was not a case dealt with in it which was not covered by another and, of course, a better Bill not now before the House. When Gentlemen were unsuccessful in the ballot there was no more convenient argument than to say that a Bill under discussion was no good at all, but if worked in with another Measure not before the House would be a perfect Bill. The House was, however, now dealing with the Bill before it, with all its virtues and all its defects on its head, and the way out of that difficulty was to send the Bill to the Grand Committee, where its defects might be remedied. He believed, at any rate, that the principle of the Bill was right—["Hear, hear!"]—and what there was indefinite and doubtful in it could be threshed out in Grand Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He always listened to the hon. Member for Belfast with respect and attention on industrial matters, and in nine cases out of twelve they had cooperated together; but in this case the hon. Member represented the obstinate juryman, and said that this Bill was not necessary because there had been an accident on the Blenheim. That, however, was not an argument for rejecting the Bill, because it did not apply to ironclads. Another argument used by the hon. Member against the Bill was that it did not include locomotives; but he thought that locomotives were properly omitted, because locomotives were inspected every day by the foreman erector, the foreman fitter, and the foreman cleaner, before the engineers and firemen took them out. They got the most perfect form of inspection. The hon. Member also said that the Bill ought to be opposed because it did not include all classes of engines. But it was not necessary to include all those engines which were at present under the inspection of the Board of Trade on seagoing vessels, 633 on which every engineer, from the first to the eighth, had to pass a very stiff examination. When this Bill was introduced as a universal measure, it was mutilated and destroyed, and if the promoters of the present Bill were to carry out the wishes of some hon. Members they would get no Bill at all. He believed that 95 per cent. of the men who now looked after boilers and engines would be able, without much trouble, to go through an examination; and if the remaining 5 per cent. could not, that was an argument for not allowing people in a factory or passengers on a river steamer, without a Board of Trade certificate, to be exposed to injury through their ignorance. With regard to hotels and flats, he thought the latter term was more applicable to those persons who were content to live in rooms situated over boilers which were frequently attended by men who had no qualification for the work—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—and the fact that these boilers were so attended was an argument for stiffening the qualification. An argument used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was that agricultural machinery was one of the most fruitful sources of boiler accidents, and that it was not included in the Bill. He regretted very much that that was so, and two years ago he had asked the House to include agricultural machinery. Accidents in connection with traction engines, threshing machines and reaping machines were of frequent occurrence, and they were largely due to the ignorance of the people in charge of the machines, and sometimes, unfortunately, of the owner. The Board of Trade inspector in his report, said:—
I have again to observe that many of these explosions have occurred through ignorance.What ignorance? The kind of ignorance he had seen displayed when he had been repairing threshing machines, reaping machines, and mills. He had himself come across manifestations of ignorance when he had repaired threshing machines, water mill machinery, and flour mill machinery. He had known cases of the purchase by impecunious farmers of threshing machines and portable engines 10, 15, and even 20 years old. In these eases there was no proper inspection. He had seen a poor agricul- 634 tural labourer, in the absence of the driver of an engine, hang scythes and other implements on the safety valve, believing that the more he could depress the safety valve the more he would increase the speed. The labourer did not understand that he was jeopardising his own life and the lives of the reapers near him. In the Board of Trade Report on explosions, 1896, a case was mentioned where a boiler in a farm engine was worked for 33 years without inspection. The boiler at last exploded with fatal results, and upon examination it was found that a longitudinal seam, originally the thickness of a plate, had been reduced to the size of a knife's edge. "Such cases supplied an argument for including in the scope of the Bill agricultural boilers and machinery. He was glad to know that boilers and machinery in factories and workshops were improving. This was partly due to the aggregation of industrial capital in fewer hands. More pains were taken, business men recognising that it was unsafe to employ incompetent servants, and wasteful to give £1 a week to a man who might blunder. But there was still a great number of small manufacturers who did not take the same trouble as was taken in well-equipped manufactories, and it was right to afford protection to the people whom they employed. With regard to miners, be admitted that, having regard only to what had occurred in 1896, as strong a case could not be made out for applying the Bill to them. But there was one boiler explosion in 1896 in connection with mining machinery, and that was one explosion too many. The House would recollect the Hartley colliery accident some years ago, when 200 men were killed through the cracking of a beam that fell down into the pit. He believed that if the engine had been properly attended to the crack would have been detected, and if, instead of a cast iron beam, there had been a beam of malleable iron or wrought steel the accident would not have occurred. The engines and boilers connected with mines, down which 2,000 or 3,000 men went, ought not to be in the hands of incompetent persons. There was frequently in mines a susceptibility to panic, in consequence of the mere stopping of an engine through an accident to the boiler. The introduction of this Bill was amply justified by 635 statistics. In 14 years 376 men had been killed by boiler explosions and 837 injured. In 1896 the number of killed and injured amounted to 79. Thirty-nine of these cases occurred on board vessels to which the Bill did not apply. That could not be used as an argument for killing the Bill, but it might be an argument for extending its scope. Then accidents and explosions sometimes occurred in connection with tramways, and he thought the Board of Trade ought to apply, in the case of traction engines drawing passengers, the same regulations as the Department applied to small vessels. The solicitor to the Board of Trade had stated that as long as a boiler did not leak people appeared to think that it was safe enough to work. That in itself constituted a sufficient justification for the introduction of this Bill. Its scope might be enlarged with advantage, as he had endeavoured to point out, and he trusted that it would be read a Second time and sent to a Grand Committee.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,) Birmingham, Bordesleyin explaining the views of the Government, said that any Bill which aimed at the reduction of accidents was bound to meet with the greatest sympathy from the Government. They were, however, at the same time compelled to look at the provisions of such a Measure with the greatest care, and to see how they could afford any assistance in carrying such a Measure into law. In its present shape the Bill excluded agricultural engines, and locomotives, while the engines of mills, mines, and factories were dealt with. But all the arguments which had been adduced in support of the Bill, and, indeed, the common sense of every one, showed that as it stood it was but the thin end of the wedge, and if they admitted that the Bill would stop accidents to the extent alleged, there was no argument to prevent its extension to other kinds of engines, even to the extent of gas, petroleum, and electric engines. [Cheers.] He also understood that all ship engines were excluded, though he could not find that it excluded shipping in general.
§ *MR. J. SAMUELIt is the intention of the promoters to exclude the mercantile marine altogether. They will do that in Committee.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that at present the whole responsibility with regard to engines and boilers rested upon the owner. He had the responsibility of finding the proper and competent men to look after the engines, and the last speaker had borne testimony to the efficacy of the results. Not only were the manufacturers and owners actuated by a natural desire to preserve from destruction their valuable property, but they had also to consider the result of any accident that might occur through not having competent men. In the event of accident the owners were liable not only to heavy fines, but to the payment of heavy costs, in addition to the discredit of failure to carry out the duty which the law cast upon them. The Act of 1882 gave the Board of Trade power to order a preliminary inquiry into every explosion. Afterwards there was a formal investigation by Commissioners, who were men of the ablest mechanical character; and they were accompanied by a lawyer. Their powers were extensive, for they could ask for the production of books, put witnesses on oath, and order costs to be paid and penalties imposed. Therefore, as far as this class of boilers was concerned, the owners were liable to penalties and costs. The mover of the Bill said that the principal object was to deal with engines in coal mines. But there were a far stronger set of regulations and restrictions applied. The Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 was founded on the evidence taken by a Commission which sat five years. Very great precautions were taken in a variety of ways under that Act to prevent accidents.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the rules that relate to boilers and engines and to the men in charge of them?
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that one of the governing rules was that the employer was obliged to have a competent man, whose competency, moreover, did not depend on the certificate issued at Whitehall. There were several points of drafting, however, which it was difficult for the Government to understand. There was a good deal of anomaly in the Bill, and the whole burden was apparently thrown on the unfortunate Home Secretary. It was, for example, the duty of the Home Secretary to be satisfied not only with the knowledge and physical 637 ability of the candidate, but also with his character and experience. This was a tremendous responsibility to put upon a department, and hon. Gentlemen who were anxious to secure the efficient protection of the men must admit that the result of the Home Secretary's action could be of the most perfunctory character only, void of any guarantee whatever as to the particular qualities which they were all desirous to secure. ["Hear, hear!"] At present the head of a factory could, by consultation with his manager, choose the best men for taking charge of steam engines, but under this Bill his choice would be limited to the men who had certificates, and the best men might not be among them.
§ MR. BURNSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that employers, to their credit, were sending their engineers to technical schools?
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that he was quite aware of that. As to the "character" of the men, that, he supposed, meant their steadiness and sobriety. But suppose the Home Secretary, on the strength of a couple of testimonials, gave this certificate of character, what was there to guard against the possibility that three or six months after it had been granted the man who still had it in his pocket would no longer deserve it?
§ *MR. J. SAMUELThe certificate can be withdrawn.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked how the Home Secretary was to know whether or not the certificate should be withdrawn in each of 200,000 cases. ["Hear, hear!"] As for the Redcar accident which had been mentioned, that was one which the Bill would not touch at all. There were 12 killed and eight injured in that accident, and the Board of Trade Inquiry held the owners liable, not for the ignorance of their engineer, but for his failure to insist on the boilers being condemned when he knew that they were in a dangerous condition.
§ *MR. SAMUELsaid that he referred to the case to show the risk to the workmen.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the proposed certificates were to prevent ignorance on the part of the engineers. In this case the man had full knowledge. His employers were fined £200 and costs.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSagreed; but he pointed out that if the owners could have urged the excuse that their man in charge had a certificate from the Home Office they might have escaped scot free. He would take the returns of accidents for one year—that ending June 30, 1895, which was the worst that could be chosen. In that year there were 114 explosions, but 78 of these were connected with farm, locomotive, and domestic engines. Therefore there were only 36 to which this Bill would apply; and out of the 43 persons killed and injured altogether, six belonged to the other 78 cases. But in looking to the cause of the remaining 36 accidents, it would be found that hardly any of them resulted from the ignorance with which alone the proposed certificate was concerned. Was it not obvious that, by relieving the employer from the responsibilities which were now imposed on him in respect of accidents, accidents might be increased? The Government were anxious to support any Bill which would save even one life or one limb, but he was sorry to say that they could not support this Bill, because they believed it to be opposed to the interests of the men and to be a departure from the policy of the Home Office, which was to increase rather than to decrease the responsibility of employers. The inspection of boilers was, of course, quite a different thing from the granting of certificates of character, and the latter proposal, the Government believed, would only tend to increase the number of explosions.
§ MR. JAMES BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said that he regretted the conclusion to which the Government had come. The question was not a new one. A Bill similar to this had been introduced for many years past. In 1895 good fortune in the ballot enabled the promoters of the Bill to secure a Second Reading, and that without a Division, even though the Bill of that year was more extensive than the present Bill. In the circumstances the House ought to have had some better reply to the arguments in favour of the Bill than the old stock argument, a hundred times advanced and a hundred times overruled, that it would diminish responsibility by introducing Government security. If 639 that argument had been listened to they would not have had many provisions of the Factory Acts, the inspection and certificates of examination of the Board of Trade for marine vessels, and many of the best securities under which industry was carried on and loss of life and limb greatly diminished. [Cheers.] The objection, taken to the Bill of 1895 was that it was too large; in the present case the objection was that the Bill was too small. As to the objection that it did not include engine drivers on railway locomotives, he would point out that there was a great difference between a great industry like that of railways and the isolated engines and boilers, mostly in small concerns, to which the Bill was intended to apply. It was the interest of railway companies not only to employ the most competent locomotive engineers and firemen, but also to subject their locomotives to regular inspection. And when it was alleged that accidents arose largely from neglect rather than want of knowledge, he replied, in the first place, that the reports of numbers of inquiries into accidents showed that want of knowledge really was the cause rather than neglect; and they had the weighty deliverance in a Board of Trade document that "many of these explosions have occurred through ignorance."
§ *SIR A. HICKMANThe only instances of any explosion through ignorance are in the case of agricultural engines.
§ MR. BRYCEdid not think that was so. The observation was not so restricted. Apart from that, neglect and ignorance were more closely connected than at first sight appeared. A competent man would be careful where an ignorant man would not be; he knew where danger lay. And he had the further advantage that his knowledge enabled him to watch his boiler and engine from time to time and to see when it was getting into a dangerous condition, and to report to his employer accordingly. The ignorant man could not do that. All the objections to the Bill, as far as he could see, came from those who represented or professed to represent the views of employers. ["No!"] He had not heard in the Debate anyone competent to express the views of the workmen, who were specially concerned because their lives were in danger, raise a voice against the principle of the Bill. At the same time, there 640 were several details of the Bill which required attention. Even the immense zeal and capacity of the Secretary of State and his staff of the Home Office would not be able to undertake the functions sought to be imposed by Section 8 as to granting certificates of competency. It would be necessary to define more exactly the relative functions of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State in these matters. It would be necessary also to provide that the examinations should be held, if possible, at various convenient centres in the country—[cheers]—as well as in London; and he did not see why those who conducted other Government Department examinations should not conduct the examinations under the Bill. Passing from details, he thought, if the Government were anxious to carry out their programme of social legislation, they were making a bad beginning in opposing a Bill of this kind. There was no Bill which was more commended by the general course of preventive legislation, no Bill more earnestly desired by those who had the best occasion to know existing difficulties and dangers, and a large body of opinion which had called for the Bill would be grievously disappointed if the House now reversed its unanimous decision of 1895, and if it neglected now the opportunity of endeavouring to diminish the number of accidents which were so great a blot and cause of distress in our industrial system. [Cheers.]
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Stockport)was in no way enamoured of the Bill, and should vote against it. It would create the maximum of inconvenience and interference with the minimum of advantage for all concerned. When they had eliminated the clauses which were objectionable and those which were capable of improvement they had almost eviscerated the Bill. He was very suspicious of these continual efforts on the part, he would not say of faddists, but of hon. Members, to manage manufacturers' affairs. Any hon. Member who had anything to do with mills or workshops must know that there were in a mill or a workshop men fully acquainted with every part of the engine. Under this Bill those men would be precluded from driving the engine in case of the illness of the regular engineer, although they were infinitely more capable of 641 doing the work than any outside certificated man who could be got on the spur of the moment. It was just the same in the case of boilers. The hon. Member who proposed the Second Reading based his argument mainly upon the necessity for the Bill in the case of the mining industry. He was not competent to deal with mining matters, but he asked hon. Members why, if they wanted the Bill for the mining industry, they did not limit it to that industry? ["Hear, hear!"] Most of the arguments of the hon. Member for Battersea appeared to be arguments rather in favour of the Bill for the compulsory insurance of boilers. They certainly were not germane to this Bill. He hoped that without much more delay the House would reject this Bill, and enable them to get on with more important business.
§ *MR. C. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said he was surprised to find that the only argument which the Under Secretary for the Home Department gave in support of the attitude which the Government intended to take up was that the operation of the Bill would weaken the responsibility of the employer and increase the liability to accidents. The right hon. Gentleman had had some experience at the Home Office, and therefore must know something concerning the operations of the Mines Regulation Act. One of the most important provisions of that Act was the compulsory appointment of certificated managers, both of the first and second class. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the compulsory appointment of certificated managers had weakened the responsibility of the coal-owners, or tended to increase the number of accidents? No; he must know that the provision had had the contrary effect. The Government proposed to introduce a Measure which some people thought would weaken the responsibility of employers and tend to increase the number of accidents. He hoped that when that Bill was introduced they would be able to count upon the support of his right hon. Friend. ["Hear, hear!"] It was contended, notably by the hon. Member for Belfast, that there was no demand for this Bill. Very few employers wanted it, for the simple reason, as avowed by the hon. Member who had just spoken, that, in their 642 opinion, it would create the maximum of inconvenience. But was there one hon. Member who would say that any body of working men had ever passed a resolution in opposition to the Bill? At every Trades Union Congress for the last 18 or 19 years the principle of the Bill had been unanimously approved. Who were the people who asked for this legislation? They were the working men, whoso lives and limbs were at stake. They might be wrong, but they were of opinion that the operation of such a Bill would do much to increase their safety whilst engaged in their daily avocation. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill argued that because the Government intended to introduce a Measure providing universal insurance, or making provision for all accidents, it was unnecessary to take precautionary measures such as those now suggested. That seemed to him a ridiculous argument. The workmen did not want compensation. They would gladly do without compensation for accidents. What they wanted were reasonable precautions against accidents. What monetary grant would compensate a widow and her children for the loss of their bread-winner? ["Hear, hear!"] Reference had been made to the scarcity of the accidents that would be touched by this Bill as reported upon last year by Her Majesty's Inspectors. But why take last year? He admitted willingly that the reports of last year were favourable as compared with those of previous years. [Mr. COLLINGS: "I took the year before; a worse year."] The reports of last year indicated greater care and precaution on the part of employers. It must be remembered that the principle upon which the Bill was founded had been before the House for a period extending into the teens of years. The details of the Bill might be open to objection, but the right hon. Gentleman was careful to avoid any criticism of the principle of the Measure—namely, that duly qualified persons should be appointed to take charge of boilers.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that that was the principle he actually contended for, but he maintained that that principle was more effectually secured by the responsibility and the pains and penalties now placed on the employer, than it would be by a mere certificate issued in 643 a perfunctory manner by the Home Office.
§ *MR. FENWICKsaid he willingly accepted the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought, however, that the Under Secretary gave the case of the coal-owners being compelled to secure a competent man to take charge of the winding engine as an example. But was there any machinery for the enforcement of that provision? There was no standard set up as to efficiency. No one was to determine whether a man was a fit or competent person except the employer himself. When an accident occurred involving the loss of a limb or the life of a workman it was too late in the day to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether the person appointed in charge of the engine was an efficient person. ["Hear, hear!"] What was wanted was that the House should undertake, as far as it possibly could, to insure that the men who took charge of winding engines at collieries, and the boilers that were feeding and supplying the energy of those engines, should be men who had some practical and technical knowledge of the machines over which they were placed in charge. ["Hear, hear!"] In his judgment that was a moderate and reasonable request, and he confessed that he was much surprised, remembering that the House had indorsed the principle of the Bill on a previous occasion, to find that a Member of the Government—of a Government pledged to pass social legislation—had stated that a direct negative would be given to the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill that none of its friends and promoters would dare to stand as a candidate in the Black Country if the Second Reading of the Bill were carried. He should rather be surprised to find that hon. Members who voted against the Bill would be willing to challenge a vote of confidence from the workmen in their constituencies. ["Hear, hear!"] He challenged any hon. Member to state whether any responsible body of workmen in his constituency had ever appealed to him to vote against the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that the House would assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, notwithstanding the opposition of the Under Secretary for the Home Department, because, in the opinion 644 of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and particularly the inspectors of mines, it was n. Measure urgently required. ["Hear, hear!"] Her Majesty's Inspector for Devon and Cornwall called attention in one Report to a positive case of over-winding, and he said that this case was due to the carelessness, neglect, and in-competency of the man appointed to take charge of the engine. He even went further, and said he believed that these accidents would continue to be of frequent occurrence until Parliament insisted on precautions being taken to compel employers to appoint certificated persons to take charge of winding engines. ["Hear, hear!"] In this opinion other inspectors concurred. He should like to quote one further remark from the Inspector for Devon and Cornwall. The Inspector said:—
In my opinion men placed in charge of engines, especially in cases where numbers of lives are intrusted to their care, to say nothing of valuable property, should be forced to pass, an examination before some competent Board, and have certificates granted to them before being allowed to take charge.In reference to the statement about the hardship of compelling workmen to come up to London for examination to obtain their certificates, the objection was unfounded. The promoters of the Bill contemplated nothing of the kind. The County Boards which existed in every mining county might be utilised for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] But, after all, these were only matters of detail which did not affect the principle of the Bill, and which might find a solution in the Grand Committee on Trade, and he could only repeat that, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, the House would pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
*COLONEL MELLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)said it appeared to him that nearly all the arguments that had been advanced by the advocates of the Bill would go to support the Bill which would shortly be introduced by the hon. Member for Northwest Manchester (Sir W. Houldsworth). He ventured to say that no amount of technical instruction, and no certificate, would enable a boiler-minder, or "tenter," as he was called in Lancashire, to detect accidents of the kind referred to as hon. Gentlemen seemed to think. Only a thorough inspection of steam 645 boilers, inside and outside, internally and externally, would secure the employés and the public from accident, and for a Bill of this character he had always given, and should always give, his warmest support. But the qualities needed to insure immunity from accident depended, not so much upon technical knowledge—which was very good in its way—as upon steadiness, sobriety, watchfulness, and care. ["Hear, hear!"] But those were moral qualities which no extent of technical knowledge would supply. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to an accident that happened to a steam engine through a cast iron beam giving way, and he said that if there had been a competent engineer in charge of the engine the defect in the beam would have been detected and the accident prevented. He had had a long experience of engines and boilers, and he ventured to say that in this case the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] A. cast iron beam was just one of those things in which a defect would not be detected. When such a beam failed, it would fail at once, and come down without warning. If the beam had been of malleable iron or of steel, some warning of the accident might have been perceived, but not with a east iron beam. ["Hear, hear!"] The facts of nearly all the cases of accident that had been stated to the House in regard to steam boilers went to show that the accidents were due, not to the fault of the men in charge, but to their employers, through having used engines or boilers that were not fit to be used—["hear, hear!"]—and the employers in such circumstances were the men who should be held responsible. ["Hear, hear!"] The most serious objection he had to the Bill was that it did not apply to the particular cases in which it was known that incompetent men were placed in charge of engines and boilers—he referred especially to the men employed on agricultural and traction engines. All those men and the engines and boilers of which they were in charge were excluded from the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Battersea that the Bill would have been of a much stronger character if they had been included in the Measure. If the promoters of the Bill had brought in a small Measure affecting the winding 646 engines and boilers of collieries, they would undoubtedly have made out a strong case. He represented a constituency in which there were about 1,500 miners who had votes, and he could only say, in reply to the hon. Member who spoke last, that he had not received any communication from them, asking him to vote either for or against the Bill. In fact, he had grave doubts whether the men in charge of the colliery winding engines would look with any favour on the Bill. If, as he had already said, the promoters of the Bill had brought in a simple Measure dealing with such engines, he should have felt it his duty to consult his constituents concerning it, because, after all, the men in charge of colliery engines were in a different position to men in charge of engines in any other form of industry. ["Hear, hear!"] Every hour of the day those men had the lives of other men in their hands, and regard should be paid to that very important fact. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt, however, that he could not vote for the Bill in its present form.
§ MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)said he had always looked upon the Under Secretary for the Home Office as one who had full sympathy with the working-classes of this country in their various phases and conditions, but he had been dissillusioned that afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman's expressions, and by the manner in which he had objected to the Bill. He began his remarks by using that old, time-worn phrase, "the thin end of the wedge." He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that phrase. What was the wedge intended to raise? Was it the thin end of the wedge of making better men, saving life, having less accidents? Was it the thin end of the wedge of giving them higher technical education?
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was speaking of the limitation of the Bill, and he said that if it were passed it must be extended to all those engines which were now excluded. In that sense he said it was the thin end of the wedge.
§ MR. ALLANsaid he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had such a breadth of mind as to take into his purview all the other engines. He hoped the day was not far distant when there would not be a man who was intrusted with machinery of this nature but what would know what 647 the machine was that he was intrusted with. ["Hear, hear!"] It was the aim of these workmen—and he spoke as an employer—to better their condition, to go to technical schools at night, and to learn all the theory of their work, and, forsooth, they were not to be recognised by a Government certificate from the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the character of the men, and said a written, character would be given by the two sponsors of the men. What did he mean by that? They knew there was not an engineer who went to pass the Board of Trade who would not carry his character with him.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSI did not say he did not.
§ MR. ALLANNo, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to cast a doubt upon the character of these men.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he must object to this no doubt unintentional but none the less absolute misrepresentation of what he said. He referred to the clause in the Bill in which it was provided that the Home Secretary should, where he received a testimonial as to character and physical ability and so forth, from two persons, issue a certificate. He was obliged to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not obliged!"] Certainly, he must issue it; and what he said was that the Home Secretary could not possibly know a thing about the character beyond what was stated in the recommendations.
§ MR. ALLANsaid that, according to his notes, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
The Home Secretary would have to issue a certificate on the receipt of a character and other qualifications of the man; but what was to become of the man if he was to get drunk six months, after he got his character?He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Trade officials declined to take the characters which the engineers took when they went there, or whether the officials declined the characters when the candidates were going to pass for the Civil Service? They must go to the bed-rock of what was required. They were not living in an old age; they were living in a new age, and they wanted progress. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would relieve an employer of responsibility where a certificate was granted to his engineman. He denied that. He knew it for a fact that no certificate that was ever given to a captain, 648 or mate, or engineer, or any officer on board ship, could exempt an owner from damages or liability, whatever might happen. Certificates did not give exemption from liability Upon no consideration could that argument be entertained. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this matter would come more properly under the purview of the Board of Trade than of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this being grandmotherly legislation, but what was the legislation they were under at this moment for boilers and engines? They could could not build a boiler without the Board of Trade rules, without they were inspected by Board of Trade inspectors or Lloyd's inspectors; they could not do anything in engineering without coming under the purview of the Board of Trade or Lloyd's. This "grandmotherly legislation" extended to almost every phase of engineering, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, why should not a man who had charge of an engine, where there were, perhaps, hundreds of lives at stake, have a certificate the same as a man who was running a steamer which did not carry passengers? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the whole of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman against this Measure were indeed very weak, very illogical, and not altogether up to date. He once more appealed to the House, as he did more than two years ago, to pass this little Bill. There were no objectionable features in it at all—nothing to which an employer could object. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Beading, and then, when it got before the Committee, its weaknesses and shortcomings could be hammered into shape. If they did this he felt sure that they would have done a great amount of good to a great many admirable, honourable working men in this country, who wanted to better their position by passing an examination at the hands of the Board of Trade.
§ MR. C. B. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said the crudities and absurd anomalies of the Bill had been acknowledged on both sides of the House, but it was urged by its supporters that the deliberations of the Standing Committee would set these matters right. It was true a similar Bill in 1895 passed its Second Reading unanimously, but why was that? The hon. Member for Gateshead had charge of the 649 Bill, and threw most of the cargo in the Bill overboard before the Bill was read, and then there was a distinct understanding that the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and that evidence should be taken and statistics examined. A more hopeless case for a. Bill, so far as statistics were concerned, had never been presented to the House. As a basis for any legislation of this kind the House should know the number of men who would be affected by the Bill, and the number of serious accidents over a given period. With such facts and figures to go upon the House might consider legislative proposals without running the risks the passing of such a crude Measure as this would involve. The Bill had been so riddled by criticism that it would be unnecessary to occupy the attention of the House with details. The vagueness of its definitions would constitute grave danger to every employer of labour. To show how little the Bill was understood the hon. Member who introduced it referred to the case of boilers at hotels and clubs, but these were distinctly excluded from the Bill. The exclusion of locomotives on railways had been alluded to, and they were excluded, but the Bill did not refer to locomotives at all. It was provided that the Bill should not apply to any boiler or engine used by a railway company, and that excluded a great deal more than locomotives. Did this not indicate that the promoters of the Bill found so much opposition from the railway interest that they excluded railways altogether? He was as anxious as any Member that everything possible should be done for the prevention of accidents in mines and factories, but he believed there was no need of such legislation as this. The regulations of the Mines Regulation Act of 1887 as to the competency of persons employed were of the most stringent character, and serious penalties were attached to breaches of these regulations.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)Will the hon. Member say what is the penalty for employing an incompetent man for a winding engine?
§ MR. RENSHAWsaid, by Section 50 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, any person contravening the rules was liable to fine, and Section 60 dealt with wilful neglect, and he presumed that would cover the case of putting an incompetent man in charge.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)Who is to judge the competency?
§ MR. RENSHAWsaid that was for the employer, and a court of justice would decide if there had been wilful negligence. He had no doubt of the fairness of the court.
§ MR. RENSHAWsaid steps of this kind could not be taken until after inquiry, and there would be no inquiry before an accident. Preventive measures might be taken, but these were better secured by the responsibility of the employer than by certificates. As an employer he recognised that the gravest responsibility rested upon those who engaged men to take charge of machines, not only that they should be competent, but that they should be sober, trustworthy, steady men. Let the House consider the position of a manager at a pit-head or in a factory when he found a certified man on duty in a state of intoxication. He would have to send the man away and would have to incur the risk of being fined for employing another man not certified. The Under Secretary for the Home Department had done well in opposing the Bill, and he should certainly vote against the Second Reading.
§ *MR. THOMAS BURT (Morpeth)said this was a subject in which he had taken great interest for many years, and he knew that workmen in the North, and, indeed, throughout the kingdom, took a very keen interest in the Bill, and wished to see it pass. Resolutions in its favour had been adopted at many Trades Union Congresses, and though he did not say that on that ground alone, or chiefly on that ground, there was sufficient reason for passing the Bill, yet he did think that this general and, he might say, unanimous feeling and weight of opinion on the part of workmen who on many other subjects disagreed, ought to be a strong recommendation of the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that the best guarantee against accidents was the employment of sober, steady, trustworthy men. Certainly that was so. But a workman would be none the less trustworthy on account of his being intelligent and thoroughly acquainted with the machinery of which he had charge. ["Hear, hear!"] 651 He had listened very attentively to the speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department, and was fully sensible of the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with the workmen's cause, and his desire to afford protection to them in their work, but he felt great disappointment at the speech and the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman arrived at to oppose the Bill on behalf of the Government. His arguments, if he might say so with respect, were of the most feeble and hackneyed character, they were the old arguments, which had been repeated again and again, that certificates diminished the responsibility of employers. These arguments were heard when the First Mines Act passed on the initiative of Lord Ashley, and they were used when the last Mines Act passed, and, in fact, they were brought forward on every occasion when Measures of this kind were before the House of Commons. With such arguments the Government opposed a Bill which he should have thought they would have been quite willing to send to the Standing Committee on Trade. The Members constituting the present Government in their election addresses laid very considerable emphasis on their desire to deal, not with great constitutional changes or organic reforms, but largely, if not mainly, with questions tending to the social and industrial amelioration of the people. It seemed rather strange in view of that fact, that whenever a Bill came before the House, supported as this was by the working men through all their organisations, without a single dissentient voice, instead of being supported by the Government it should meet with their direct and strenuous hostility. ["Hear, hear!"] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his speech and the attitude he had adopted would give very great disappointment to large numbers of working men. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *MR. C. W. CAYZER (Barrow-in-Furness)observed that the late President of the Board of Trade seemed to be under some misapprehension when he stated that this Bill was entirely opposed by the employers on the Government side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the back of the Bill he would there find the name of the hon. 652 Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, who was a large employer of labour.
§ MR. BRYCEI did not say entirely. I said that those who had spoken in opposition to the Bill from the other side of the House represented the employers.
§ *MR. CAYZERI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the employers on this side of the House were opposed to the Bill.
§ *MR. CAYZERsaid that in 1895 he voted for the Second Reading of the Bill of that year, as he intended to vote for this Measure. A very strong case had been made out for the Second Reading of the Bill, and he must say he very much regretted to hear the Under Secretary for the Home Department state that the Government were not going to support the Bill, as he did not think the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had advanced for the course the Government were taking were at all sufficient. One of the chief reasons he gave was the difficulty in granting certificates. He himself did not see why it should be relegated to the Home Department to grant certificates. He rather thought it was the duty of the Board of Trade to do this, as they already granted certificates of competency to engineers in the merchant service. He was certain that since these certificates had been granted it had not diminished the responsibility of the owner, but, on the contrary, he thought it had greatly conduced to the safety and better management of the engines, which were now under the charge of certificated persons. The hon. Member for Stockport gave as his reason for opposing the Bill that he had a great many men in his employ, and if an engine broke down it could easily be put together again by men who did not possess certificates. No doubt the hon. Member had in his employment thoroughly capable men, and it would be no hardship to them if they were sent up for examination in order to obtain certificates. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire said he wanted statistics before he would vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. He thought it would be very difficult to get all the statistics the hon. Member required; but they had sufficient statistics to show that this was a necessary Bill. He did not approve of the whole of its details, but he certainly thought it should have a Second 653 Reading. Representing as he did a large number of working men engaged at boilers and engines, he knew they were anxious to have the protection which this Bill afforded, and he hoped the House would pass the Second Reading, so that anomalies in the details of the Bill might be removed in Committee.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)expressed the readiness of the promoters and those interested in the Bill to widen its scope if the House should think it desirable, so as to include other classes of engines and boilers. He felt sorry at the official, unsympathetic speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department. No more official, dry, and rigid statement against this Bill was ever delivered from the Government Bench. If he were an employer of labour sitting on the other side of the House he should carefully canvass and consider and try to ascertain the import of the statement which the hon. Gentleman made and repeated time after time. It was this: give the workman a certificate of competency, it will take away the responsibility from the owners, and accidents will increase. See what that meant! It meant that it needed Acts of Parliament to make the employers anxiously care for the lives of their workmen.
MR. JESSE CODLINGSI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I desire to explain. What I stated was this. That at present there were great responsibilities laid on employers which they were compelled to carry out, not from their own sense of what they think good to keep the men in security, but under pains and penalties, lines, and all such things as are contained in the Act of 1887 and other Acts. What I said was this. That if you relieve them from this responsibility and simply give a paper certificate from the Home Office, I would not say that such would happen, but what would be likely to happen was that such responsibilities would be weakened and there would be a danger of an increase of accidents on that account.
§ *MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, instead of making better his own position, had really made it worse. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was a lawyer or not, but he hid himself behind the slight reservation that these accidents might in- 654 crease. Why should they? If they gave the workman a hundred certificates arising out of examinations of competency, why should that relax the care of the employer, and if he had been careful in the past why should he not be equally as careful in the future? The reason he rose was to clear the mist which appeared to hang around the interpretation of the Act of 1887 so far as it was confined to engines. Look at General Rule 24 of that Act, and they would find there was no penalty whatever attached to an employer if he employed an incompetent man. It was competent for an employer to employ any man at an engine provided he was over 22 years of age; but who was to judge of the man's competency? Reference had been made as to the area over which the demand for the Bill extended. There was present in the House a deputation of 20 men or more from every part of England, Wales, and Scotland, charged, as the representatives of the workmen, to advocate the passing of this Bill. The chief point with the deputation was the certification of the skill and ability of the enginemen who wound men up and down the shaft in mines. It was most necessary for the safety of life and limb that competent men should be secured for this responsible work. Let the Home Office not fear the "thin end of the wedge." If the thin end of the wedge was in the right direction it was the duty of the Home Office to drive it home. He once heard a divine say that "original sin" was laziness, and it had been asserted that the Home Office were afraid of taking on its shoulders a further burden of the work. He asked the House to Read the Bill a Second time and refer it to the Grand Committee on Trade, that they might so shape it as to make it most conducive to the safety of the workmen. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)expressed the pleasure with which he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow. It used to be said that the Conservative Party had in its ranks those who first defended the workman against the employer as regarded the conditions of labour. Member after Member had risen round him to say that that boast could no longer be entertained. [Opposition cheers.] The 655 hon. Member for Stockport said, "Why should you interfere with employers? They know their responsibility and duties. Leave them to manage their own business and the interests of the workmen will be consulted." That argument was used when it was proposed to limit the hours of labour, to fence machinery, and improve the ventilation in factories and workshops. Then it was said, "You are going too far," or "You are not going far enough." [Opposition cheers.] He had been struck with the analogy drawn as regarded the mercantile marine. Ships were inspected and examined. Did we on this account refrain from requiring the competency of mates and masters to be verified by certificate? ["Hear, hear!"] If it was true that the care of boilers in many cases exposed to perils the lives of the men, it did not need the strong speech of the Member for Durham to recommend the Bill to the House. If competency in the care of ships was necessary to be verified it must be so in the care of boilers. The Home Secretary, whose benevolence was not exceeded by any Member of the House, had been led astray by his head rather than his heart The peculiar sophisms which had betrayed many before had betrayed him now. The Home Secretary said that after a man obtained his certificate he might lose his character by getting drunk and falling into evil habits. Was not the same argument applicable to the masters and mates of merchant ships. Their work depended on their character as well as on their knowledge, and they might lose their characters after receiving their certificates. All the same, it was useful that they should have certificates, and certificates would be useful for those who had charge of engines and boilers. The hon. Member for Renfrew was going to oppose this Bill. Yet two years ago he assented to the Second Beading of a Bill which was much more comprehensive. He himself protested against the notion that opinion on the subject was divided. Happily, however, there were many Members around him who were ready to express their concurrence in the same sentiments. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)said the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to him to accuse employers of labour, and particu- 656 larly Conservative employers of labour, of being absolutely regardless of the welfare of the workmen in their employ. [Mr. COURTNEY: "No, no."] He submitted that no argument had been adduced to prove that by the granting of these certificates one single life would be saved or one single accident avoided. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to imagine that employers of labour only employed incompetent men. [Cries of "No."]
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid there was a difference between only employing competent men and never employing competent men. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but did he really suggest that any employers of labour wilfully employed incompetent men? Did they believe that a certificate granted by the Home Office was going to prove the competency of a man? If they were going to question a man in front of a boiler and let him show practically whether he understood it or not there might be something in the contention, but a written examination would not be worth the paper it was written on. He thought the discussion had shown that there was a very good case for the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for West Manchester, and he thought that many accidents to boilers might be avoided where boilers were compulsorily inspected and registered. Hon. Members opposite admitted themselves that this Bill was a wholly new departure in regard to the Home Office, which would have to administer it. That meant that there would have to be a considerable amount of consideration and arrangement at the Home Office for the carrying out of the Bill. He would ask hon. Members whether they would not better serve the cause they had at heart by withdrawing this Bill and bringing in, in conjunction with the Home Office, another Bill which all would be willing to support. He hoped the House would not assent to the Second Reading of the present Bill. It had been said that the Bill of 1895 passed the Second Reading without a division, but the reason was that the hon. Member in charge of it first threw over half his cargo, and then agreed to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee—not to the Grand Committee on 657 Trade. If the Bill went to a Select Committee they could then have expert evidence adduced. He hoped the appeal he had made would be accepted.
§ MR. HENRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens)rose to continue the discussion, and was met with cries of "Divide."
§ MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)I beg to move that the Question be now put.
§ MR. SPEAKERI hope there will be no necessity for that Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. SETON-KARRsaid he had not the slightest intention of talking out the Bill, he rose to support it. ["Hear, hear."] The hon. Member had appealed to the promoters of the Measure to withdraw it, but he thought a Bill in the hand was worth two in the bush. [Laughter.] He put no faith in vague promises from the Front Bench on cither side of the House. The Bill was a logical
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke | Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy | Hazell, Walter |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Crilly, Daniel | Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H. |
| Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-Lyme) | Crombie, John William | Helder, Augustus |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Arch, Joseph | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Holburn, J. G. |
| Arnold, Alfred | Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh | Holden, Angus |
| Ascroft, Robert | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh |
| Asher, Alexander | Dalziel, James Henry | Howell, William Tudor |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Davitt, Michael | Isaacson, Frederick Wootton |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Denny, Colonel | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Baker, Sir John | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jenkins, Sir John Jones |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm.) | Dillon, John | Joicey, Sir James |
| Banes, Major George Edward | Dixon, George | Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nse') |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Doughty, George | Jones, William (C'rn'rvonshire) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Drage, Geoffrey | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Bhownaggree, M. M. | Dunn, Sir William | Kilbride, Denis |
| Blake, Edward | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Ellis, John Edward (Notts) | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh) | Knowles, Lees |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton) | Lambert, George |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Fenwick, Charles | Langley, Batty |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Field, William (Dublin) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | Leng, Sir John |
| Burns, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burt, Thomas | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) |
| Caldwell, James | Fowler, Matthew (Durham) | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swansa) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gilhooly, James | Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Gilliat, John Saunders | Logan, John William |
| Cayzer, Charles William | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lough, Thomas |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Graham, Henry Robert | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Green, Walford D. (Wednsbry) | Maclean, James Mackenzie |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Gretton, John | McArthur, William |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Gull, Sir Cameron | M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) |
| Colville, John | Haldane, Richard Burdon | McKenna, Reginald |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | McLaren, Charles Benjamin |
§ and simple one. It was surely important that the men who managed the engines at the top of colliery shafts should be competent men.
§ MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)was understood to say that that was the law now.
§ MR. SETON-KARRsaid they wanted additional security that the men in, charge of these engines should be properly competent. The certificates could be easily obtained, and would be a proof that a man was sober and industrious as well as competent.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."—The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 137.—(Division List—No. 32—appended.)
§ The result of the Division was received with prolonged Opposition cheers, and ironical cries of "Resign."
659| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke | Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy | Hazell, Walter |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Crilly, Daniel | Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H. |
| Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-Lyme) | Crombie, John William | Helder, Augustus |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Arch, Joseph | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Holburn, J. G. |
| Arnold, Alfred | Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh | Holden, Angus |
| Ascroft, Robert | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh |
| Asher, Alexander | Dalziel, James Henry | Howell, William Tudor |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Davitt, Michael | Isaacson, Frederick Wootton |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Denny, Colonel | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Baker, Sir John | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jenkins, Sir John Jones |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm.) | Dillon, John | Joicey, Sir James |
| Banes, Major George Edward | Dixon, George | Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nse') |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Doughty, George | Jones, William (C'rn'rvonshire) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Drage, Geoffrey | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Bhownaggree, M. M. | Dunn, Sir William | Kilbride, Denis |
| Blake, Edward | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Ellis, John Edward (Notts) | Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh) | Knowles, Lees |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton) | Lambert, George |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Fenwick, Charles | Langley, Batty |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Field, William (Dublin) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | Leng, Sir John |
| Burns, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burt, Thomas | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) |
| Caldwell, James | Fowler, Matthew (Durham) | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swansa) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gilhooly, James | Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Gilliat, John Saunders | Logan, John William |
| Cayzer, Charles William | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lough, Thomas |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Graham, Henry Robert | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Green, Walford D. (Wednsbry) | Maclean, James Mackenzie |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Gretton, John | McArthur, William |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Gull, Sir Cameron | M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) |
| Colville, John | Haldane, Richard Burdon | McKenna, Reginald |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | McLaren, Charles Benjamin |
| McLeod, John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Maden, John Henry | Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon | Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F. | Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) | Strachey, Edward |
| Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.) | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Milbank, Powlett Charles John | Pryce-Jones, Edward | Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Milner, Sir Frederick George | Randell, David | Tennant, Harold John |
| Minch, Matthew | Rankin, James | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Monk, Charles James | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Ure, Alexander |
| Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Reckitt, Harold James | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Reid, Sir Robert T. | Walton, John Lawson |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Richardson, Thomas | Wayman, Thomas |
| Morton, Edward John Chalmers | Rickett, J. Compton | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Williams, John Carvell (Notts) |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Willox, John Archibald |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry) | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| O'Kelly, James | Savory, Sir Joseph | Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.) |
| Oldroyd, Mark | Schwann, Charles E. | Woodall, William |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'rsf'ld) |
| Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Parnell, John Howard | Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.) | |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. |
| Perks, Robert William | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | J. Samuel and Mr. Seton-Karr. |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Spicer, Albert | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther, H. T. | Gedge, Sydney | Myers, William Henry |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Arrol, Sir William | Godson, Augustus Frederick | Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Gordon, John Edward | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Penn, John |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Gunter, Colonel | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Hardy, Laurence | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W. |
| Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) | Heath, James | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) | Hornby, William Henry | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Howard, Joseph | Scott, Charles Prestwich |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithful | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Biddulph, Michael | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Brassey, Albert | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Smith, Abel (Herts) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Campbell, James A. | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Stephens, Henry Charles |
| Chaloner, Captain R. W. G. | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTaggart |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) | Kenny, William | Strauss, Arthur |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kenyon, James | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Charrington, Spencer | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Sutherland, Sir Thomas |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Taylor, Francis |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Leighton, Stanley | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Currie, Sir Donald | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Usborne, Thomas |
| Davenport, W. Bromley- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Sir William Hood |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon | Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) | Wharton, John Lloyd |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Drucker, A. | Maclure, John William | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Fardell, Thomas George | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.) |
| Fellowos, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r) | Milward, Colonel Victor | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Fielden, Thomas | Monckton, Edward Philip | Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath) |
| Finch, George H. | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | More, Robert Jasper | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh) | |
| FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose | Mount, William George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Murdoch, Charles Townshend | Alfred Hickman and Mr. Galloway. |
| Forster, Henry William | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute) |
Bill read a Second time.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W)This is a Government of social reform. [Laughter and cheers.]
§ Mr. J. SAMUELMr. Speaker, after this important Division, I beg to move "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc." [Cheers.]
§ *SIR A. HICKMANobjected. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] If the hon. Member would move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he would withdraw his objection. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"]
And it being after Half-past Five of the Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed To-morrow.