§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would remind the House that an exactly similar measure has already been debated in three Parliaments. The first debate took place in 1892, when the Second Reading was rejected by a majority of 112.* The next debate was in 1893, when the Second Reading was carried by a majority of seventy-eight.† In 1894 the Bill passed the same stage by a majority of eighty-seven, but was de-
* For Second Reading Debate see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. ii., page 1557 (23rd March, 1892). Division:—For Second Reading, 160: Against, 272. (Division List—1892—No. 52.)† For Second Reading Debate see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xi., page 1841 (3rd May, 1893). Division:—For Second Reading, 279; Against, 201. (Division List—1893—No. 63.)1304 feated in Committee.‡ In 1897 the Second Reading was rejected by a majority of forty-one.§ But while the Bill has met with varying fortunes in the House, the feeling in its support amongst the great class of workers for whose benefit it is intended has been growing and strengthening, and I believe I am justified in saying that the support accorded to the Bill by the miners themselves has never been as great as it is to-day. The Miners' Federation has within the last few months received a great accession of strength from South Wales, and that part of the country may now be regarded as solidly in favour of the Bill. Only one-sixth of the mining community is opposed to the Bill, and even that sixth is not opposed to the principle of a reduction in the hours of labour, but only to the method of carrying out that principle. The number of persons employed in coal mines, according to the Return for 1896, was 678,690, of whom 545,572 worked underground. If to these are added at least two millions of persons dependent upon the miners, it will be seen how large a section of the community are directly interested in this Bill. The object of the Bill is to shorten the hours of labour underground of persons employed in mines to eight per day. Is there anyone inside the House or out of it acquainted with the arduous condition of a miner's life who is prepared to say that eight hours continuous labour underground is not sufficient for any man of average health and strength? So far as I can ascertain there is no difference of opinion upon this point among the leading statesmen who have spoken on this subject, whether they have favoured or opposed this Bill. Nor is there any dispute whatever among labour representatives on the merits of the object we seek to accomplish; the only difference of opinion is as to the method of obtaining that end. The House is well aware that the opposition of one section‡ For Second Reading Debate see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxiii., page 1329 (25th April, 1894). Division:—For Second Reading, 281; Against, 194. (Division List—1894—No. 34.) For Debates in Committee see Vol. xxviii., page 800 (13th August, 1894); and page 1001 (14th August, 1894). (Division List—1894—No. 232.)§ For Second Reading Debate see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xlviii., p. 1541 (5th May, 1897). Division:—For Second Reading, 186; Against, 227. (Division List—1897—No. 190.)1305 of miners and their representatives here, for whom I feel a sincere personal respect, is based on the method we propose of carrying out this reform. My hon. friends are in the happy position of representing adults who work on the average considerably less than eight hours per day, and they have told us again and again that it is their earnest desire to see miners in other parts of the country enjoy the privileges which they have obtained. The representatives of Northumberland and Durham, who oppose this Bill, are quite prepared to support an Eight Hours Bill for the whole of Scotland. I gather, therefore, that their only objection to the Bill is its application to the counties of Northumberland and Durham, where adult miners already work considerably less than eight hours a day, but where a very large number of youths work between ten and eleven hours. They ask us to sympathise with men who work less than eight hours a day, and we ask them to sympathise with men who work considerably more than eight hours a day. Now there are three ways in which this question may be settled. The first is by arrangement between masters and men; or failing agreement, by strikes; or in the last resort, by legislation. As regards the first method, many attempts have been made in various parts of the country to obtain an eight-hour day as a concession from employers. But in most cases these attempts have failed. In South Wales and Monmouthshire, in Derbyshire, in Scotland and in Lancashire repeated attempts have been made to establish an eight-hour day by agreement, hut without success. We have been asked to give up appealing to the Legislature, but what inducement to abandon this Bill can its opponents offer? The grievance would never be abated by agreement. The very arguments used by employers against the Bill show that it is hopeless to expect the matter to be settled by voluntary agreement. In the case of factories, Parliament was convinced that the desired change could not be brought about by agreement, and it will sooner or later arrive at the same conviction in the case of coal mines. The powerful organisation which represents by far the greatest number of organised miners in the country has, after repeated attempts to settle the question by agreement, come long ago to the conclusion that the problem can only be satisfactorily solved by legislation. The 1306 second way of obtaining a reduction in the hours of labour is by strikes of workmen. Is there anyone in this House who would commend that barbarous method of settling questions of this kind? We have lately been helped by graphic newspaper accounts of sieges to realise something of the misery and hardships that they involve; but the same kind of suffering—much of it, most of it indeed—inflicted upon very large numbers of innocent women and children is experienced in this country during a coal strike. And when the fight is successful there is no guarantee that the reduction will be permanent. Let me give the House one instance of an attempt made to settle the question in this way. It is the case of a colliery where an eight hours day was in force; the hours were raised to nine, but after a while the miners requested to be allowed to return to an eight hours day. The employer refused. The men tried to force him to consent, and they were locked out for six weeks. They again attempted it, and were locked out for three weeks. No one will advocate that way of settling the question, when we have at hand a much simpler and more effective method which has already been successfully adopted in other directions, and which would avoid all the loss and injury, the strife and bitterness which a series of strikes would cause. Now I come to the case of the opponents whose efforts have hitherto secured the defeat of the Bill. I am happy to think that many employers support the Bill, but many undoubtedly oppose it very strongly. The nature of their arguments may be judged from the fact that they place in the forefront of their objections to the Bill the contention that Parliament has no right to interfere with the hours of adult male labour, and that legislation of that character is an undue interference with the liberty of the subject. For my own part I can see absolutely no difference in principle between the right of Parliament to interfere with male labour and the right, which has long been acknowledged and acted upon, to interfere with female labour. Both cases, in my judgment, stand upon the same footing. But Parliament has, indirectly it is true, but none the less effectually, exercised the right of interfering with adult male labour by the Factory Acts. If you limit the hours of labour for women and 1307 children in factories you practically limit the hours of labour of the men who have to work with them. But, apart from the Factory Acts, the liberty of the subject has been interfered with by such laws as the Truck Acts, the Merchant Shipping Acts, railway and sanitary legislation, and by statutes preventing certain classes of adult males from working at their occupations on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Still more important is the fact that the mining industry is regulated in every detail by the Goal Mines Regulation Act. Parliament is constantly interfering in various ways with individuals and with classes for the good of those classes and for the general welfare of the community. That, after all, must be the supreme law in a well-ordered State, and it is because I believe that this measure is for the good of miners, and indirectly for the benefit of the community at large, that I commend it to the acceptance of the House. The opponents of the Bill argue that if passed it will increase the price of coal and reduce wages. But these arguments must be to a large extent mutually destructive, because if the price of coal is increased that will avoid the necessity for a reduction in wages, whereas if wages are reduced there! will, to that extent, be no necessity for raising prices. It has been sought to prejudice the public against the Bill by stating that its effect will be to raise the price of coal, and the most extravagant statements have been made as to what that increase is likely to be. I do not for a moment admit that the price will be raised, and it is most unfair to hold miners responsible for the enormous increase in the price of coal. It may be surprising to many persons to know that the coalheaver only gets on an average two shillings per ton for his work; there are cases in which he gets more, but there are mines in Lancashire in which he is only paid one shilling per ton for his labour. There is a vast and mysterious margin between the wages paid per ton to the coal-getters, the other workmen employed about a mine, and the profits of colliery proprietors on the one hand, and the price paid by the householder on the other. Perhaps the railway companies know something about that margin. But the question whether the price will be increased or wages reduced depends upon whether the 1308 output will be decreased or not. The practical experience of a number of collieries is that when the hours of labour have been reduced the output has been increased. Long hours of work means half-hearted and listless work: shorter hours, provided that the reduction is kept within reasonable limits, means increased production and more regular work. On this point I commend to hon. Gentlemen opposite the speech made by the Member for West Birmingham in the debate of 1892,* and the very powerful arguments by which he supported the view that the output would not be diminished by an Eight Hours Act. In the course of the debates on this Bill we have been treated to the usual dismal prophecies that the passing of the Bill will result in a loss to the coal mining industry. These predictions have been made again and again at every stage of the legislation which has been passed during the last fifty years to improve the conditions of labour in factory, workshop, and mine, and they have invariably been falsified. I believe that the mining industry can afford this concession to workmen, and that in the end it will gain considerably by it. We are not dealing with a decaying industry. The output of coal has been increasing at the average rate of two and a half millions of tons per annum. That is doubtless due in large measure to improved machinery. But if machinery can be so improved as to do a larger quantity of mechanical work, is it not light that the human worker should have his hours of labour curtailed to a reasonable extent? He deserves our sympathy. Coal mining- is one of the most dangerous occupations that a man can follow. More than a thousand colliers are killed every year, and the number of non-fatal accidents is enormous. I cannot help comparing these losses with those sustained by our troops in the field. The proportion of killed to wounded in a battle is 10 per cent., but the proportion of non-fatal to fatal accidents in coal mines is much greater, and the mining casualties for a single year are said to amount to 125,000. Let it be remembered that this is an animal toll from which there is no respite. I believe that the number of killed and wounded in the present war now amounts to about 8,000, and that*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series]. Vol. ii., p. 1582.1309 we trust will soon be at an end. Now, without committing myself to the perfect accuracy of the basis of comparison I have used, I venture to say that the class of men who take their lives in their hands every time they descend a coal mine, and who thereby daily render service to their country in a perilous warfare with the forces of nature, are as worthy of the sympathy of their fellow- countrymen as those who risk their lives in battle, and there are acts of heroism performed underground as worthy of honour as any done on the field of battle. Coal miners have to work far from the light of day in the most dismal and disagreeable surroundings. I have lived among coal miners for many years. I owe much to them, and am proud to have this opportunity of supporting a cause in whose advancement they are so deeply interested. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)I look upon this Bill as one of the most important Bills that has been before the House this session. It has only been discussed once in this Parliament in 1897 and, when we consider the important principles which the Bill contains, most Members of the Mouse will agree that a Wednesday afternoon is perfectly inadequate for dealing with the question. No one can find fault with the tone of the hon. Member who has mined the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sure, speaking for myself and other hon. Members who are opposed to him. that we will continue the debate in the pleasant manner in which it has been begun. I listened carefully to the hon. Member's speech with a view to ascertaining if he had any new arguments to advance in order to induce the House to give a decision different from those it has given in the past, but I listened, I am bound to say, without hearing any such arguments. Every argument which the hon. Gentleman used in support of this Bill could be used with equal force in favour of a general Eight Hours Bill for all industries in the country. Every argument he brought forward could be used in favour of this House settling the rate of wages for which every workman in this country ought to work. The 1310 hon. Member said there were three ways in which this question could be settled. The first was by agreement. How are wages settled except by agreement.' The second was by strikes. Have we had no strikes with regard to wages? And the third was that the House should step in and fix the hours. All three ways are well known to us. We are all anxious to avoid strikes. The hon. Member said the only remedy was for that House to settle the matter by legislation, and consequently I maintain every argument used in support of the Bill could be used in fixing the wages in every industry in the country. This Bill is of vast importance. It affects not only the workers and the producers, but every human being in this country, because all are consumers of coal, and if there is one thing, next to labour, which is of vital consequence to the large industries of this country it is coal. It must not be supposed for a moment that, personally, I am against the workers of this country having eight hours a day. I certainly should like to see the workers having even less than an eight hours day, provided it would not interfere with the advantages to themselves and to the community which this House should always try to ensure. The hours of labour in various industries have been greatly reduced during the last fifty years without any such efforts as these, and I cannot see how. seeing that the hours of labour in these industries have been reduced by mutual agreement, there is any case for the interference of the Legislature in connection with the mining industry. My hon. friend alluded to the fact that the hours of work for women had been interfered with by the Legislature. But on what grounds? Was it not on the ground of health? Health was the only consideration that justified that interference: and is there, I ask, any case on that ground for dealing with this question by legislation? I maintain that there is not, and before I sit down I think I will satisfy the hon. Member that there is not. I must remind the hon. Member that the onus of proof is upon those who bring forward the Bill, not on those who oppose it. They have to show the House that there is a strong reason for adopting this method of settling the hours of labour in connection with this industry. I cannot see why this particular industry should be selected to deal 1311 with by legislation. I have not heard a single argument from my hon. friend to show that there is any ground for its being selected. The only justification for interference, in my judgment, would he that it was necessary in the interests of the miner's health, or for avoiding accidents. Is there any justification on these two grounds? I maintain that there is not. With regard to the hours of work, eight hours in our mines does not mean eight hours work; it simply means eight hours from hank to hank. In many mines the workmen have to walk a mile or two miles from the bottom of the shaft, and for each mile they are allowed twenty-five minutes backwards and forwards, while three-quarters of an hour is generally allowed for meals. This is not the case with regard to other industries. In other industries an eight hours day means eight hours actual work. With regard to accidents, is there any ground for special legislation? When the first Act was passed, in 1872, there was one death amongst 233 workers, after the second Act there was one death among 258, after the third one in 312, after the fourth one in 406, and now, I am glad to say, there are only 1.2 deaths per thousand workers, which is a very great improvement. In Northumberland and Durham the number is only 1. 08 per thousand, which is, I believe, about the best position in the country. If my hon. friend had been able to show that the Bill would decrease the number of accidents he would have made a strong argument in support of it. But it was shown in the very interesting Return moved for by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, that instead of the deaths being more numerous towards the end of the shifts, the proportion of deaths during the first few hours of the shift was considerably larger than during the latter part. That is altogether against the impression that by this measure we would decrease the number of deaths. The Return shows that during the ten years over which it extends the number of explosions which occurred during the first four hours was 125, as against 80 afterwards, and the number of deaths 1,202 and 744 respectively. That shows that no case whatever can be made out so far as accidents are concerned. But I should think, as a practical man, that, if we decrease the number of hours of labour, the probability is that it would lead to greater haste and to less care and 1312 caution being observed in working the coal. With shorter hours men would be anxious to produce as much coal as possible, and the probability is that accidents would be increased. I do not say that the decrease in the number of deaths is altogether due to Acts of Parliament. I think it is chiefly due to improved methods of working and to improved appliances, better ventilation, better lamps, and other improvements with regard to the working of the coal. Let us now look at the measure with regard to health. If my hon. friend could have shown that there was any real ground for legislative interference on the plea of health, he might have made out a very strong case for the Bill. But what are the facts? This is what Dr. Arlidge tells us in his "Diseases and Mortality of Occupations"—
Additional reasons why coal and ironstone miners enjoy considerable immunity from phthisis, compared with men in other industries, are to be found in the general conditions of life surrounding them. They escape the evils of sedentary work; their hours of labour are shorter than those of many indoor occupations; the circumstances of their employment place a bar to riotous living, except the opportunities they make for it when work has ceased; and statistics show, in fact, that their mortality from alcoholism and its contingent diseases is low. Add to these considerations that they are preserved to a great extent from the inclemencies of the weather, enjoy a more equal climate than outdoor workers, and that they are a well-nourished body of men—at least, they should be so were their wages properly applied. They awaken public sympathy largely because of their work underground, for aversion to darkness is ingrained in human nature. Still there are no decisive facts to prove that work in the dark is per se of distinct injury to human beings. The horses in pits, who remain for months, and even years, underground, are fat and nourishing, and miners are seldom underground above eight hours at a stretch, and not that every day of the week. Besides, we have yet to know that the six months' darkness falling to the lot of dwellers near the Pole is productive of serious bodily harm. It might be a subject for discussion whether a collier in his pit of almost uniform temperature is not better off than a farm labourer, who is compelled to work longer hours, and in all weathers, and frequently in operations equally laborious with those of miners, if not more so. Certainly his physical surroundings are superior to those of mill hands, and of most people occupied in 'trades.'It is a well-known fact that mining is a very healthy occupation. It has been proved that out of 100 occupations, some of which involved comparatively little physical work, 70 were less healthy 1313 than that of the coal-miner. I am satisfied that no case can be made out as far as health is concerned. The light hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire stated that old men did not die as miners. I am not going to accept their mere assertions on a practical question of this kind. I have been connected with a good many industries in my life, and I am satisfied that there are just as many old men employed in connection with the production of coal as are employed in any other industry. I therefore cannot accept the assertion that the occupation of coalmining is less healthy than any other industry, and, in my judgment, no case has been made out for the Bill on the ground of health. These are the two main reasons which should guide the judgment of the House on this question, and unless it can be shown that my statements and statistics are altogether wrong, I hope the House will not be induced to read the Bill a second time. The counties of Northumberland and Durham are in a peculiar situation in this matter. The Bill has been before the House on previous occasions. It passed its Second Heading in 1894, and was defeated, as my hon. friend put it, in Committee; but my hon. friend has not told the House why it was thrown out in Committee. It was because the promoters refused to accept a local option clause. Such a clause was recommended by the Colonial Secretary, who argued the question most ably, as he does whatever question he takes up. The right hon. Gentleman showed distinctly on that occasion that, unless local option were adopted, there would be a great upsetting of customs and systems throughout the country, and that the House had no right to take such a course unless for very strong reasons. But the promoters declined to give local option. Why! Because they were afraid that Northumberland and Durham would not accept an Eight Hours Bill, but would continue to work under their present system. Or possibly they might have another fear. They might have felt that some of the counties which are now supposed to be in favour of the Bill would, when they came to be balloted, probably decide against working under any such restriction. My hon. friend stated that he was satisfied there was a 1314 largely increased opinion in favour of the Bill amongst the mining community. I ask the promoters of the Bill to give facts in support of that view. So far as I am aware, there has never been a ballot taken of the Federation districts on this question. No doubt the mining interest is most capably represented in this House, but I am not prepared to accept the views of these representatives on this question, and I will tell the House why. South Wales was formerly opposed to an Eight Hours Bill. Now it is in favour of it. Why? Not because the men have changed their opinions, but because they find that by joining the Federation they will get greater advantages than they would get by pursuing their opposition to this Bill, and the Federation refused to take them in unless they threw over their convictions and views with regard to the Eight Hours Bill. There is another fact which rather makes me doubt whether these hon. Gentlemen represent a very large majority of the miners in their districts on this question. There are many other hon. Gentlemen in this House who represent mining districts throughout the country. Take Lancashire, for instance. Many of the Lancashire Members represent mining districts, and yet they are persistent in their opposition to this Bill. If this is such a vital question, how is it that constituencies where it is said the miners are in favour of the Eight Hours Bill send representatives to Parliament who vote against it? With regard to Durham, we are in a special position. It is one of the oldest coalfields in the country. We had developed a coal system there before many of the districts which are now clamouring for this Bill produced a ton of coal. We have a system of our own which has been in existence for centuries, and the men naturally cling to it because they think it is better than any which might be thrust upon them. Durham occupies a special position in many respects. Unlike many inland districts which depend altogether for their sales upon home industries, Durham exports something like 50 per cent. of its production, and Northumberland exports 80 per cent. We do not want to have that system upset, because we have come to the conclusion—whatever those who do not understand the system may think—that it would considerably decrease the output, and by that means increase the cost of produc- 1315 tion, and would affect us seriously in competition with other coal districts throughout the world—Silesia, Westphalia, France, and Belgium, which are really our strongest rivals in the foreign markets. The one charge always thrown at Durham and Northumberland in connection with the double-shift system is that we are selfish, and that we work our boys long hours, while allowing our men to work short hours. People who know nothing about the facts are under the impression that the Durham and Northumberland boys work very much longer than the boys in other districts. That was the impression generally given, but, as a matter of fact, there is the same legal limit in these counties as there is in the rest of the country—fifty-four hours a week. From a statement furnished by the secretary of the Union Coal Trade Association of the North of England, as to the hours of working in various localities, I find that in Scotland boys work 10 hours from bank to bank, in Lancashire 9¼ to 10¼, in Yorkshire 9½, in Derbyshire 9½, in South Wales 10, and in Durham and Northumberland 10. I therefore protest against these calumnies that in the North we work the boys longer than in other districts. My hon. friend says no; but that has been the whole basis of local opinion. And observe that we have this double-shift system, which we think is a very great advantage, and we naturally are determined to fight to our utmost to prevent this system being interfered with, either by this House or by any other power. Before leaving the question of our boys, it may be of interest to the House to know what is the actual position of these boys. They are of three classes—trappers, pony putters, and hand putters. In Durham there are 773 trappers, and their wages are 1s. 3d. per day. The; pony putters number 6,866, and they earn 3s. 7¾ d. per day. The hand putters number 3,839, and they earn 5s. 1d. per day. In Northumberland there are 295 trappers who earn 1s. 5d. per day; 1,821 pony putters who earn 4s. 1¾ D. per day; and 634 hand putters who earn close on 4s. 10d. per day. I challenge all those gentlemen from various localities who support this Bill to produce wages like these earned by boys under twenty years of age. Well, in regard to the advantages enjoyed by the men, they work something like seven hours per day.1316 Our position in Durham is different from that of any other district, inasmuch as we are an old coal-field, and we have many difficulties to contend with that do- not exist elsewhere. Our coal seams are small and near the surface, which means that we have large quantities of water to deal with. In my own collieries I have pits where, for every ton of coal I produce, I have to deal with seven tons of water. Then our coal is soft coal, and we have to take precautions against large quantities of gas. Other localities do not suffer from these difficulties, and I am not one to recommend the men to work longer than seven hours, when we consider the arduous duties they have to perform. In Durham and Northumberland the actual days worked last year was 4. 85 per week, and the hours underground worked by the hewers were on an average 33 hours 57 minutes. The actual time of work has been estimated at 26 hours 40 minutes per week. Well, these are the results of the double-shift system, and therefore you cannot be surprised that both employers and workmen, and even the boys, in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, who are working no longer than the boys in other districts, should be unwilling to have any legislation which will interfere with their present system. The boys look to the advantages which they will obtain the whole of their lives afterwards, when they will only work seven hours a day from bank to bank. I am bound to say that there are no more favourable conditions of labour in any part of the world, so far as coal production is concerned: and when both employers and workmen object so strongly to this Bill, the House ought seriously to consider their objections. We have had various statements that this Bill would not seriously decrease the output of coal. Estimates are very dangerous things, and I am very careful as to fixing myself to figures unless they are accurate. But my hon. friend the Member for the Gainsborough Division of Lincolnshire has made an experiment as to what would be the result of working his pits eight hours per day, where the present working hours are longer. In one pit the reduction of output would be 22 per cent., in a second pit the reduction would be 32½ per cent., and in a third 23½ per cent. My hon. friend who moved the Second Beading of the Bill says that prices are not likely to rise by the 1317 universal adoption of the eight hours system. But from my own experience and that of one of the largest coal-salesmen in this country, a reduction in the output of 5 to 10 per cent. would create famine prices of coal; and I cannot tell what would be the result if the output of the whole country were suddenly to fall to anything like what my hon. friend says it would. This Bill is against the interest of the consumer. People have been grumbling during the last six months at the high prices of coal. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] I recommend those hon. Members who grumble to go further back and take the prices of coal for the last few years, and it will be seen that had it not been that a boom came occasionally many pits would have been closed altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] It was only the booms that enabled us to clear off our liabilities. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I am speaking with some knowledge of the subject. I have said that this Bill is against the interests of the small consumer: but it is also against the interests of the large consumer, who has to maintain those industries on which the bulk of the population of the country depends. I think it is also against the interest of the workmen that the cost of production should be increased, for we would find if this Bill passed a very serious reduction in the output would be the result, and a great many mines would he closed. But this Bill is specially against the interest of the. counties of Durham and Northumberland. Now, we in Durham and Northumberland have been accustomed to manage our own affairs. We have had many difficulties to deal with at various times, and we are very ready to adapt ourselves to any restriction in the discharge of our duties which the Legislature may put upon us. We had the Workmen's Compensation Act, which in some districts has led to great litigation. But in the counties of Durham and Northumberland the litigation has been practically nil, because of the action of our joint committees and the common sense and great intelligence which exists in our north country districts. I feel sure that if both our employers and workmen could see that this Bill would not interfere with them, it is quite possible that our opposition would not have been so strong. What do we gather from the facts I have quoted? We gather this, that there is no class of men 1318 in this country against whom a weaker case can be made for special interference on the part of this House than the miners of Durham and Northumberland, and I maintain that you have no right whatever to select a, body of men like these and take them out of the scope of the general law. We have 145.000 workers in connection with the mines in these two counties, and these 145,000 object to this measure: and I cannot think that, when this House has gone into the matter carefully, it will ignore their claim to be allowed to manage their own affairs in their own way. Is it any reason to interfere because there are weak unions in connection with the mining industry? Our unions are led by the most capable men, and they are most loyal to their leaders: and there is no class of men who have drawn such good conditions from their employers as these leaders. When we see this, we cannot help thinking in the North of England that this Bill is in a large measure aimed at Northumberland and Durham. I am here to represent my constituents. I am not speaking as an employer in this House, but as the representative of a mining constituency, and more closely connected with mines than any other Member in this House. I make a strong and earnest appeal to the House, therefore, that they should weigh the matter carefully, and I am sure if they do so that they will agree with me that no case whatever has been made out for this special legislation. I have much pleasure in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ *MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)said he begged to second the Amendment of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and he would suggest that the House should give close consideration to the concluding remarks of the hon. Baronet, since they made clear his opposition to the Bill, namely, that they in Durham would like to be left to the management of their own affairs. That contained the kernel and gist of all the action he had taken, so far as this Bill was concerned, every time it had been before this House or had come up for discussion in the country. On all occasions he had tried to do his very best not to prevent other people from having what they believed to be the advantages of the Bill, but to prevent other people from forcing on him 1319 and the men he represented conditions and arrangements and alterations of the law which they thought would not he beneficial to them. Before he went into the discussion of the Bill he would like to correct one or two statements which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street had made, and which it was incumbent on him to correct. The first was as to the meal-times of the miners in the county of Durham.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYI was explaining more particularly the yield of the counties of Durham and Northumberland, but the statistics I have given apply to the whole country generally.
§ *MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)said that if that was the explanation he had not a word more to say about it. He thought the hon. Baronet was slightly in error as to the action of South Wales, and the reason why the miners there were not accepted into the federation. It was not because they would not give in their adhesion to eight hours, but because they would not promise to give up their sliding scale. He might further state that there were a large number of men in South Wales who believed in the regulation of labour in mines by this House, but not in having the hours fixed from bank to bank. He believed there had been votes taken by miners in other parts of the country apart from their own, but no ballots were taken. There had been pithead votes of young and old all together, in which they held up their hands in open voting, but that was not a proper way of testing men's opinions. Let him say in a word to his hon. friend who introduced this Bill, that he could not accept any of his arguments. He put that as respectfully as a man could. He was bound to say also that able as the Members were who brought this Bill before the House on former occasions, the promoters of it had never had a more able man to discuss the question than the hon. Gentleman who did it to-day. If his arguments were not acceptable he confessed that the spirit, tone, and temper of his statements were everything that any man could desire, no matter how bitterly opposed he might be to the Bill. And well would it have been for the working-classes of this country if the same temper had been exhibited by everybody, and if there had been less virulence and less calumny in urging the 1320 demands which they made. He fully endorsed all that the hon. Member who introduced the Bill had said as to the dangerous, unpleasant, and arduous nature of the labour in mines. He was one of a group of six in this House who from earliest boyhood had had to pass through these arduous and dangerous duties. The hon. Member was quite right when he compared the work in the mines to a battlefield with all its disastrous and repulsive horrors. He had his full approval in everything he said in that direction, and if the hon. Gentleman had gone further and said that the miners were not sufficiently well paid for their labours under these circumstances, he would have found him in full agreement with him. He believed that if any class of men in the country should be well paid—and he admitted they were pretty well paid just now—it was the miners. He was rather doubtful that his hon. friend had not been sufficiently coached in his facts, or in his ideas. There was one term he used very often, and that was "eight hours continuous work." Now this Bill did not want that; indeed it contradicted that position. It did not give eight hours continuous work, but eight hours from bank to bank; and therefore if his hon. friend desired that the miners should work eight hours continuously at the face, he would have to alter his Bill, and not fix rigidly any hours whatever, because they knew that there were portions of mines where the men had only to walk one hundred or two hundred yards to the face, while there wove portions of the same mines where they had to walk three miles underground to their work and that would take them about an hour and twenty minutes. He should like to know whether his hon. friend meant in his Bill eight hours from bank to bank, or eight hours continuous work. That ought to be clear, because he thought he was right in saying that the gentlemen promoting this Bill meant eight hours from bank to bank; but if they had said so distinctly they would not have availed themselves of some Members' able support to the Bill. He should have liked, further, if his hon. friend had tried to explain some of the difficulties as to the application of this Bill. Although he was shoulder to shoulder, metaphorically speaking, with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Chester-le-Street was on one side of the line 1321 and he on the other. The hon. Baronet took the purely commercial side of the line: but he took the other, for he yielded first place to no man, in the House or out of it, in that respect, and every movement he had made and every word he had uttered had been prompted by considerations for the prosperity of the men he represented. He submitted that what they ought to have were practicalities and clear statements as to how this Bill was going to be applied. He knew there were leaders of parties who had given support to the Bill, and he had told them that it was incumbent upon them before they resolved to give that support, to take into their minds a great colliery employing 1,500 or 2,000 men and boys, and see how a rigid Eight Hours Bill could be made to work in all the various exigencies of the situation. The light hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean apparently thought that it was a most simple thing to apply the Bill to the mines. Since the question had been before the House the right hon. Baronet had given them in the north the benefit of his missionary spirit, and had tried to bring them to his way of thinking. He went down to Newcastle in November, 1897, and delivered a speech. He believed there was no gentleman in the House more desirous to do good to the working classes of the country than the right hon. Baronet. Well, in that Newcastle speech he said
Now. he was an extreme man, but he was bound to say, as a practical politician, he did not believe that the adoption by Parliament of a universal eight hours day was the form in which the change would come.Then he went on to mention certain trades to which an eight hours day was inapplicable, such as the cotton trade, agriculture and shipping: but the right hon. Baronet proceededThere were some trades where the difficulty of proceeding by law was far less great, where it would be easy to introduce the principle and where the Parliamentary difficulties were very small.And he suggested that a tentative measure might be tried for mines. He wanted to appeal to the right hon. Baronet to tell the House how the difficulties in mines were to be dealt with. In that very same speech at Newcastle the right hon. Baronet said—There was no occupation in which the conditions of working varied so greatly as in the mining industry.1322 Now, if the right hon. Baronet was appalled by the difficulties of a universal eight hours day in some trades, but was not appalled by the difficulties in the mining industry, although at the same time he admitted that there was no occupation in the country in which the conditions of working varied so greatly, he would ask him when he spoke that afternoon not to dwell on theory, because this was not a, question of theory or sentiment; it was a question of expediency and practicalities and benefits. And if the right hon. Baronet could show him—he spoke for himself—where this Bill could be applied to mines, with all their varied conditions, he would find that he was of the same thinking as himself. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill made two statements which he did not think he had fully weighed. He wanted to supply that hon. Gentleman with a little bit of evidence. That hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill came forward supported by a, very large preponderance of the mining community of the country. Hon. Members, if they are not members of a trade union, will have some idea as to what it is to be a member of a union. If they were so, and officials in that union. they would never think that they represented men who were not in the union. All they would represent would be a majority of the union. That was what he called a fair position. But the hon. Member who introduced the Bill made out that there were 545,000 men in the mines outside the counties of Durham and Northumberland, and he assumed—it was a very gratuitous assumption—that all these 545,000 men were in favour of the Bill.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISNo; my hon. friend is wrong. The figures I quoted were that the persons engaged in coal mines Mere 678,000, out of whom 545,000 were workmen underground. I did not refer to Northumberland or Durham in that connection.
§ *MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)Well, the hon. Member assumed that all the miners in this country outside Durham and Northumberland approved of this Bill, and were really men who were giving their adhesion and support to it. He wished to quote some figures, but not in any way to gloat over them, for he regretted them. But he held in his hand 1323 a return of the total trades union membership in this country and of the mining unions. As he had said, no mining leader, himself included, could speak for the men outside the unions. By what right did the hon. Member say he spoke for the men outside the unions? He could only speak so if there was a universal consensus of opinion. Now, the total number of men in the unions in the mining districts, according to the Board of Trade returns, in 1898 was 317,135, and there were in the unions in Durham and Northumberland 82,548. If they subtracted 82,000 odd from the total number they had, covering Scotland, Wales, and the whole of England outside these two counties, 234,697 persons. Outside the two northern counties there were 324,781 men employed in and about the mines in this country who were outside the unions which favoured this proposal. How, therefore, could the hon. Member who introduced the Bill or any trade union leader claim that he had behind him the solid consensus of opinion of the men engaged in and about the mines of this country? Was there any man who lived in such a fool's paradise as to suppose that if a miner's hours were ten and they were reduced to eight he would receive the same wages? He did not live in such a paradise. It was said that had it not been for Durham and Northumberland the other districts would have obtained eight hours. There was not a district outside Durham and Northumberland that could not have had eight hours since 1894, when an option clause was proposed in that House. Durham and Northumberland had not stood in the way, and did not stand in the way now. The hon. Member for Walthamstow opposed local option on the ground that he desired to limit competition between the various districts. In some districts there; were coal seams 18 inches thick, and in others, scams 9 feet thick; in some districts the men had to travel three miles and in others only a few hundred yards to their work, and they also knew that the coal produced in some districts was nearly 100 tons per man per year more than that produced in others. Therefore it was impossible to obtain uniform conditions, and it was not possible, by fixing an eight hours day, to so arrange that the various districts should not compete with each other. Wherever negotiation had been fairly 1324 tried eight hours had been obtained. That had been the case in one district in Scotland for twenty-five years. The men of Durham and Northumberland had had ten hours from bank to bank, by agreement, since 1890. He knew it was said, "What about the boys'?" Who were the boys, and whom did they belong to? They were not Oliver Twists from the workhouse, they were their own flesh and blood, and it was not to be supposed that they would allow them to be barbarously treated. They were not satisfied with ten hours, but until they could find some solution of this great difficulty they approved of the present condition of the boys. If that House dealt with the question of hours, the}' should also deal with the question of wages. There were nearly 4,000 women still employed about the coal mines of this country. Their employment was a disgrace to those who allowed it. He was glad to say that in the counties of Northumberland and Durham no women were employed about mines. He would join hands with anyone who would not only shorten the hours but abolish the employment of women. If shorter hours would be conducive to the health of young boys in mines they would be to the health of mothers and daughters, and certainly to comfort in their domestic arrangements. What needed to be taught nowadays was self-reliance. Let not people come to Parliament to do what they could do themselves. Let this Bill be withdrawn. Its object could be accomplished without appealing to Parliament if the working classes desired the Bill. He opposed the Bill now, as he had done on previous occasions, believing it- would be detrimental to the interests of the working classes of this country.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon, this day six months.'"—(Sir James Jokey.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the hon. Baronet who preceded him in moving the rejection of this Bill have both told us that the time this afternoon is too short to enable the House to come to a conclusion. They have not only said that but also that no arguments have been 1325 adduced in favour of this measure. The matter has now been under discussion for two hours, so I shall not apologise for addressing myself solely to the explanations of the hon. Members who have supported the Amendment. The question involved by the Bill is not an academic one as to whether the hours of adult male labour should be interfered with, but a practical one as to who is to regulate the system under which coal mines are to be carried on. With regard to the objection to interfering with the hours of adult male labour, how can any individual collier settle the hours when he will work? They must be settled either by the employer, a trade union, or the law. We used to quarrel about the facts, but happily they are now admitted. We accept the figures given by the hon. Baronet, and by the Goal Trade Association, that hewers in Durham work 5½ hours below, while the boys are ten hours below, and for every hewer who has attained these extraordinarily short hours there are two other people who are either underground ten hours or who work ten hours at the pit's mouth. It has been alleged, and the allegation has been supported by the opinion of Dr. Arlidge, that the work of colliers is not injurious to health. But, as regards the boys, undoubtedly I am prepared to allege interference with health. The facts themselves prove that in the case of boys and young people there is injury to health. We are told the work of the young people in mines is light work. On the 25th May, 1897, a question was asked in this House about a lad of seventeen on whom then; had been an inquest.* The facts were admitted. That young person had worked in a coal pit from seven in the morning until nine o'clock at night on the day on which he died of overwork, and his last meal had been at noon. He had been working these hours day by flay. The Home Secretary admitted that these facts had been ascertained to be entirely true, and he added these pregnant words—
The manager on a previous occasion, when a lad was killed after working more than fifteen hours, had promised not, to allow young persons to work so long in future.And he pointed out to the House that there was—no power under the existing Acts to limit the hours of labour of young persons above the age of sixteen.*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xlix., p. 125,1.1326 I allege, Sir, that this case, and other cases of the kind which have been cited, prove that in the case of young persons even, apart from boys, there is this injury to health which has been alleged by us. I am prepared also to make this assertion, that that injury, or chance of injury, is increasing day by day. In becoming deeper the coal pits are becoming hotter. To quote the argument of one whose repute on this question will be admitted, Dr. Foster Brown, in his admirable paper on the "Mechanical and Economical Problems of the Coal Question," distinctly states that not only is the depth of the mines increasing, but heat is increasing and there is consequently exhaustion of the employed. Both my hon. friends have alleged that wages would decrease either generally or in certain cases on the passing of this Bill, and I understood the hon. Member for Mid Durham to say that in South Wales the men were, not entirely in favour of this Bill. As regards the principle of this Bill the men in South Wales are agreed, and the overwhelming majority of them are agreed as regards its details. The' hon. Member for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham distinctly made the statement, and it is repeated in the employers' circular, that the passing of the Bill would mean a decrease of one-fifth in the average earnings of all who worked ten hours and a proportionate decrease for others. The same prophecies were made when the Compensation Act was under discussion, and they did not come true. I do not believe they would come true on this occasion. A matter which is more capable of investigation is the allegation both ray hon. friends have made that the passing of the Bill would cause an increase of danger.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYI never stated that. I stated facts from a Return moved for by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, which showed that the majority of accidents in mines took place during the first four hours of a shift.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEI understood that to be used as an argument to show that there would be an increase of danger from the passing of this Bill. It is so used in this circular. With regard to what the hon. Member characterised as the hurry and haste of working, I have to make this observation, that it is inconceivable that under this Bill in any part of the country coal would be worked 1327 more hurriedly and hastily, in the best sense, than it is in Durham at the present time. The work in Durham, where the men work five and a half hours, is on a scientific system at railroad speed. There is none of that slackness or delay which some of us think exists in Lancashire. I have seen them work on the occasions my hon. friend describes. I did not go down with the employers, or with anybody in particular, or under my own name, because I wished to see for myself. But, certainly, anything more rapid than the railroad speed of work in Durham, I cannot conceive. As compared with the pits I have seen in other parts of the country, the difference is as between Chicago and sleepy-hollow. When the right hon. Baronet alleged that there are fewer accidents in Durham than elsewhere, I congratulate him on the fact. I think it is due to the scientific method of working they have adopted there, and I agree that a similar sharpening up of the work in other parts of the country would be beneficial. The real objection to this Bill is the difficulty of altering the Northumberland and Durham system—it is, in fact, the question of the boys. The words in which that difficulty is placed before the House in the circular of the North of England Coal Trade Association are these—
The Bill would revolutionise the present system of working necessary for the two counties; it would put an end to the elaborate arrangements between employers and men, and the working hours of the different classes of labour (advantageous to the workmen) would be upset.They say there are about 50,000 hewers who work seven hours underground; 90,000 other men and boys who work ten hours underground; and the remainder of the persons employed work ten hours on the surface.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)Many of them only work eight hours.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEIt is difficult to be certain on that point. I was obliged to take the figures from the Coal Trade Association of the North of England, which I think may be taken as accurately representing the facts.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYThere are more than half working eight hours.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEThey would not be affected by this Bill. The same 1328 circular states the period of work in these collieries for hewers is as low as five and a half, and that the average hours of hewers in the week is 26⅔ hours. And it goes on to say—"Such hours of labour are probably unknown in any other employment throughout the world." Under the head of "Boys" they say—"Those under sixteen are limited by Act of Parliament to fifty-four hours per week."
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYwas understood to say that the 26⅔ hours referred to the time the hewers worked underground.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEI can state that the shifts of boys in the one week are the whole ten hours underground. In the debate that took place on the 22nd June, 1887, upon the clause and the proposed Amendment to the clause which constituted the law which now regulates the number of hours boys can be employed below ground,* the hon. Members for Morpeth and Wansbeck supported still stronger proposals. The hon. Member for Morpeth said—"I would gladly vote for a limitation, even" to eight hours a day." I want to know if my hon. friends have changed their minds. Do they still adhere to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Morpeth by speech and by both of them by vote, or have they come round to the views of those who voted in the opposite lobby? I want to know, because if the hours of the boys are limited by law, we all admit they are too long. My hon. friends were not satisfied with the position of the boys in 1887; they voted against even the present law. Are they prepared now to support a more extreme law? They want it altered; they have been unable to alter it by trade unionism; are they prepared to alter it by law? We who support this Bill may improve our position to-day, but we shall be beaten in the division. But if we are beaten, will you legislate in regard to the boys? Will you do what you were willing to do in 1887? This question of the boys, not only in Northumberland and Durham, but elsewhere, is in some respects disgraceful to this country. In point of restrictions in boy labour underground we are now behind other countries. At one time we were before the other
*Debate in Committee on the Coal Mines, &c, Regulation Bill. See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxvi., p. 706.1329 countries in the matter of employment underground. When Lord Salisbury telegraphed his acceptance to the Berlin Labour Conference, there were two proposals which had been agreed to by Europe. One was that which we dealt with last year in the Factory Act with regard to raising the age of children employed in factories to twelve, and the other was raising the child age for total inability to be employed underground to fourteen. How many boys now employed underground for ten hours a day are only twelve?
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)They are very few.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEWill you give us those few, and put an end to their employment? Even that will be something of a gain. We have kept one of those two pledges at the Berlin Congress; we have not kept the other; and at this moment we are in the absurd and extraordinary position that there are more restrictions on the employment of a child at the pit's mouth than there are under the earth. A boy employed at the pit's mouth cannot be employed more than six hours a day, and yet a boy below ground can be employed ten hours a day, or fifty-four hours in the week. In France, and I believe in other great mining countries, children under thirteen years of age cannot be employed underground, and I say it is disgraceful that we should be behind all other countries in the matter of boy employment. The demand for this Bill is the demand of Labour, and the one upon which Labour is most widely agreed. Of all the suggested proposals put before Parliament by the trades unions for the last ten years this is the one which has received from Labour the largest measure of support; and unless our friends from Durham and Northumberland are able to meet us with a change of their system, year after year there will be a stronger feeling in this House in favour of the passing of this Bill.
§ *SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)I am surprised the promoters of the Bill have brought it forward this session under the present circumstances. It seems to me singularly inopportune when we are suffering from a scarcity of coal amounting almost to a famine. Yesterday we were discussing how the Navy could be supplied with 1330 coal, and at the present moment the works in my district are suspended because they cannot get coal at a price which would enable them commercially to carry on their work. That is the case not only in Staffordshire, but in North Wales. Trade is being largely hampered and interfered with. Working men and colliers are interested in this question. In Wolverhampton—which is the centre of the coal district—men are paying 1s. 6d. per cwt. for coal for their own consumption. That is three times the average price, and the excess would amount to something like 3s. a week out of the working man's wages. The reduction of output which would take place if this proposal were carried has been variously estimated at from 10 to 20 per cent.—that is to say, from 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 of toils of coal per year loss would be produced in this country than is now being produced. I would ask hon. Members who support this proposal how that 20 or 40 million tons of coal is going to be supplied? Are people who burn it in their houses to do without it? Are the works which would use it to be brought to a complete standstill? The effect of the proposal would be in the first place, no doubt, to very largely increase the profits of coal-masters, but that would be short-lived. By raising the price of coal to an inordinate extent the manufacturing supremacy of the country would be destroyed, the coal-masters would suffer, the working man would suffer, and it would be disastrous all round. The cause of the present scarcity of coal is to some extent that the trade of the country being in a very flourishing state there is more demand for coal. But the chief reason is that miners' wages are very high, and as they become higher the miner does less work. I have had a very careful account taken of the miners' earnings in my collieries, and I find that an addition of 40 per cent. to the wages only adds 6 per cent. to their average earnings. For the higher wages the man does less work, and that is the main cause of the scarcity of coal now existing. Some of the men are industrious and work full time. Are these men, who are anxious to better themselves and to improve their position so that after a time they may be able to take a little pit of their own, to be prevented by law? Are we to step in and say, "No, you shall not work more 1331 than five or six hours a day, even though you wish to"? That would be a most monstrous proposal. The proposal put forward to-day is claimed to be an unanimous proposal. It is not really so unanimous as its supporters believe. I know there was a meeting specially called in my own neighbourhood to consider this question. In that little, village there were 800 miners, but only fifty attended this meeting. Those fifty voted unanimously for the eight hours. But what about the 750 who were absent? It is argued on the other side, that because the fifty voted for the proposal, the remainder also were in favour of it. The fact is that those who were in favour of the eight hours attended the meeting, while those who were either indifferent or opposed to it stopped away. It is a very important fact that the coal produced in this country per miner is a decreasing quantity, while in the countries of our competitors it is an increasing quantity. In the year 1883 every miner in Great Britain produced on the average 347 tons of coal; in 1890 the quantity had decreased to 308 tons; and in 1897, our last Return, it had still further decreased ft) 297 tons. That is to say, a decrease of something like 16 per cent. has taken place. On the other hand, in the United States, in 1890 the quantity per miner was 443 tons, and in 1897 it had increased to 450 tons. Therefore, the miner in the United States produces 50 per cent. more coal than the miner in this country. It is not that the miners in the United States are more skilful or more hard-working than the miners in this country, or that the seams of coal are easier to work, but simply that they work more hours per day and per week. In my district the coal hewer works 6½ hours and earns from 5s. 2d. to 10s. per day; the coal loader, an entirely unskilled workman, works 7½ hours and earns 4s. 10d.; and in both cases there is an allowance of half a ton of coal ever twenty-four days. I do not begrudge these high wages. Everybody who knows the work must sympathise with the men in the arduous character of their labour, and as long as the trade of the country will stand it I think they fairly earn the wages they are getting. But it must not be forgotten that at present the miner gets more money for less hours than the workmen in any other employment in the 1332 country. There is a great deal said about the workmen working in the bowels of the earth, but I must say the coal pit is a great deal better in that respect than the division lobby of the House of Commons. In the pits there are engines of 100 h.-p. driving air through the shafts, and I only wish we had some of those fans here during the stifling hot days of summer. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said, amongst other things, that the majority in favour of this Bill were agreed as to the details. I should like to remind him that when this Bill passed the Second Reading on a former occasion and went into Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife introduced a provision that it should apply both to workmen and to employers, that is to say, that if an employer was fined for allowing his men to work longer than a certain time, the workmen also should be fined for remaining in the pit if they had a chance of getting out. The peculiar point is that although the promoters of that Bill accepted that proposal, they have never introduced it in any of the Bills brought forward since.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEPerhaps I can explain that. The promoters were advised by their legal authorities that it was contrary to the form of the other Coal Acts. As they accepted it before, they would be willing to accept it again if the House put it in.
§ *SIR ALFRED HICKMANI am extremely glad to receive that explanation, and to find that they are willing to put it in. The right hon. Baronet asks how can a man settle the hours he should work, seeing he is one of a great gang, a member of a pit, and that they all work the same number of hours. If the right hon. Gentleman had had the same acquaintance with mining as some of us have had he Mould have known it was a very common thing for a miner to work overtime. For instance, the stall-man works half an hour longer to place his timber ready to begin work next morning, but this Bill would prevent all that. This would all have to come into his five and a half hours; he would have no time to make preparations for his own safety. I honestly believe that the result of the Bill would be very largely to increase accidents. The right hon. Baronet also said that the conditions in various 1333 mines varied very much, but yet they had managed to arrange uniform hours. That is an entire mistake. There is no uniformity of hours. Every pit has different hours, and even men working in the same pit necessarily have different hours. We must all sympathise very much with the work of men in the collieries, but I submit that a very strong case indeed would be required before this House could prohibit a, man of full age working within reason and so as not to injure his health whatever time he desires. I contend that no such case has been presented. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject this Bill by such a majority as will discourage even my hon. friends opposite from introducing it again. I honestly believe that if it should be carried it would be most mischievous to the men, to the employers, and to the country at large.
§ *MR. BURT (Morpeth)I am not quite sure that my hon. friend, in moving the Second Heading—and he himself did not seem to be quite sure on the point—was not claiming a greater unanimity of opinion in favour of this Bill than really exists. He mentioned, with some sort of doubt, the statement that only one-sixth of the mining population of the country are apposed to the Bill. We all know how easy it is to play pranks with statistics, and suppose that that statement is based on the assumption that all the mining districts of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Durham and Northumberland, are unanimously in favour of the proposal, and that the miners of Durham and Northumberland are unanimously against it. Neither the one assumption nor the other is correct. A difference of opinion exists to some extent in Durham and Northumberland, and it is quite plain from the evidence given before the Labour Commission that differences of opinion exist in what are called the Federation districts. This Bill has the great merit of being very simple, very clear, and definite. It would limit the hours of all persons employed underground to eight per day from bank to bank. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean said very truly that I did not oppose this Bill on the principle of objecting to Parliamentary interference with adult labour. I never have opposed it on that ground, and I have never asserted the principle that there may not be just and proper reasons 1334 for limiting the hours of adult labour. I think it is very inadvisable for a politician or a Member of Parliament, especially for one who may be a candidate again, to needlessly multiply his general principles. It is difficult enough to adhere to those to which one is already pledged. I think, too, it is inadvisable to say "never"if "not now" will suffice. What I have to say with regard to adult labour is that a strong and overwhelming case should be made out before Parliament interferes, and that that case has not been made out in regard to this Bill. That is quite enough to be going on with. It must not be assumed, and I do not think it has been assumed, that those of us who oppose this Bill are in favour of long hours of labour for either men or boys. I am a great believer myself in the shortest practicable hours, and I hold that belief quite irrespective of questions of danger or of health. I think a, human being is entitled, as a rational creature, to have a certain amount of leisure for recreation and mental improvement, and I would place next to wages and safety, the question of the limitation of hours to the lowest practicable level. The right hon. Gentleman said that my conscience had been very uneasy with regard to this question of the hours of the boys. I am very glad that after spending more than twenty-five years as a Member of this House my right hon. friend admits I still have a conscience. I can assure him that with regard to the limitation of hours generally, there is no question in which, whether as a workman or as secretary of a large trade union, I have taken a deeper interest. I have had the opportunity of seeing great reforms introduced, and I hope I may claim to have taken some part in carrying out those reforms. If I may without any violation of good taste refer to my own experience, I may say that as a boy I worked regularly thirteen hours per day from bank to bank, and at that time, in the earlier part of my life, the men were employed ten, eleven or twelve hours per day. In those days everyone was left to himself—a principle which seems to be advocated by some of the opponents of the present Bill. I have had the opportunity of witnessing considerable reduction in the number of hours of labour of all classes employed in the mines. In Northumberland, I may say, even before the Act of 1872 was 1335 passed, we reduced the hours of boys from twelve to eleven, and by negotiation we have more recently arranged that the hours of all boys (with the exception of a very few) of whatever age should not exceed ten from bank to bank. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean quoted some figures with regard to the hours of the men—
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEI quoted those figures from the circular of the Northern Coal Owners' Association. I was corrected with regard to a portion of those figures, and, of course. I accepted the corrections.
§ *MR. BURTI. should say there were comparatively few of the men who work more than eight hours per day. Some of the boys work but eight hours. The great majority of them, however, and some few of the men engaged in the transit of the coal, work ten hours. The hewers all work less than eight hours. Other classes of adult workers are employed eight hours from bank to bank. The great majority of the underground employees, therefore, work not more than eight hours. In the north of England all these reductions of hours have been obtained by negotiation. It is quite true we joined in the agitation for shortening the hours of the boys, and have had the assistance of legislation to some extent. My right hon. friend asks if I adhere to the statement I made in 1887. I remember I made some very qualified statements at that time with regard to the enormous difficulties we would have in the north of England.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEYou supported the Amendment.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEThe ten hours was the Government proposal. You voted for forty-eight hours a week.
§ *MR. BURTMy right hon. friend wants me to go still further, and to promise to put my name on the back of some Bill which he intends to introduce. I would rather see his Bill first. I would like to consider the words in their bearing, not only upon the methods, but upon what is practicable. In the north of England we have made great efforts to reduce the hours, and in my opinion they are already reduced to the lowest possible limit consistent with the 1336 existing double-shift system. To make any further reduction in the hours of the boys we should have completely to revolutionise our system, which now works admirably with regard to the masses of the workmen throughout Durham and Northuumberland. It is satisfactory both to employers and to workmen. I quite admit that it is not ideal, and I should very much like to see the hours of the boys further reduced. But I do not believe this Bill is the method by which that reduction can be accomplished. I do not think this Bill would help us in the slightest degree. It is advisable even in legislation to have a plain and practical object at which to aim. I sympathise to a large extent with the humanitarian feeling which is growing throughout the country and pressing for shorter hours of labour, not only in the coal trade but in every trade, especially so far as juvenile labour is concerned. I do not believe we can accept the present system as either ideal or permanent; but I think, too, that we ought at any rate to be satisfied that in removing one evil we are not introducing evils of greater magnitude. That, after all, is the great difficulty with regard to the miners in the north of England. They would gladly have the hours of the boys reduced, but they cannot further reduce those hours without introducing much greater evils than they would remove.
§ MR. WOODS (Essex, Walthamstow)I think the promoters of this Bill have everything to be satisfied with to-day. For the first time, I think, the opponents of the Bill have had to get another hon. Member to move its rejection. If the Bill does not become law for a few more sessions, I expect we shall have made converts of nearly all its present opponents. I am afraid my hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham unintentionally rather misled the House in regard to certain points in reference to the action of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain in connection with this Bill. The first point was with regard to the method of obtaining the ballot vote of the members of the Federation. He rather conveyed the idea that the vote had been obtained in a very haphazard manner. A ballot was taken at every pit in the Federation area in the Midland counties of England, with the result that 98 per cent. of the men who voted gave their adhesion to this Bill. In the next place, he spoke about eight hours continuous work- that the Bill did not suggest eight 1337 hours continuous work. Of course, we all know that. There must be time travelling to and fro, but the time necessary for that purpose has been very much exaggerated. I should think that on the average it would not take more than a quarter of an hour to travel from the coal face to the pit bank.
§ SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)No, no.
§ MR. WOODSThe hon. member disputes my statement, but I speak with personal knowledge. Reference has also been made to the question of the equality of position of colliery owners, and it has been said that the object of this Bill is to put all coal districts on the same footing. Certainly. We want to show no favour and to give no advantage to anyone in the markets of the country, and I venture to say that the equality of position suggested by the attitude of our friends from the north of England comes to this; they want some colliery owners to work their men ten hours and others eight hours. We want all colliery owners to be on the same footing. We do not want to injure the prospects of anyone, but we desire to do justice and to give fair play to all in the trade. My. hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham spoke as if those whom he represented alone had taken an active part in abolishing female labour at the pit brows. Unfortunately, I come from a part of the country where there are still over 4,000 females working on the pit banks—I refer to Lancashire. I have always taken the view that the pit brow is not a suitable place for female labour, and I may say in reply to the hon. Member that when we were discussing the Mines Regulations Bills of 1872 and 1887 we made every effort we could to abolish the employment of females upon our pit banks. The leaders of our Federation are just as eager to support the abolition of female labour as the hon. Member himself. He has rather led the House to imagine that our organisation has during the last ten years been going down in membership, and that the Federation will, in fact, soon be wiped out altogether. Now that is not the case, because within the last twelve months the membership of the Miners' Federation has leaped up from 154,000 to 220,000.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)Is not that increase due to the accession of the South Wales miners?
§ MR. WOODSNot altogether. The card of Trade figures in regard to these 1338 matters are sometimes misleading, because they are not complete, While I admit that this accession of the South Wales Miners to the ranks of our Federation accounts for a certain increase in our membership, I do say that in the Midland counties of England we have for years past maintained our membership. Now I want to deal with another phase of this question. I was quite pleased to hear the hon. Member for Morpeth, who is a very fair minded man, point out that this eight hours question is not really understood. I agree with him that eight hours is quite long enough for any man to work underground at a. time. But what I would like to put to the House is this, that if eight hours is long enough, so long as it is a matter of arrangement, why should it be wrong to fix it by legislation? On many occasions, in this House, it has been deemed right to interfere with adult labour. It has been done in connection with the Factory Acts and with legislation affecting railway servants. Is it not a fact that on this very day there is a special notice hung up at every pit head warning miners that they cannot be allowed to come out of the mines before a certain hour, and that if they do so they render themselves liable to a penalty?
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford)That is done to obviate danger to men engaged in the winding.
§ MR. WOODSCertainly. But that does not alter the fact. We know it is a judicious arrangement, but we say that if the House can interfere with adult labour in one respect it may also do so in other respects. It seems to have been assumed, in the course of this debate, that our friends in the North of England are unanimous in their opposition to this Bill. But what do we find? On the last occasion on which a ballot was taken—and these figures were quoted by a deputation which waited upon Mr. Gladstone in 1893—it was found that of the Durham miners 28,000 voted against legislation and 12,000 in favour of it: 20,000 did not vote at all. The question naturally arises, why did they not vote? The answer is very simple. There is a rule in force in Durham and Northumberland that no boy or man under twenty years of ago shall be allowed to register a vote.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)That is not correct.
§ MR. WOODSI accept the hon. Member's correction, of course, but I may explain that I gathered the fact from a document which can be seen in the Library of the House. Now my hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham seems to assume that the 20,000 who did not vote were opposed to the Bill. I venture to say that he is wrong in that assumption, and I hold that, on the contrary, a very large proportion of them are in favour of the Bill now under the consideration of the House. I believe the same may be said of the miners of Northumberland. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chester-le-Street has again put forward the old argument that if this Bill passes it will tend to make the working of the mines more instead of less dangerous. I remember that in 1897 the hon. Member challenged anyone to show how the Bill would make the occupation of a miner more safe, and he said it had been proved that by far the greatest number of accidents occur in the first four hours after the men go down into the pit. But I may quote my hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham, who answered a similar statement by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, by asserting that his experience in the county of Durham was that accidents generally happened in the nighttime and when the men were nearly tired out. The argument of the promoters of the Bill is, in fact, that when the men get tired they become less careful and are less capable of taking proper precautions against danger than they are in the early hours of their shift. In the course of the debate which took place in this House on the 23rd March, 1892, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham put the case in a nutshell. He said he believed everyone would admit that eight hours continuous honest work at this occupation was a fair day's work for any man. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton seems to doubt that.
§ *SIR ALFRED HICKMANNot so. I think that eight hours is more than sufficient; but I say that they do not actually work more than five and a half or six hours.
§ MR. WOODSWell, it being generally admitted, then, that eight hours is quite sufficient, what objection can there be to that limit being fixed by legislation? Is it not the easiest as well as the least irri- 1340 tating way of settling the question? Is it not better than having resort to strikes? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that it is neither patriotic, prudent, nonpolitic to adopt a course calculated to lead to strikes, and I therefore hope that the House, remembering the enormous danger of the miner's occupation, will pass this Bill and thus give the miner more protection, while doing that justice to the mining community which it has a right to expect at our hands.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)The hon. Member who last spoke has referred in regretful tones to the fact that 4,000 women are still labouring at the Lancashire pit brows. I do not think he need be very downhearted about it, for when it was proposed to put a stop to this female labour the Lancashire women proved too strong; they came to London and they successfully fought their own battle. The debate has shown that this is a very complex question. I do not, however, think- that a very strong case has been made out for this Bill, which affects so many different interests. It surely is not too hard a thing to say that the measure is most impracticable in every way. We are now suffering from a coal famine, and statistics show that the annual output of coal per man per year is decreasing. In 1853 it was 347 tons; in 1890 it was 308, and in 1897 it was 297, and if this Bill were passed it would still further diminish the production. It is clear that if the day's work is to be limited to eight hours counted from the pit mouth, the actual hours of labour will be only six and a quarter hours, for it frequently takes half an hour to travel between the pit brow and the face of the coal seam, and in addition there is usually an interval of three quarters of an hour for meals. This would reduce the production at least twenty-five per cent., and this is clearly proved by the experience of the short working hours on Saturdays, when from twenty-five to thirty per cent. less is got out than on other days. If such a falling off in production takes place, what will be the effect on our great manufacturing industries? Even at the present time there are works which, since the beginning of January, have, in consequence of the dearth of coal, been stopped something like two days a week, and this has occurred in many parts of the country. Yet we are now asked to pass a Bill 1341 which will still further lessen the output of coal! One other objection I have to the measure is that it penalises only the colliery owners and not the workmen. Do my hon. friends think the employers will always be able to yet the men out of the pit within the eight hours?
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISI beg to move that the Question be now put.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. Gentleman was concluding.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTONNo, Sir; I was about to say—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe question is, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 257: Noes, 118. (Division List No. 45.)
1343| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Doogan, P. C. | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dorington, Sir John E. | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a |
| Aird, John | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Duckworth, James | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U. |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Dunn, Sir William | Kenyon, James |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas | Keswick, William |
| Arrol, Sir William | Ellis, John Edward | Kimber, Henry |
| Ashton, Thomas Clair | Emmott, Alfred | Labouchere, Henry |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Langley, Batty |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.) |
| Baker, Sir John | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H. |
| Banbury, Fredk. George | Finch, George H. | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Fison, Frederick William | Leng, Sir John |
| Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bill, Charles | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Lough, Thomas |
| Billson, Alfred | Flower, Ernest | Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'l'nd |
| Birrell, Augustine | Forster, Henry William | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Blake, Edward | Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | MacDonnell, Dr M A (Qn's Co.) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Maclean, James Mackenzie |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fry, Lewis | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) |
| Bryce, lit. Hn. James | Galloway, William Johnson | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon. | M'Killop, James |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin |
| Burns, John | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Maddison, Fred |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Malcolm, Ian |
| Caldwell, James | Gold, Charles | Marks, Henry Hananel |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Graham, Henry Robert | Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.) |
| Carvill, P. George Hamilton | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) | Molloy, Bernard Charles |
| Cawley, Frederick | Gretton, John | Monk, Charles James |
| Charming, Francis Allston | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Gull, Sir Cameron | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Mount, William George, |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Harwood, George | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Colville, John | Hazell, Walter | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. | Helder, Augustus | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) |
| Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crilly, Daniel | Henderson, Alexander | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W). |
| Crombie, John William | Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hobhouse, Henry | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Holland, William Henry | O'Malley, William |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Howell, William Tudor | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil | Perks, Robert William |
| Denny, Colonel | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Dillon, John | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs, S W |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Price, Robert John | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Purvis, Robert | Souttar, Robinson | Warner, ThomasCourtenay T. |
| Randell, David | Spencer, Ernest | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Rankin, Sir James | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wason, Eugene |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Steadman, William Charles | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Reid, Sir Robert Threshie | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew W. | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson | Strachey, Edward | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L. |
| Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Robinson, Brooke | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Williams, John Carvell (Notts. |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Runciman, Walter | Sutherland, Sir Thomas | Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk) |
| Rutherford, John | Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxford Uni. | Wilson, Jos. H (Middlesbrough |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees | Tanner, Charles Kearns | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York's. |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles | Tennant, Harold John | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Schwann, Charles E. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Woods, Samuel |
| Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Seely, Charles Hilton | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Seton-Karr, Henry | Thornton, Percy M. | |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Tollemache, Henry James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Jacoby. |
| Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Wallace, Robert | |
| Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.) | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans | Moore. William (Antrim. N.) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Goldsworthy, Major-General | More, Bobt. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) | Gordon, Hon John Edward | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Morrison, Walter |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Murray, Rt. Hon A. G. (Bute) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Hanson. Sir Reginald | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'gton) |
| Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts | Hardy, Laurence | Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Penn, John |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. W W B. (Hants.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Heath, James | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe | Heaton, John Henniker | Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton) |
| Bethell, Commander | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Pym, C. Guy |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Bond, Edward | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Bowles, Capt. H. P. (Middlesex) | Jeffreys. Arthur Frederick | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool) |
| Brassey, Albert | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm. | Round, James |
| Burt, Thomas | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm) |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Kitson, Sir James | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Cavendish, R. P. (N. Lanes.) | Knowles, Lees | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Coddington, Sir William | Leighton, Stanley | Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth) |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans. | Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart |
| Colston, C. Edw. H. Athole | Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham | Strauss, Arthur |
| Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Macdona, John Cumming | Usborne, Thomas |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Maclver, David (Liverpool) | Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Ewan, William | Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Fergnsson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F | |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir James Joicey and Mr. John Wilson (Durham). |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. | |
| Garfit, William | Milner, Sir Frederick George | |
| Gedge, Sydney | Moon, Edward Bobert Pacy |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
1344§ The House divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes 199. (Division List No. 46.)
1347| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Ambrose, Robert | Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Arrol, Sir William | Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Ashton, Thoinas Gair | Baker, Sir John |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Barlow, John Emmott |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Billson, Alfred | Harwood, George | Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S W |
| Birrell, Augustine | Hazell, Walter | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Blake, Edward | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Price, Robert John |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Helder, Augustus | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. | Randell, David |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Henderson, Alexander | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs | Reid, Sir Robert Threshie |
| Burns, John | Holland, William Henry | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Howell, William Tudor | Robinson, Brooke |
| Caldwell, James | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Runciman, Walter |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Rutherford, John |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. H. | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Samuel. J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Jones, David B. (Swansea) | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Clark, Dr. G B. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Kenyon, James | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) |
| Colville, John | Labouchere, Henry | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Crilly, Daniel | Langley, Batty | Souttar, Robinson |
| Crombie, John William | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land) | Spencer, Ernest |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Leng, Sir John | Steadman, William Charles |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lloyd-George, David | Strachey, Edward |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n) | Lough, Thomas | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Denny, Colonel | Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land | Tanner, Charles Kearns |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lucas-Shad well, William | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dillon, John | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, A bel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duckworth, Hon. Hubert V. | M'Killop, James | Wallace. Robert |
| Dunn, Sir William | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Ellis, John Edward | Maddison, Fred. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Warner, Thos. Courtenay T. |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks. | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton) | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Wason, Eugene |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Fison, Frederick William | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Moulton, John Fletcher | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L. |
| Flower, Ernest | Newdigate, Francis Alex. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Williams, John Carvell (Notts.) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudder'd) |
| Gold, Charles | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Woods, Samuel |
| Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | O'Malley, William | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Gretton, John | Pease, A. E. (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Jacoby. |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Perks, Robert William | |
| Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton | Philipps, John Wynford | |
| NOES. | ||
| Aird, John | ||
| Anstruther, H. T. | Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Boulnois, Edmund | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex | Cripps, Charles Alfred |
| Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) | Brassey, Albert | Cubitt, Hon. Henry |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Brown, Alexander H. | Dickinson, Robert Edmond |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bullard, Sir Harry | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Burt, Thomas | Donkin, Richard Sim |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S.- (Hunts) | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H. |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Charrington, Spencer | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants | Clough, Walter Owen | Fenwick, Charles |
| Peckett, Ernest William | Coddington, Sir William | Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfall | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) |
| Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Finch, George H. |
| Bethell, Commander | Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bill, Charles | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Fletcher, Sir Henry |
| Bond, Edward | Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Forster, Henry William |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Leighton, Stanley | Pym, C. Guy |
| Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Fry, Lewis | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Garfitfit, William | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Gedge, Sydney | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hart'pl) |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) | Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W. |
| Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Macdona, John Cumming | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Round, James |
| Gosehen, George J. (Sussex) | Macleam, James Mackenzie | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Maclure, Sir John William | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Graham, Henry Robert | M'Ewan, William | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) | Malcolm, Ian | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Gull, Sir Cameron | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire |
| Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Marks, Henry Hananel | Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Hanson, Sir Reginald | Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Hardy, Laurence | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. | Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth) |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Milner, Sir Fred. George | Stewart. Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Heath, James | Monk, Charles James | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Strauss, Arthur |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Hoare, F. Brodie (Hampste'd) | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh. | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Morrell, George Herbert | Sutherland, Sir Thomas |
| Hobhouse, Henry | Morrison, Walter | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Mount, William George | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Hubbbard, Hon. Evelyn | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M. |
| Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Murray, Gol. Wyndham (Bath) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Usborne, Thomas |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Oldroyd, Mark | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) | Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Grewe) |
| Keswick, William | Pease, Sir. Joseph W. (Durham) | Webster, Sir Richard E. |
| Kimber, Henry | Penn, John | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Kitson, Sir James | Pierpoint, Robert | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Lrwrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn. | Pollock, Harry Frederick | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H. | Pretyman, Ernest George | Sir James Joicey and Mr. John Wilson (Durham). |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Purvis, Robert |
Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Second Reading put off for six months.