SECOND READING.

HC Deb 31 March 1905 vol 144 cc22-45

Order for Second Reading read.

*MR. COMPTON RIGKETT (Scarborough)

said that this was a short Bill of which he had the honour to move the Second Reading to-day. It really standardised and provided for certain practices largely adopted by masters and men throughout England; but not adopted in Scotland by any means universally. These provisions were really Amendments to the Act of 1887, and provided for the appointment of a deputy check-weigher, for certain machinery regarding his appointment and removal; to provide shelter from the weather for the check-weigher and his deputy, to extend the system of check-weighing to men who worked under contract where there was a contractor standing between the employer and the men; and in some other small details to amend the Act of 1887. The position of check-weigher appears in the fear 1860, when there was a Regulation of Coal Mines Act passed by the then Home Secretary, Sir George Lewis, under the Government of Mr. Palmerston, of which Mr. Gladstone was a member. This Act recognised the duty of the check-weigher, but it did not define whether coal should always be taken by measure, by gauge, or by weight, and it permitted it to be treated either by weight, by measure, or by gauge. This caused a great deal of complaint, and in 1866–67 the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to consider the grievances of the men. The men complained that in the greater part of England there was a rough-and-ready method of judging by tub, and payment by the tub was prevalent. Those tubs varied in size, and with the development of machinery, the deepening of shafts, the enlarging of premises and tram lines, the tubs tended to increase in size, and were not the same size in one colliery as in another. Although he did not suggest that this was intentionally fraudulent, yet it had the effect of depriving the men of their due; and they had good ground for complaint. The owners at that time objected to the weighing system, preferring the measure system, because they said that the small coal brought up filled the interstices of the tub, and the measure really gave the net result of the large coal of the tub, whereas by the weighing system they would have to take the small as well as the large coal. The Committee at that time declined to recommend payment by weight. The matter drifted on until 1872, when the Coal Mines Act was passed, and at that date they finally abandoned the use of the measure and provided that it should be taken by weight only, allowing, of course, the right to the men to check the weight, so that the masters paid them. Earl Morley, speaking in the House of Lords, defended the claim of making the weight the standard on the ground that coal is sold by weight and not by measure, and that the men were entitled to be paid by weight inasmuch as it was the same principle on which the masters received payment on the article itself.

Now it was quite evident that it was impossible to pay for the coal actually drawn unless they provided some sort of method for determining the weight of foreign substances brought up accidentally or through carelessness with the coal which could not, and ought not, to be treated as net coal on which payment should be made to the men for getting it. Therefore the Act of 1877 provided that deductions should be made from coal for dross and foreign substances brought up with the coal. This very much increased the duties of those who were appointed to check-weigh, for it introduced a new element into it, at all events a very important one. He had not only to protect the interests of the men in the matter of weight, but also to protect them against the employer, or representative of the employer; to see that the proper amount was deducted for the rubbish sent up with the coal, partly through accident—that was recognized—but more or less from inattention on the part of some of the men to their duties. On the other hand, such a practice was liable to abuse, and practically the check-weigher became for the time being the representative of the men in all matters of dispute, and these disputes extended beyond the mere question of weight or deduction. Practically the importance of the check-weigher was due to the fact that the check-weigher settled with the representatives of the collieries innumerable complaints, adjusted matters on the spot, and prevented them being referred to the representatives at large, either to the Federation of Mineowners or to the Federation of Miners. They did at first hand some of the work of the union in a commonsense and rule-of-thumb way. Therefore he would ask the House to attribute to the check-weigher more importance than that of a mere man who was placed at the pit head to see that the proper amount of coal was weighed, and that the men were paid on the amount brought to the pit bank.

Other complaints had been made that there was a difficulty under the Act of 1887 in determining the amount of small coal, although that difficulty was largely got over through an instruction being given by the employer and the men not to send the small to bank; and a large amount of small coal that came out of the pit was treated not under the head of "small," but treated as a case of improperly filling the tubs or trams. Now for a long time past there had been no difficulty in adjusting these delicate matters between the employers and men, and in a large number of collieries throughout the length and breadth of these islands matters went on from year's end to year's end unchallenged. In some cases there were arrangements made for taking an average. This agreement system had been growing and was generally satisfactory. If any further changes were desired from the Act of 1887 they had better be settled by masters and men out of the House. To introduce them into this Act would be to bring in matters highly controversial. Those who promoted this Bill had adopted advice from himself and others, unloading the Bill of anything which could be called controversial, and rendering the Bill so simple as almost to excite a smile amongst Members of this House. He trusted it would be recognised upon the other side that moderation and consideration had been shown, and that the Bill would not be endangered in its passage through Committee by attempting to put into it something which might bear a relationship to it, but which could not be settled by common consent, as the clauses in this Bill certainly could. There were comments made by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife in 1896, in regard to a different Bill then before the House. But in 1896 the question of deduction was in a state of chaos, and he was at liberty to say that the late Home Secretary would not have made the same comment to-day as he made then. He would have been there, if he had not had an engagement out of town, to support this Bill, and he hoped that it would pass disembarrassed of other amendments.

Now, there were nearly 3,000 check-weighers employed in different parts of England and Scotland. These men were representing hundreds of thousands of others at work. They were picked men who had to represent their fellows, whom they had to trust in matters of weight and deduction; they were men who had secured by their conduct and character the confidence of their fellows; and therefore, in asking for some consideration in the matter of a deputy, in the matter of shelter, the details of their appointment, the standardising of the position both of the weigher himself and of his deputy, they were asking consideration for a class of men who were the representatives of the body of the miners of the United Kingdom. Of course they might find here and there cases in which weighers had been unreasonable or had interfered, or gone beyond their duties, but the law protected the employer, and provided, in the case of interference of the men beyond the duties of weighing, that there should be an opportunity of going before a summary Court of Jurisdiction, and obtaining the removal of the weigher. But the weigher was not a man who was simply selected by agreement or contract; he formed part of the law of the land in relation to coal mines, and therefore his rights should be guarded by this House quite as carefully as should be the rights of property. He formed part of the Acts of Parliament relating to coalmining. If there were cases in which complaint had been made of the supervision of the weigher being too minute, there were also cases on the other side in which employers had acted unreasonably, and, broadly speaking, those who knew the trade were quite aware, taking the body of men and the body of employers, that there was fairly good agreement between the two sides; and bad cases, which were very exceptional, were quite as much to be found in the ranks of the employers as they were to be found in the ranks of the men. The demand for a deputy was simply that when, through illness, the weigher himself could not perform his duties, or when he was called away, perhaps on business belonging to his Miners' Association—for, remember, these men were distinguished by their ability to represent others by reason of their appointment, and that, therefore, they naturally had other duties, to perform beyond the routine duties of the check-weigher—when there was reasonable cause for their leaving their duties they were to have the right in that case of putting on a deputy. It was far better that the deputy's position should be legalised, for he then had the opportunity of learning his duties and feeling that he was recognised, that he was a responsible man, and he was more likely to perform those duties in a satisfactory manner. Most collieries at the present time allowed so reasonable an arrangement, but that had been objected to in some cases, and any employer who thoroughly disliked the whole system and regarded it as a source of espionage could object, of course, and would embarrass the men by asking that if by any accident the check-weigher could not perform his duties, no one should do his duties for him. Now, that was not in the interests of the employer, because the men would naturally be suspicious of deductions made or questions of weight going on behind their backs in the absence of their representatives, and for the sake of peace, and in order to maintain confidence on both sides, if it were right to have the check-weigher, surely it was right to have a deputy. Why, even in the duties of the House it was necessary to have a deputy for the Chair, and for the Chairman of Committees.

Then there was a clause in the Bill providing for the method of appointment. The original Act of 1887 stated that if a man were appointed check-weigher by ballot there was a legal recovery for the wages of the check-weigher; that was to say, the wages paid by the employer were to be stopped out of the money paid by the miners—the wages became recoverable by law. But in the case where there was no ballot, such legal recovery would not stand, although the men as a whole had, by the statute of 1887, the right to appoint a weigher; that was to say, if all the men came together and agreed unanimously, or agreed by a majority on a man, that man would be the check-weigher; or if they sent a communication to the employer that would give them, under Clause 13 of the original Act, he believed, the right to appoint a check-weigher, but it would not give the check-weigher the right to recover his wages. He quite admitted that the drafting of this particular clause, the second section of the first clause, was a little intricate, but really all that was intended was this; that if the original power vested in the whole of the employees were not exercised and a ballot taken, there should be a meeting held, and the result of that ballot should be certified by the chairman of that meeting; that the chairman of the meeting should certify either in the first place that the ballot had been taken and the result of the ballot was so-and-so, or, failing a ballot, should give the names of all those, presumably a majority, who had voted for a particular man, and make a communication giving the names to the employer. This was to provide the machinery for giving the employer a definite statement as to the man was who was to be the representative of the men as check-weigher. As a matter of fact, largely, he believed the ballot system was obtaining in England. He thought that the other method was quite exceptional, and he would hardly suppose that anyone would desire to appoint a check-weigher except through the means of the ballot, a very effectual and easy way of ascertaining the will of the men and which also provided satisfactory means for the payment of the weigher himself.

The fourth section of the first clause provided shelter from the weather for the man who had to use a book and refer to papers, and who had to remain at the pit-head for the greater part of the day, and possibly to move about at times to follow the tram or the tub, and then return to his little office and make his notes. That seamed so obviously reasonable that one could hardly imagine that it was not the case throughout England. As far as England was concerned, it was practically the case. As far as Scotland was concerned, for some reason which he did not know and could not understand, except it were the general case of the "saxpence," some of the Scotch collieries did not do that. He had been furnished, but would not read it, with a list, for he did not want to pillory anyone, but he was told that there were dozens of collieries in Lanarkshire that did not provide protection for the check-weigher, and that, in one particular case that came before the Courts, the employer, feeling great disgust at having to comply with the law at all, took down the accommodation that did exist and left the weigher to the mercy of the weather. Now, that certainly would not be the wish of anyone with feelings of humanity, and also looked like a petty method to endeavour to evade the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this clause simply provided that space, area for two persons, a desk and table, and so on, should be provided for the check-weigher. Further down in Sub-section 3 of Clause 2, it provided that the check-weigher might recover expenses properly incurred by him in carrying out his work, which expenses were trivial, practically a matter of stationery. It had been thought desirable to put them into the Act, but he felt it was so trivial that it would be hardly challenged.

There was a further clause, to give the workmen the right to remove the weigher and to arrange the method by which that removal would take place. That was simply to give those who elected the check-weigher by ballot the right to use that method to remove him. Surely if the check-weigher lost the confidence of the men it was only fair that, as he was their representative and not acting for himself, they should have the right properly and legally to remove him. This was not intended in any way to prejudice the rights of the masters to remove, and if it were thought that the word "remove" left any doubt in the matter he was quite prepared in Committee to agree to the insertion of words to show that this removal on the part of the men should not in any way prejudice the general right of the master in case of complaint sustained of interference or misconduct on the part of the check-weigher.

The only other thing, which he believed was not of very great interest to employers, but of which this House might require some sort of explanation, referred to the dealing with cases in which the collieries were worked, or partly worked, under contract. Now, he was informed that the contract system, the system of letting out to a contractor or more than one contractor the working of the colliery, so as to secure the employers from direct dealing with the men who removed the coal, was a system that now and again had been adopted, more particularly by employers who did not care to come against the union officials; but he was glad to say, because he would have thought an ordinary employer would have wished to control directly the labour in his pit and would not have wished to delegate that control to an intermediary, that very largely that system was being discontinued in England. It existed in some parts of Staffordshire and some other parts of England. It was very little known in Yorkshire and did not appear to be on the increase. But he must say that where it was introduced for the first time it was largely aimed at the union. It was practically intended to remove the men from contact with their union and place them under the control of a contractor, who, by dividing them in groups, could obtain a control over them which the employer would not have if union men were employed in the bulk. He did not say that as a moral ground for forbidding the system. The employers ought to have the right, if they pleased, if it were to their interest to do so, to adopt the contact system, but inasmuch as even where the men were paid a day wage the representative of the men ought to be the check-weigher in matters of deductions, and as the deductions were perhaps almost as important, if not more important, than the check weighing there was great reason for still maintaining this system of check-weighers even in collieries where part or even the whole was worked under the contract system. Moreover, a great deal of the work which was done under contract by day work need not be so done. A good deal of it was done, he was told, on returns of weight, and the men who worked under the contract system had no protection at all unless there should be some one who represented them above-stairs at the pit-head, in the daylight, and who could see what was fair between masters and men. Of course, it might be said that the contractor himself might do that, and that he had an interest in not paying a man for getting less coal than the coal actually got. But as between the contractor and the men who worked it was right and fair surely that someone should represent these men who worked under the contractor and who had no means otherwise of checking the contractors who, for the purposes of management, were their masters quite as much as if the contractors were the owners of the colliery. On the other hand, the protection of the check-weigher was extended to the contractor as well, although the appointment of a check-weigher by the contractors was a very poor substitute for an appointment by the whole of the men. What they asked was simply this, that the system of a check-weigher should be encouraged and not discouraged; and while they did not ask for any interference by legislation in a matter of contracts, leaving that to work its own cure and take its own course, they did ask that the men working under contract, under whatever system, should be permitted to elect a check-weigher, and a contractor, though he might have different methods of working, part by weight and part by time, should be called upon, as he was now, to contribute to the wages of the check-weigher. That might appear at first blush as if it required an explanation, but he thought if they looked into it, if his explanation were at all clear, they would see it was not asking an unreasonable thing. That almost exhausted the clauses of the Act. He hoped that the House would realise that a great deal had been done to simplify this Bill, and that, if there was not much interest shown in it, its reasonableness must not be gauged and measured, he would not say weighed, by the state of the House at the present time. Really the Bill was so little controversial, and so much had been done outside to accelerate its passage through the House before the Second Reading, that little remained, he hoped, to debate. And he ventured therefore to commend it to the judgment and consideration of the House. He begged to move the Second Reading.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhonddha)

pointed out that every time this proposal had come before the House the right of the collier to have his coal check-weighed was recognised. What they claimed to-day was to improve these facilities, by allowing the appointment of a sub-check-weigher. Since the House had admitted that right it was essentially necessary, in order to protect the continuity of the weighing to the collier, that someone should be appointed at very little notice indeed to take the place of the regular check-weigher. The check-weigher had not only to take an accurate account of the weight of the work done by the collier who employed him, but he had every week end to give to the collier the amount of the coal he had weighed for him. In the best conducted places the weight was taken by the employer from the check-weigher on daily sheets. At the close of the day the weigher handed over his sheet to the head clerk of the company at the office. If the check-weigher should happen to be away for one day in the week there was no chance for the collier to have the full weight of what he produced during the week. How reasonable therefore was the request that a sub-check-weigher should be appointed to protect the collier. It was so reasonable that he did not think the House would regard it as a frivolous demand, but one that was absolutely necessary. Then facilities were wanted to enable the weigher to take the weight. According to the law the collier had a right to test the weigh- ing-machine, but it was nonsense to talk of using a weighing-machine without proper weights. To the credit of the South Wales colliery employers he must say they did not trifle with things that were necessary to give the check-weigher proper facilities. He did not want to brag about them, but if what was done in this respect in South Wales was done in other parts of the country there would be no necessity for this Bill. Then the places where these accounts were taken ought to be a little more healthy. They should be water-tight, ice-tight, and wind-tight, and all kinds of tights. He made all these proposals to protect the collier who was in danger of his life every moment of the day—men this country were so much indebted to, and who were doing so much for the comfort of all classes of the community. As far as sub-contracting was concerned he would like to do away with the system—he referred to those contractors who employed a number of men to hew coal for them at so much per ton, while getting so much per ton more themselves. They had taken from the Bill everything they thought was contentious, and they hoped it would be carried without a division. He was sure that the Government would see that its object was to bring up the indifferent employer, the unsympathetic employer, he did not want to say the bad employer, they knew what he meant—to the standard of the really good employer, who did all these things voluntarily. Three-fourths of the employers were doing what was asked for and in fact the proposals of the Bill were so right and just in principle to the men that he hoped no one would stop its progress to the Statute-book.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.—(Mr. Compton Rickett.)

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said he desired to acknowledge the very moderate manner in which the Bill had been put before the House by both the mover and seconder. They had taken great care to place before the House very clearly what they desired, and the Bill had his most cordial assent. He was very glad indeed to hear from the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley that what was asked for in the Bill was already supplied by the majority of the mineowners at the pit mouth. Surely it was a most proper thing that a deputy should be appointed. They knew very well that this weighing of coal had to be very carefully done, and it was a work of great responsibility. Therefore, if the check-weigher was ill it was only proper that the deputy should take his place. With regard to the clauses as to the election of the check-weigher, it was admitted that there might be some improvement necessary there. He, personally, could not say what improvement there ought to be, but, generally speaking, he felt sure that the promoters of this Bill had done their best to improve the machinery and to suggest such things as might be better than the mode at present in vogue. With regard to the shelter, that was surely an absolutely proper thing. It was of great importance that at the top of the pits, where the weather was more felt, there should, at any rate, be some proper and suitable shelter. The man had to do his work standing still; his limbs were not in active use at the time, and his circulation was, therefore, not as good as that of the man working with the spade. Therefore, every reasonable facility that possibly could be given ought to be given, and, if it was not given, it was quite correct the law should step in and see that some suitable arrangements were made.

There was one thing, however, which he might suggest to the promoters of the Bill, and to which he hoped they would give their attention. It was admitted that the promoters had listened to what had been pointed out to them outside; they had been very reasonable and had taken a great deal of care to see that the Bill as it came before the House was a Bill that should receive the approval of the House. The suggestion he desired to make was that the present was a fit and proper time to legalise a great number of things that were practically done now, but which might or might not be against the law. He referred entirely to the contents of the boxes that came up for weighing. So far the Legislature had tried to define what could and what could not be weighed. It was admitted by the mover that a great many practices in vogue were possibly somewhat outside the law, or might be inside, but they were practical arrangements made between the employer and employed and they worked very well. There had been attempts to deal with this by two Governments. In 1895 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife did put into a Bill certain provisions to deal with this question of dirt, stones, and what was not coal. Coal ought to be paid for, and whatever coal came up was paid for at a certain rate, and the check-weigher saw that it was paid for; but there was a great deal of foreign substance that came up besides. If the workman was a bad workman there was more than if he was a good workman. That was the subject at present of a number of agreements, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife made some pertinent remarks on the point in 1896. He said that enactments should be passed to deal with this question. The Bill of 1896, brought in by the Unionist Government, contained a number of provisions to deal with this question of the dirt, and to legalise agreements made between employers and employees; those agreements had to have the sanction of the men and then they would become law. There were a number of provisions in the Bill of 1896 that had to do with the safety of the men, and the general feeling on both sides of the House was that it was in the interests of the portion of the Bill dealing with the safety of the men that the part affecting this question should be left out. The mover to-day admitted that at some future time this matter must be taken in hand and dealt with. There had been two occasions—one in 1895 under a Liberal Administration, and one in 1895 under a Unionist Administration—when there was not time and when the exigencies of the case were such that the question could not be dealt with, and he suggested that now was a good time to take the matter up. He did not think there would be any trouble in the promoters of the Bill and the Home Office arranging a thoroughly good list of provisions which should cover this matter altogether. If they did that they would get an Act of Parliament that was really worth passing and which would deal with the whole question. The promoters of the Bill knew exactly what he meant, and, if they agreed, they would no doubt meet the matter in Committee. Having made these remarks, he desired to say, as regarded the general principles of the Bill, and as regarded what had been said, that he agreed, and, at any rate, would support the Second Reading.

*MR. FINDLAY (Lanarkshire, N.E.)

said that, as representing a Division of Lanarkshire in which this question was one of considerable interest, he desired to express his hearty sympathy with the proposals of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Scarborough had said, the matter was so simple that it was surprising that a Bill was necessary at all. As to the "black mark" which had been given against the employers of Lanarkshire, he had always had the feeling that on the whole they took a liberal interest in the men and did everything they could to further their comfort. He was glad to recognise on both sides a desire to do what was fair and just between man and man. That being the object and intention of the Bill he hoped the Second Reading would be carried with the full approval of the House.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

congratulated the House on the tone and temper which had characterised the debate. The present was one of the occasions on which it was felt in all quarters of the House that the interests of employer and employed were identical, and the more that conviction operated on the minds of those who were interested in the question, the better it would be for the people concerned and for the country at large. No words of praise could go beyond the occasion in regard to these check-weighmen. They were employed under circumstances of considerable difficulty to perform operations of great delicacy, which required firmness and constancy in their execution, and he felt that they were entitled to the further protection proposed by this Bill. He fully sympathised with the desire to raise the laggard employer to the level of the better employer. The Bill was an illustration of development or evolution; it arose naturally and almost necessarily from the improved conditions of society. In spite of the language of pessimists, he believed that this country was advancing from one stage to another, and that when improvement took place in one class it pervaded all classes. The details of the Bill would be better dealt with by those chiefly interested, but he did not wish the opportunity to pass without expressing his full sympathy with the general scope of the measure, and the hope that as Amendments were made in the interests of the workmen, the opportunity would be taken to make Amendments of a corresponding character in the interests of the employers. Such an opportunity might never recur. Through the fortune of the ballot the Bill had been introduced at a very early period of the session, and he hoped advantage would be taken of the opportunity so to enlarge the scope of the Bill as to remove all remaining difficulties, and thus complete this section of the statute law in regard to this important question.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

was glad to notice that the Bill had been received with general approval, but he felt some little uneasiness with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that there should be introduced certain Amendments to remedy what he considered to be an inconvenient state of things with regard to the present law or the custom obtaining as to deductions.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

said that if certain additions were made to the Bill to sanction practices now in operation in many places—which were desired both by the promoters of the Bill and by the employers—he did not think the progress of the Bill would be in any way hindered. There would be no contention on the part of the Home Office, and no desire to obstruct the Bill.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said that what the hon. and gallant Member had stated was merely what he himself had stated a month ago. All he could say—and he was speaking in no hostile spirit—was that he appreciated the friendly spirit in which this measure had been received by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He desired to point out, however, that there was no more controversial topic than that involved in the question of deductions, and there could be no more effective means of stopping the progress of this Bill than the introduction of such Amendments as had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Newton in Committee, and he hoped that he and his friends had no intention of loading the measure with Amendments of that character. At present the relations of employers and employed were of the happiest description, and, speaking as one who had an intimate knowledge of those relations, he was glad to say that that state of things generally obtained, and it was very rarely that friction arose upon deductions. He believed that the law as it stood at present was quite adequate to meet the requirements both of the workers and their employers in regard to deductions. It was not necessary that they should be arithmetically ascertained, but employers and employed might say, "We will strike an average with or without the agency of a check-weigher so that we may arrive at what is to be a fair deduction, having regard to the particular seam or the quarter of the seam from which the coals are brought." With regard to minerals contracted to be gotten there was no difficulty arising in respect of deductions other than those contracted for. But another question arose where the employer sought to have a deduction made in respect of small coal. He admitted that was a difficulty, but it arose only where the relations between employers and workmen were not as happy as they might be. This was exactly what the Legislature provided for in the Act of 1872; namely, that the workmen should be paid according to the weight of the mineral contracted to be gotten, and this small coal was so held by the Court of Appeal as minerals contracted to be gotten. With regard to any question as to the scale of pay, that was a matter which depended upon the wage contract made, and it might be a less scale for a certain class of coal, such as soft coal in contradistinction to the hard coal. He knew that a difficulty arose, but he thought it was more imaginary than real, and it arose chiefly from the want of good relations between employers and workmen. He thought this was really a necessary Bill, and he had had much experience of the great necessity of having a better system in regard to the collection and payment of wages. He knew that hon. Members opposite took a kindly interest in measures of this kind, and he hoped they would not load it with Amendments of the character suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He also trusted that the hon. Member representing the Government would give the House some assurance that he would afford facilities for passing this measure, which had been conceded on all sides to be of a non-contentious character.

*SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said he desired to express his general concurrence with the objects of this measure. He could hardly imagine a state of things in which a check-weigher was not allowed to have proper shelter. From the character of the check-weigher's duties he thought proper accommodation should be afforded him. They were entitled to the same kind of accommodation as the weigher. Check-weighing was not easy work at all; it was onerous and responsible work, in which a man had to be very alert. He did not see why any employer should object to the appointment of a deputy. His experience had rather been a peculiar one. He became interested with some others in a colliery some years ago. When they found that no check-weighers were employed at the colliery they thought that was not a satisfactory state of things and that the workmen ought to have protection. They put some pressure to get them to adopt check-weighers. This Bill was intended to facilitate the working of check-weighing. It had been said there was the possibility of the introduction of a clause to deal with the vexed question of deductions. That was a much more difficult question than the hon. Member seemed to think. It has been stated by the mover of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had modified the views which he formerly expressed in the House. He thought that a little more information as to what the right hon. Gentleman's views now were would be desirable.

*MR. COMPTON RICKETT

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife gave him authority for stating it had been unwise to attach a controversial question of this kind to the present Bill; accepted his statement that there had probably been a change in the practice, and that he would not express himself now so strongly as he did them.

*SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON

said that the Member for East Fife had used some very strong language on the previous occasion derived from his experience as Home Secretary. His words were— The state of the law on that subject at the present time was nothing short of scandalous. and again— He did not believe that there was any mine-owner in this country who knew at the present moment whether the system of deduction observed in his mines was legal or illegal and whether he was not carrying on a system which might never have been agreed to between masters and men, exposing himself to daily penalties.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)

said the relationship between employer and workman had totally changed since the time of that speech. There were boards of conciliation now instead of strikes.

*SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON

said that did not affect the desirability of having a clause legalising and doing away with any suggestion of illegality in the actual procedure which was necessary to carry out the weighing of the material contracted to be gotten.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

asked if the hon. Member had in his mind the section of the Coal Mines Regulations Act which indicated the manner in which deductions might be made.

*SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON

said that he had not in his mind the question of the separation of small coal, and it did not arise in the part of the country with which he was acquainted. He did not wish to weight this Bill with anything of a controversial character. He suggested that an effort should be made to arrive at a solution of the difficulty by the framing of a clause which would meet with the approval of both sides, and which would tend to peace in future. He further suggested that this effort might be made by means of a conference between the two sides, because it was desirable that they should approach the question with the view of settling it in such a way as would enable the parties concerned to deal in a peaceful way with any difficulties that might arise. He would remind hon. Members that when the Act of 1887 was passing through the House conferences were held between those interested, at some of which he had the honour to preside. The result was that they arrived at a solution of many points which had given rise to difficulty, and they succeeded in a harmonious way in materially improving the Bill. He hoped that in the present instance a clause might be proposed which would have the effect of settling a difficult question without anything like friction. What they all ought to desire was that the most just and perfect system should be employed which human ingenuity could devise.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

said he desired to say a few words on behalf of the ironstone miners. Although this Bill was an Amendment of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, and they were not engaged in coal mines, they would be affected, by it for their work was regulated by the Coal Mines Act and not by the Metalliferous Mines Act. The largest body of ironstone miners in the country worked in the Cleveland district, which he represented in that House, and he supported the measure, the provisions of which would be warmly welcomed by his constituents. He regretted that it had not been found possible to extend the advantages relating to check-weighers to quarries. A considerable number of quarrymen were anxious to have an opportunity of appointing check-weighmen, but, unfortunately, by the title of this Act, which related only to miners under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, it would be impossible to move an Amendment to include quarries. Sooner or later quarries should be included, as the case of quarrymen stood on precisely the same footing as that of miners. He re-echoed the hope expressed by a previous speaker that the Government would give facilities for the Third Reading in order that the views of all parties might be carried out.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.)

said there had been the most friendly and harmonious discussion on this measure that he had listened to for a long time. He thought it was very largely due to the extremely clear statement made by the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member had taken those steps which were always advisable, of informing hon. Members and those interested in the Bill outside the House, of explaining beforehand what was really intended by the provisions of the Bill. The measure was extremely moderate and reasonable, and very sensible indeed. It was one of those smallish measures which were suggested by the practical experience of those who were engaged in the coal-mining industry. Both masters and men had seen the advantages derived from the employment of check-weighers, and they saw from their daily experience how the present position might be strengthened and improved. A check-weigher was really no more immune from the accidents of life than anybody else. He might have an attack of influenza or be killed, and the duties he was appointed to perform lapsed because there was no one to look after the interests of the men, and, indeed, he believed, the interests of the employers as well, which he was put there to safeguard. He would suggest to the House, therefore, that they should give permission that a check-weigher should have a deputy who could perform the duties when he was for some unavoidable cause absent. That was a reasonable proposal, and he did not think there would be the slightest objection to it in any quarter. A further proposal for the convenience of the check-weigher was that he should have shelter from the weather. He was really not aware that there was a pit in any part of the country where the man was denied reasonable shelter. It would seem unreasonable that in the climate of Scotland the check-weigher should be confined to the use of an umbrella and mackintosh to keep his papers dry. One of the proposals of this measure was that suitable water-tight shelters should be supplied for the men. They did not want anything very elaborate, but merely a shelter in which they could have a desk for writing and where the conditions would enable them to carry on their work in comfort.

A further proposal in the Bill related to the appointment of check-weighers. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 provided that formal notification should be given to the employer that a certain man had been appointed check-weigher at a duly convened meeting. This was merely to enable the employer to know who really was the check-weigher instead of having to search about for the man in a case where some legal point arose. That was a very desirable object. Here, he thought, some further provision might be taken to secure that all those who were entitled to elect the check-weigher should have due notification that such an election was going to take place. Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 provided that where a check-weigher was appointed by a majority ascertained by ballot and paid according to the mineral gotten, the check-weigher so appointed should be deemed to be appointed on behalf of all the persons employed in the mine who were entitled to appoint him. There were two ways at present of appointing a check-weigher. If he was elected by a majority he could then only recover his expenses from those who appointed him. The object of this clause was that where he was appointed by a majority by ballot he should be held as representing the whole of the miners employed in the pit, so that he could recover his wages from all the miners. He understood that there was no intention to interfere with the law as it stood. It was merely to clear up a point where the check-weigher was appointed by a majority and not by ballot.

*MR. COMPTON RICKETT

I believe that the Act of 1887 provides that only in the case of appointment by ballot shall there be recovery of wages. I do not propose to alter that.

MR. COCHRANE

said that under Section 14 of the 1887 Act there was ample power for recovering wages. He could not himself see why these elections did not always take place by ballot in view of the power given by that section. Subsection 5 of Clause 1 of the Bill was in the following terms— When a check-weigher is appointed by a majority ascertained by ballot of the persons employed in the mine, and paid according to the mineral gotten, he shall not be removed except by a majority ascertained by ballot of the persons so employed and paid at the time of removal. He was glad to know from hon. Members that this was not in any way intended to prejudice or interfere with the duties which employers had at present to discharge under certain Acts. Clause 2 of the Bill introduced a novel principle, and that was that those who were paid according to the weight of minerals gotten were to contribute to the wages of the check-weigher. There might be certain cases where the men were working on day wages for a contractor who himself was paid by the coal gotten out of the pit. These men were entitled to appoint a check weigher. He did not see anything unreasonable in that proposal. It appeared to him that all those directly or indirectly paid by the amount of mineral gotten were more or less interested in the appointment of the check-weigher, whose duties were not only to see that the minerals were correctly weighed but also to deal with the deductions for stones, dirt, and other material which came up with the coal. It was to the interest of those who were indirectly paid through a contractor that there should be a check-weigher, and under these circumstances he did not think it was an unfair or unreasonable proposal that they should contribute something towards his pay.

He now came to the point which was raised by the hon. Member opposite and by his hon. friend on his side as to the adding of a clause to this Bill to legalise the present arrangements that had been come to between masters and men in regard to deductions in respect of dirt, stones, and other improper filling in the coal buckets. Such an Amendment would have to be moved in Committee, and if that would wreck this little Bill he should regard it as a great misfortune. At the same time he thought there was reason in what had been said on this point. His hon. friend was not the only Member of the House who had tried to find a remedy for the present difficulty. This was not so simple a question as some of his hon. friends made out. They said, and it was true, that at present the law enabled them to deduct the amount of dirt and stones which came up to the surface. But both masters and men had found out that that was not the whole difficulty. The dirt and the stones which were quite unnecessarily dragged up to the surface were often put into the trucks through carelessness on the part of the workmen, and that was a considerable loss to the employers. Therefore, any arrangement which would work satisfactorily must make something more in the way of allowance besides dirt and stone.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

That is done by statute now.

MR. COCHRANE

said he did not venture to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a question of law; but there was the Nethersole judgment to the effect that the amount of coal gotten must be true weight; and for that purpose the amount gotten must be held to include dirt and stones; but that the amount of deductions for dirt and stones and improper filling might be made in any agreed way between masters and employees, provided such deductions did not exceed the actual quantity of dirt and stones so raised to the surface. But there were no means of making a penalty attach to the careless workman.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)

You can discharge him.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said that under the present statute there was a case heard very recently in which it was decided that it was not necessary that the dirt and stones should be weighed; but that employer and employed could arrive at an estimate of the amount and make an allowance for the dirt and stones without actually weighing them.

MR. COCHRANE

said that it really came to this—that employers and employed wanted to have some fair arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire endeavoured to insert what he considered to be such a fair arrangement in a Bill introduced in 1895. That was to the effect that masters and men were to be permitted to contract freely for such deductions as they chose in respect of dirt, stones, or small coal, provided that the deductions were reasonable, and to render all deductions otherwise illegal whether they were so or not. What was fair and reasonable struck him in the same light as the right hon. Member for East Fife-shire; but obviously that was not a question to be discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, but in Committee. He ventured to throw out the suggestion that in the interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, those interested might frame a clause that would meet the views of both parties. If that could be done it would be very useful. He had said all that was necessary at this stage. The Bill met with no hostility from the Government, and, for his part, he hoped there would be no division; and he would give his support to the Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

MR. T. RICHARDS (Monmouthshire)

moved that the Bill be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc," put and agreed to.—(Mr. T. Richards.)

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said he had always been jealous about sending Bills of this kind to the Grand Committee on Trade, but he believed that this was a case where the services of a Grand Committee would be eminently useful. He hoped that the work of the Committee would soon be accomplished and that a satisfactory result would be arrived at.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.