COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.

HC Deb 11 December 1908 vol 198 cc942-1098

As amended (in the Standing Commitee), further considered.

* MR. BECK (Cambridgeshire, Wisbech)

said that during the short time in which he had been in the House he had noticed that the mover of an Amendment, whatever his secret opinion might be, always proclaimed that his Amendment was of such a reasonable character that he was sure the Government was anxious, and even eager, to adopt it. But in spite of the fact that this formula had ceased to have much force, he did say that this Amendment was of a reasonable character, because no one could contend that it was in any way against the principle of the Bill, for the only subject of dispute was as to how long it should be before the Act came into full operation. There might be one or two Members who were not as familiar with the Amendment as those who had sat upstairs, so he had perhaps better explain briefly its object. His Amendment was to leave out "during the three years after the commencement of this Act," in the subsection 2 (a) Clause 1, and there were consequential Amendments down after that, which would take out practically the whole of subjection (b). The effect of this would be that this Act would come into force if it became law, but that instead of being further strengthened at the end of five years, a future Parliament would be left to deal with the matter should occasion arise. The point in dispute was, of course, as to the windings. As the Bill stood, both windings would be excluded from the eight hours which the men were allowed to work. Under the Government proposals it was intended that at the end of five years one winding should be included in the eight hours. Upstairs in Committee the Government were def[...]ated, largely by hon. Members below the gangway opposite, who insisted on an Amendment substituting three years for five. He had said the Amendment was not against the principle of the Bill, and he hoped he had proved this, because it was absolutely in the Bill itself. In the second place this was not an Amendment which his right hon. friend could say was not of a practical character. There was no difficulty about altering the Bill in the way he suggested, but the real point which they must strongly impress upon the House was the question of safety. Hon. Members laughed, and they had laughed in Committee, when the Home Secretary had impressed upon them with all the fervour in his power the great danger of the course they were taking. His contention was that if the Bill was put into force at once without this period of rest, so to speak, the speeding of the machinery, consequent on the necessity of getting one winding within the allowed eight hours, would be likely to cause serious accidents, and the reason why the Government put in five years was that they considered five years was a reasonable period in which to give colliery proprietors and managers time to strengthen their machinery, and generally make it capable of working faster. In their view that was not a sound principle to take. They said it would be better to wait until the machinery was strengthened before altering the Bill again. What the Home Secretary said upstairs was— The view we took was, having regard to the question of danger, considered generally, that a period of five years was a very reasonable period. I do not say that danger will cease in five or ten years, but it will be reduced and mitigated in the way I have explained on various occasions by new mines which have been sunk, on the principle necessary for the working of this Bill. Upcast shafts may be used for winding where they are not so used now. The haulage ways may be so altered for the safer getting out of the men. Other inventions and improvements may be made with regard to the winding arrangements in the interests of safety. There was a good deal of the same thing, but his last words on this particular point were rather significant. Speaking generally, five years is the time which the Government, after full consideration, thought would give the necessary margin of safety. Therefore he hoped the House would agree to remove the three years, but what they wanted to do was to go a step further, and not put any period into the Bill at all. Hon. Members laughed, but he did not think they really knew very much about their own Bill, because, as it would come into force in July next, it would at once materially reduce the hours of work in mines as at present existing—he meant when the Bill came into force with both windings excluded from the eight hours. In the Manchester district the working hours would be reduced by one hour a day, in West Lancashire by one hour thirteen minutes, in Monmouthshire by one hour 27 minutes, and in Cumberland and Durham the boys would no longer work ten hours but eight. In Scotland they would be reduced by twenty-one and twenty-seven minutes, and, of course, Scotsmen already worked short hours. In North Wales they would be reduced by fifty-two minutes so that there would be a very material reduction of hours in those districts. To pass from this, they must insist most strongly upon the question of safety. The hon. Member for Gloucester, who was Chairman of the Departmental Committee that considered this question, on the Second Reading made a most weighty speech on this same point. He was, of course, on the whole, in favour of the Bill, but he saw many drawbacks in the way it was drawn. But the great point he made was that he did not consider that the windings ought to be included in the hours of work. He said he did not mind if the hours of work were reduced to seven and a half, but he thought it was contrary to the safety of the men to include winding. He thought exactly as the Home Secretary did, that it would conduce to safety if the winding of the men was not crowded into a limited period. It would enable the older men to get to their underground place of work more at their leisure and it would be easier for the older collieries in which the winding was generally slower than in the new pits. This was a weighty testimony in favour of the Amendment. They were accused the other day by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan for their absence of humanitarian principles. He should like to say as regarded this that he did sympathise with the views of the hon. Members below the gangway. He realised that they had intimate knowledge of the dangerous occupation of the men they represented in that House. He unfortunately was not a colliery proprietor, nor was he a miner, though he was a consumer, but what he meant was that they were entitled to judge not only by the words used by the Home Secretary, not only by the words used by the Chairman of the Departmental Committee, but also from the mass of evidence which came forward that the winding period was a very dangerous period in coal mines. In 1907, ninety-eight persons were killed in the shaft, and this was something like 8 per cent. of the total accidents that occurred in coal mines. He would appeal to hon. Members not to use too much of this humanitarian argument. If the hon. Member for South Glamorgan were in his place he would say to him that he was sure that he would be the first to bring his robust commonsense to bear if he (Mr. Beck) talked about widows and orphans shivering over empty grates. It seemed quite as fair an argument. He had tried to base his support of the Amendment on three grounds, that it was not against the principle of the Bill, that it was a practical Amendment, and above all, that it was absolutely essential to the safety of the men. He would add a fourth ground, and that was that it seemed to him very undesirable that the House should bind the future in this way. He did not think they had any right now to decide what should happen five years hence. There might, or might not be, another Government, when that period came, but in any case he did not think it was right to bind them. He appealed to hon. Members below the gangway if it would not be well for them to accept an Amendment of this sort. If the Bill worked as well as they considered it was going to work, he felt sure there would be no difficulty in getting Parliament to amend it in the way they desired; but if, on the other hand, as opponents of the Bill feared, it did not work well, he thought they would be glad that in this particular they were to some extent safeguarded. He knew that hon. Members below the gangway were deaf to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely, and he could not hope to move them when his right hon. friend had failed in Committee, but he appealed to hon. Members in other parts of the House to consider this Amendment. It was in no way against the principle of the Bill. It was an entirely reasonable Amendment, and they might even say it was a small Amendment. He would call it quite a small Amendment if it was not for the fact that it was a question of the greater safety of the miners. He moved the Amendment.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he heartily supported the Amendment. He agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that the principle which the Amendment sought to defeat, and which the Government had adopted in the Bill, was very strange, and, as far as he knew, entirely novel in legislation. What was the situation with which the Government and the House were confronted in regard to this proposal? For many years the mining community had approached Parliament with the demand that a certain great change should be made in the conditions of their industry. That change had been proposed for a long time, and recently had been carefully considered by a Departmental Committee of the utmost authority. As a result of the long consideration the Government came to the conclusion that the change that the mining community asked for was one which could not in fact be carried out at the moment in its entirety, with duo regard to the safety of the mines, and the general public interest in view of economic disturbances. But the Government came to the further conclusion that although the change asked for could not properly be made, some change of a less character might be made at once safely and properly. They came to the conclusion, in fact, that although they could not grant the whole demand because it would not be consistent with the public interest, they could go some way to meet it. In these circumstances he respectfully suggested to the House that the proper course for the Government and the House to take, and the only proper course, after full consideration, was to go so far as they could safely go at all, to see how that worked out, and to leave the future to take care of itself in regard to extensions or contractions of the principle. This was, so far as he knew, the first occasion on which Parliament had been asked to make a great change which was admitted to be dangerous and impossible now, compulsory at a future period, which might or might not be three or five years. That was a very dangerous and extraordinary scheme upon which to found legislation of this character, and if it were merely upon that point alone he should be bound to oppose it. These considerations were enormously strengthened in this particular when one considered the extra ordinary changes which had been made in the mind of the Government since the Bill was introduced. What the Government proposed on the Second Reading of the Bill was that on the 1st January, 1909, the hours in coal mines should be limited to nine hours a day including one winding, that that should go on for eighteen months and that after eighteen months, on 30th June, 1910, the period should be eight hours including one winding. That was what the Government apparently thought safe and proper on the Second Reading of the Bill a few months ago. On their responsibility after full information they recommended it to the House of Commons and the country. Between the time that the Bill was read a second time and the time it got into Committee they entirely altered their mind on each of those points. They then made an entirely different and much smaller proposal, that the Bill should provide for an eight hours day excluding both windings for five years, and after that it should be an eight hours day in eluding one winding. In other words the short time which elapsed between the Second Reading of the Bill and its appearance in Committee had sufficed to convince His Majesty's Government that they could not take the responsibility for recommending to Parliament and the country the very course which they had recommended on the Second Reading. What happened then? The Government having made this proposal upstairs and having submitted it to the Standing Committee, the Committee, disunited and disagreed no doubt upon almost every point in the Bill, at least were agreed, though, he admitted, for different reasons, that, what ever period was to be inserted in the Bill, five years would not do. The effect of that was that the Government, having made a proposal on the Second Reading, and having changed it again in Committee—

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,) Leeds, W.

The hon. Member forgets that I announced on the Second Reading that this change would be proposed. It was no sudden change of policy.

MR. BOWLES

thought it was quite clear that between the time when the Government first drafted the Bill and presented it to Parliament, and the time they had to consider its defence upon the Second Reading, they had to make an enormous change, the magnitude of which the right hon. Gentleman himself would be the last to dispute. The change which the Government submitted was refused by the Committee upstairs.

MR. GLADSTONE

No.

MR. BOWLES

said it was no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because it was a matter of fact. The change proposed by the Government was reversed by the Committee, with the result that the proposal was made more stringent.

MR. GLADSTONE

Is it not a fact that on the Committee the hon. Member for Norwood voted for three years?

MR. BOWLES

said it was not a fact, because he never voted for three years and should not think of doing so. He did vote for leaving out five years. He thought he was quite justified in saying that the Government had never had a clear and steady mind upon this matter, and that throughout the discussions on the Bill the scheme had been changed, and at the last moment they were face to face with an Amendment which again changed the Bill. What was the objection to what he called the buffer period? First of all, it was a bad way to legislate to say "We think it only safe to go so far at this moment, but we will make a further change compulsory in the future although we think it is dangerous to do it now." He thought the House of Commons ought to consider the effect such a proposal would have upon the industry itself. He had no interest personally in the coal industry, either directly or indirectly, but he put it to the House of Commons that, if they were going to make a change at this time, they were bound to see that it was made with as little inconvenience and with as little disturbance to the trade as was possible. Hero they made two great upheavals in an industry compulsory within a period of three years, and in his opinion that was a perfectly wanton and unnecessary course. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Government had told them again and again in the strongest possible language that they could not allow the Bill to have its full effect at once because it would be dangerous. They asked the Government in the Committee what ground they had for supposing that that which, by general admission, would be dangerous to do now in regard to the men in the mines, would be any safer at the end of a period of three or five years. There might be some sanguine persons in certain quarters of the House, but their sanguine views were not shared by the Home Secretary, or by those who felt the responsibility in this matter. They asked the right hon. Gentleman upstairs what grounds he had for supposing that this thing would be any safer five years hence than it was now, and what was his answer? The right hon. Gentleman said— I have never said that after a certain period of time the danger will be removed as a matter of fact, the danger cannot be removed—

MR. GLADSTONE

What danger?

MR. BOWLES

The danger of haulage.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think the hon. Member is quoting something which has already been quoted in this debate by the hon. Member for Dulwich. I do not know what report he is quoting from.

SIR F. BANBUEY (City of London)

said they took the precaution, as the proceedings of the Committee were not reported, of having a shorthand note taken of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and his hon. friend the Member for Norwood was quoting from those short hand notes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who paid for them?"]

MR. GLADSTONE

Although I have not seen that report of my speech, I do not repudiate the words at all, but I think in fairness to myself the House ought to know on what Amendment I was speaking and we ought to be told exactly what I was replying to.

MR. BOWLES

said the speech to which he was referring was made in the debate on the Motion made by the hon. Member for Hanley in favour of the omission of "five years." If the right hon. Gentleman said the words which he had quoted did not represent his view, of course, he would accept his contradiction. The right hon. Gentleman said— The view we took was, having regard to the question of danger considered generally, that a period of five years was a reasonable period. I do not say that it will cease in five or ten years, but the danger will be reduced and mitigated in the way I have explained on various occasions. Upcast shafts may be used for winding where they are not used now. The hauling ways may be altered for the safer getting out of the men, and other inventions and improvements unspecified may be made in regard to the winding arrangements in the interests of safety. All these tendencies co-operating during the period of five years may practically produce a system which will be considered safer than the conditions existing now. … Speaking generally, five years is the time which the Government, after full consideration, think would give the necessary margin of safety. He thought that was a very grave situation to place the House of Commons in The right hon. Gentleman might be right or he might be wrong, and the Government might have been misinformed, but the Government told them plainly they were asking them to fasten upon the mining industry irrevocably and compulsorily at the end of five years a system which would involve admittedly grave danger at this moment, and which they had no reason for supposing would be any less dangerous at the end of the period which they were proposing. He was utterly unable to understand how any hon. Gentleman could take that view. It was admitted that the change which was proposed could not be made now. He thought the best course, under these circumstances, was to make what change they thought was safe at the present time, and if in future years these improvements were made, the House of Commons would then be able and, no doubt, willing to go a step further; but to legislate on the hope and speculation that some improvement unknown and undreamt of and unspecified at the present time would be discovered to make what they were doing safe for the miners of the concerned. At the present moment the average time during which the boys were confined in the mines was ten hours a day, and during the greater part of the year these boys never saw daylight. The forty-eight hours a week system would perpetuate that state of things. One of the moving forces for an eight-hours a day Bill was that it would be a great act of emancipation for the boys in the County of Durham. He was opposed to the idea of these young lads of fourteen or fifteen years of age being for five days in the week, and often for eleven days in the fortnight, confined under ground for ten hours a day. As to the general effect of the Bill on Durham, he believed what they would find was that, whereas the hewers worked for something under seven hours a day from bank to bank, there was very little danger of the Bill interfering with that. Forty-eight hours a week would, in his opinion, far more tend to cause dissatisfaction than eight hours a day. The Durham miners were not disregardful of the interests of their young people, and he believed that they would welcome this Bill as a great boon to their boys.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

How are the boys dealt with in the Durham mines?

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said he understood that the boys were not allowed to work more than eight hours out of the twenty-four, but he knew that at the present time they were under the surface not less than ten hours a day; and it was because he believed that the Bill would redress that state of things, and that, after reading the evidence of the Committee, he had not the vague ideas and gloomy anticipations which some hon. Members had as to the effect of the Bill if passed, that he opposed the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said he supported the Amendment. He noticed that the hon. Member who had just sat down said that he had supported the Eight Hours Bill in the past, but he had never told them how he was going to make this Bill workable in Northumberland and Durham. He was afraid he had never realised the great difficulties that would arise in those two counties—difficulties which the Home Secretary himself admitted yesterday and said that there must be some alteration in the Bill to meet them. The Home Secretary had made a rather remarkable statement, namely, that his principal objection to this Amendment was that the forty-eight hours per week system was bad in principle.

MR. GLADSTONE

I did not exactly say that. What I said was that it would be difficult in its application.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

said he thought the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave was that it was an extremely bad thing for the coal miners to work one long day and then a short day.

MR. GLADSTONE

My words were that the Amendment does not specify that the hours must be so many in one day and so many in another day. It leaves it quite open that the hours may be ten, twelve, or fourteen on some days, and, having regard to the dangers of coal mining, I say that that principle would be dangerous.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

asked the right hon. Gentleman if it would make the Amendment more acceptable to him if they added the words "and not more than ten hours on any one day." If that were so, he would have great pleasure in moving that Amendment to the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

There is no machinery for that.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

said he could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's views that it was a bad thing to work ten hours one day and less on other days. He thought the system would be beneficial to the health of the miners, because they would get more of the open air. He pointed out that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he would be assisting the Government indeed. It was admitted by all experts that the effect of the Bill would be considerably to increase the price of coal, and he thought that the Amendment would mitigate the evils which which has been put forward that there are dangers existing at the passing of this Bill which will not exist in three or five years time. The particular observation quoted against me I am satisfied is something which I said parenthetically to the effect that the occupation of mining is a very dangerous one and that you cannot get rid of the general dangers incidental to the mining occupation in three, five, or ten years, or, in fact, in any given number of years. What has been quoted against me by the hon. Member for Norwood is an observation apparently applying to the general danger of mining.

MR. BOWLES

That is not so.

MR. GLADSTONE

On the question of danger, however, let me state this. The hon. Member opposite has said a good deal about the changes we have made in this Bill. Let me point out to the House distinctly that every single change which has been made has been in the direction of affording greater safety in regard to the possibility of accidents.

MR. BOWLES

said that his complaint was that they had not gone far enough. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for changing his Bill in the direction of mitigating those dangers, but that he had not taken sufficient precautions against the dangers which existed to-day, and which he admitted. He thought everyone who looked into the Bill would agree with what he said on this point.

MR. GLADSTONE

One thing, at any rate, cannot be said about this measure: no hon. Member can argue that the Bill has been rushed through the House. At every stage we have given the measure protracted consideration. In the first session of the new Parliament, when I proposed that there should be a Committee of inquiry on this subject, I got hardly any support at all for my proposal, and an hon. Member on the front bench opposite went so far as to get up and denounce me for my dilatory procedure. Nevertheless, we appointed a Committee which fully investigated this question, and after the Committee had inquired and reported, naturally, many considerations occurred to us which demanded, on our part, further special examination and inquiry. Let me recall to the House one material point which arose in regard to the winding question. The managers of coal mines came to the Home Office and made certain representations to us on this point, and even at the present moment I think it will be generally admitted that there are great possibilities of danger from the present system of winding.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said there were only seventeen winding accidents out of 1,142 accidents in mines.

MR. GLADSTONE

No, the hon. Member cannot have it both ways.

MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

There ought to be no accidents at all.

MR. GLADSTONE

I agree that every possible precaution should be taken against accidents. I maintain that shocking accidents occur in winding, and we have had many fatal accidents from this cause, therefore it is our bounden duty to see that this Bill does not increase the possibility of accidents from winding. There is really no satisfactory power of controlling the speed of winding. In the light of the knowledge we have gained by our inquiries we have made several Amendments in the Bill in the interests of security against both personal and economic accidents. Under this Bill the time occupied in winding the men up and down has to be approved by the inspector of mines, who will have to consider in what time the men can be reasonably taken down and up the mine consistently with safety. No doubt the inspector, if he errs at all, will err on the side of safety, and that is his duty; probably he will give two or three minutes extra on the right side, and if there is any danger in excessive speed, or the rapidity of getting into the cage and out of it, that responsibility in the future will rest absolutely with the management of the mine, and cannot be attributed to this Bill. We provide actual safety in winding under this Bill by laying down that the time occupied in winding shall be of certain duration calculated upon the circumstances of each mine. We have also made special provision for other dangers, and we have amended subsection 2 (b) of Clause 1 in the same direction. I think, with the changes we have put into the Bill, we have eliminated as far as possible any possibility of danger. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment which permanently adds half an hour more to the statutory period of work underground. As the measure now stands, we have made large and adequate concessions on this subject, and therefore I am not now willing to accept this Amendment.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said he wished to say a few words on the point of safety. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment specifically mentioned winding as a dangerous part of the time which the miners spent underground, and he emphasised that point. In the Returns published by the Home Office for the year 1906, figures were given as regarded all accidents underground, and on page 23 the number of deaths from winding was given as four, whilst the number of accidents occurring during ascending and descending by machinery was only thirteen, making a total of seventeen out of a grand total of 1,142.

* MR. BECK

said he quoted the figures given by the Home Secretary in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. Ninety-night persons were killed in shafts in 1907.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said the only point he endeavoured to make was that the number of accidents from over winding was small as compared with the accidents assigned to other causes. For instance, accidents from falling into the shafts had no connection with winding. It was much more likely that they were due to the fact of the man at the top making a mistake in shoving the trucks on to the cage; and the hon. Member ought to know that. Under the subsequent provisions in the clause when both windings were to be included, the approval of the inspector to the period to be fixed by the manager would secure under his responsibility that adequate time was allowed for the two windings, and, therefore, that would make for safety.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said he had listened to the weighty speeches made by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, but he failed to hear any answer to them in the speech made by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that to bring the eight hours limit into force at once would be attended with increased danger, but he hoped that in the course of five years that that danger would be mitigated by improvements in machinery. This problem of winding in shafts had been dealt with by engineers for a hundred years past, and everybody knew that it was a vain and vague idea that in five years there would be some invention which would make a great improvement on the winding machinery that would remove all danger. If this Amendment was not carried, and the Home Secretary's Amendment for substituting a five years for a three years period were carried, the whole time that the miners had to remain underground, both windings included, was eight hours after the expiration of the five years. He did not know on what grounds it was so often said that one winding was excluded. If the first workman left the shaft at 6 a.m. the first workman must return to the shaft at 2 p.m., and if the last workman left the shaft at 6.30 a.m. the last workman must return to the shaft at 2.30 p.m. That was the only time allowed for any man to be underground. The mine manager might make any rules he liked as to the precise order in which the men went down into the mine and came up, but that would not alter the fact that they must on the average be underground for eight hours only, both windings included. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil argued that there had only been seventeen fatal accidents from winding and descending and ascending shafts, and he differentiated between winding accidents and shaft accidents. He said that an accident from pushing the tubs on to the cage at the top of the shaft was not a winding accident; but if under this Bill the men were driven too hard, in order to get the miners up to the surface in time, accidents were sure to happen. There would be increased hurry in the ascending and descending, and with that hurry accidents would be more frequent. The ill founded hope that in another three or five years improved machinery would guard against such accidents was no defence for such a monstrous piece of legislation as this.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he had listened to the speech of the Home Secretary, and the effect of his statement was perfectly accurate, except in one particular. The only question before the Committee was whether both windings were to be excluded for all time, or both after a fixed period, or one after a fixed period. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that in answer to him in Committee, on the question of the omission of any period at all so that both windings should always be excluded, he stated that he did not deny that there was a danger connected with winding, but he thought that within a period of five years, science would be so far advanced that improved methods of winding would be introduced, and in that way danger would be avoided. He was not a scientist, and he could not prophesy as to whether in five years the advance of engineering science would be able to produce improved machinery so as to obviate all danger. What he asked was this: Why, if in five or six years time the prophesies of the right hon. Gentleman turned out to be right, should not a Bill be introduced so to amend the Act as to secure what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do now? He ventured to say that that would be the proper course to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said that under subsection (4) of Clause 1, and under Clause 2, precautions were taken which would avoid any risk of danger in winding. He did not remember that that argument was advanced by him in Grand Committee. He pointed out that under Clause 2 there was practically no safeguard against danger at all; because all that that Clause provided was that a period should be fixed, and should be registered in a book, and that the men should appoint a representative to see that that period was registered, and that any person making false entries should be liable to penalties. It was said by Clause 5 that the inspector of mines—he presumed the Home Office Inspector—should determine such times as he might deem reasonable for the winding. There was certainly a safeguard in that provision; but as he uderstood it, in different mines the time for winding was shorter or longer according to the depth of the shaft and the machinery provided. In mines where the shafts were very deep, the danger must be the greater. [Cries of dissent.] At any rate, the deeper the shaft, the shorter the time for winding; and when the miners were restricted to a very short period of work underground, and the longer they had to take to get to the seam where they had to work, the greater would be their hurry to get to and from their work and therefore, the greater the pressure would be put on the colliery owner, not only by the men, but by the inspector to allow as short a time as possible for the winding. The inspector might say that a certain time, which he thought was a short time, would obviate the difficulty. But then there would be the other danger, that all the men would endeavour to get taken up as quickly as possible, there would be great confusion both in going down and in coming up, and after all the inspector, who was only human, might overlook the natural desire of men to go on winding. It was because of that, that the Opposition desired to obviate that and exclude the windings altogether. There was another object in the Amendment. The House was going to make a great dislocation in the trade, and whether it was right or wrong it could not be denied that to make two dislocations in the trade would be very bad indeed. They ought to make up their minds what they were going to do, put it into the Bill and pass it, but let them not in three or five years time make another dislocation. For these reason's he had very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

* MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

said the Home Secretary had said just now that the Opposition had had a very full opportunity for discussing this Bill. Unusual as that treatment was to them and producing as it did a somewhat unexpected feeling, acknowledgement was due to the right hon. Gentleman for it. He quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had given a very full opportunity for the discussion of this measure and that the Closure had not been moved in any unusual degree. The question before the House was whether the full effect of the Bill should be taken in one step or two. The objections which he had to make to the full effect being given in two steps were, first, on the ground of danger, and secondly, on the ground that a double disturbance would be created in which the whole of the trade of the country would be involved. The hon. Member for Merthyr had just pointed out with regard to the question of danger, that at present the danger from winding was extremely small. Of course at present the winding arrangements were in the hands of the managers of the owners of the mines, and they had no object in unduly hastening the operation of winding because they could at present take their own time. The right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to agree that danger from this source was not very real, because instead of allowing freedom to the owners and managers in this matter, he proposed to put the winding under the inspector. He was now to be responsible for the safety of the winding operations. But, as soon as the winding operations were put into the eight hours, he ventured to think that the tendency towards haste must inevitably arise and could not be overcome. If the right hon. Gentleman was right and this danger was to be entirely obviated by the multiplication of the duties of the inspector, of course the whole, object of postponing the operation of the Bill for five years in this regard would disappear. But the right hon. Gentleman had maintained and still maintained that it was necessary to postpone the operation of the winding under the Bill for five years on the score of danger. He gave no reason which might lead them to believe that the danger which existed to-day would not exist in five years time. He spoke generally of new inventions and of improvements that might take place in the next few years, but that was really the sporting instinct of the right hon. Gentleman coming out. He could not resist taking a good sporting chance. But a more serious objection to the two steps was based on the effect it would have on the trade of the country. Everybody knew that the disturbance which was going to be caused by a change of the kind and magnitude proposed was one that might create difficulties, which would possibly develop into great difficulties between the men and the owners; questions that certainly might, and probably would, affect the price of coal in some degree and which in that case would create uncertainty if not disturbance in all those industries which depended upon coal. In addition to that they would have the very costly process of reorganising and rearranging the workings of the mines, a process which could not be accomplished without great expense and trouble, and they were to be asked to pay all this expense and take all this trouble twice instead of once and for all. He could not help thinking that there had been no real answer given to the suggestion that the proposal of the Government would create a great disturbance in all great industries in the country. He maintained that even if the Bill came into operation with its full effects at one step it must create a great disturbance, and for his part he would rather have a greater disturbance once than have a great disturbance now and duplicate it in five years time. But, quite apart from what might be the actual effect at the end of five years, there would be the anticipation of having to go through at the end of that period a disturbance similar to that which they had to go through now, and that would create a spirit of unrest which in itself would be a most serious objection to postponing the operation of any portion of this Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

We took the whole of one sitting in Committee to discuss this question; may I ask the House now to come to a decision upon it.

MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)

I have no desire to make anything in the nature of an obstructive speech, but in my opinion that is one of the most important Amendments that could be discussed, having regard to the adoption of the principle of the Bill. But with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to say anything offensive, I am bound to say when we are engaged upon an important Bill like this it is hardly fair that supporters of the Government should take up the time of the House in long discussions on every unimportant point, and then for the right hon. Gentleman to expect the House to pass without debate the most important part of the measure. This is the most important Amendment that can be discussed, having regard to the adoption of the principle of the Bill. But, so far as I can judge from yesterday's proceedings, the attitude adopted by supporters of the Bill is to be quite willing to speak on small points upon which they can make a case, but to maintain a conspiracy of silence on the large points upon which no case can be made out in support of the Bill. I can certainly prove to the House that so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned this is a new departure and that what he said in the Committee was that this second winding ought not to be included in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has changed his mind, or the words then used were used inadvertently, I am quite content to accept his statement and argue the matter upon other grounds. But he did make the statement that the second winding should not be adopted for five years. The right hon. Gentleman said in the Committee— The view we take is, having regard to the question of danger, that the period of five years is a reasonable period. Obviously, that could only refer to the question of windings, because if it referred to the question generally of the dangers imposed by the Bill it would have applied to the postponement of the whole Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say— I do not say that it will cease in five or ten years, but the danger will be reduced and mitigated in the way I have explained. The first method of mitigation is that new windings would be put into operation, upcast shafts may be used for windings where they are not so used now. The haulage ways may be altered for the safer getting out of the men. All that is true to a certain extent, but obviously that kind of thing will cost a great deal of money, and therefore if the miners are to got the advantage of greater safety from this change a great deal of money will have to be spent, and that money will not be spent unless the owners are compelled by Parliament to spend it. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say— Other improvements and inventions unspecified may be made with regard to winding arrangements. Of course any amount of improvements may be made, and it is quite possible that inventions may enable us to get heat from the sun and that coal will not be needed. But it is time enough to legislate for those things when they arrive. The right hon. Gentleman says there is danger but that it can be mitigated. Obviously, if that danger relates to certain conditions of work in the mines and it is only necessary to adapt the conditions of those mines to this Bill, five years is an absurd time to postpone these operations. But the right hon. Gentleman must feel that it is not possible to get over the danger by these measures. Then, again, if he is relying on changes caused by improvement and inventions which may take place in the future, surely it is his duty to leave it to a future Parliament to legislate for those changes. There might be dangers from this point of view. The hon. Member for Merthyr pointed out that the proportion of accidents through the shafts was comparatively small, but that does not touch the point. Everybody knows that in the majority of the mines the difficulty of getting out is the winding of the coal. If you have to include in the same period the winding of the men as well as of the coal, obviously it will be to the advantage of the manager to have as little time used in winding up the men as possible so that more time may be given to the winding of the coal. What protection can we have that this will not be carried out to an extent that will increase the danger to the men? The arrangement, it is true, is under the control of an inspector, and the men are also brought into it and may make representations; but no one who is at all acquainted with coal mining is ignorant of the fact that the men get accustomed to the danger of their occupation, and that is the last thing they will think about. They will hurry to work so that they may have a longer time in which to earn money. There will undoubtedly be a rushing time all the way along, which must increase the danger to the safety of the men in the mine. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman did not himself realise that he would have brought the whole of the Bill into operation at once. As my hon. friend behind me has said, one of the great objections to the Bill as it stands is that we are going to have two dislocations of trade. If there is going to be two windings—I have not consulted anyone connected with the trade, and I do not know whether they will agree with me or not—but if one of the windings is to be included in the eight hours, it would be far better to postpone the operation of the Bill for a year or eighteen months, and then have the whole thing come on at one time. I think the right hon. Gentleman would admit that if he did not realise it is too great a danger and that he cannot risk taking that step. If he does realise it, obviously his proper course is to leave the Bill permanently until Parliament alters it in the way in which this Amendment alters it,, and leave it to himself if he comes back or to his successor to make a change which will be justified by improved conditions when those improved conditions are there, and the House can judge as to their validity.

MR. E. EDWARDS (Hanley)

said the whole position of the Miners' Federation appeared to be involved in the discussion of this particular Amendment. He wanted the House to realise that they thought they were discussing an Eight Hours Bill in a modified form from bank to bank, but he was reminded now that the object of leaving out these three years was to exclude permanently the two windings. That was a position in which the Miners' Federation could never acquiesce. Again and again in the House the case had been put as one of eight hours from bank to bank, but the Miners' Federation, taking advantage of what had happened in the past, had tried to meet the views of the country and the fears which had been created by suggesting that they should take this measure in stages, and, of course, the Government to an extent had adopted the same principle in this Bill. He quite saw now that the drift of this Amendment was to exclude permanently the two windings and to leave the possibility of men and boys being underground for nine and a half hours, and ten hours in some cases. That was an impossible position. Now they were told to-day that it was a question of safety. He realised as much as any hon. Member that the matter of safety was an important consideration for Parliament. They were not unmindful of the fact that it was an important phase of the question, but they realised too that if they postponed the operation of this clause for ten or twenty or fifty years they would never remove this question of danger about either mining itself or the winding in and out. As a matter of fact, there was no truth in the suggestion that they would do away with the danger in three years or in five years. The danger in mining would always exist, and the House would be asked from time to time to legislate—and he could quite believe that the House would accept the views put forward—to minimise the number of accidents. All they did was to reduce the time that the men should be underground. They were not suggesting that they should create a new heaven and a new earth by this Bill. They had always said that eight hours out of twenty-four was long enough either for man or boy underground, and they did not seek for a moment to hide their true position. The Amendments moved, so far as he had been able to gauge them, were all intended to lengthen the shift and to provide that men and boys should be down underground longer than had been proposed in this House again and again. Any attempt to break away in the main from the eight hours from bank to bank would not satisfy the great mass of men who for twenty years had been clamouring and agitating in this House for eight hours from bank to bank. The hon Baronet and others said: Why not bring it into operation at once? Did they wish to convey the impression there that if the Miners' Federation agreed that the Bill should be brought into operation at once it would make its passage airy smoother on those benches? The whole object of the five years was to enable the trade so far to adapt itself without inflicting a serious injury upon the country itself. That was the position, and in that position they stood to-day. They did say there must be a limit at any rate to one of the windings if they were to realise the ideal of the promoters of the Bill.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said it was gratifying that the conspiracy of silence had been broken through by one of the hon. Gentlemen representing the Labour Party. He should have thought the importance of the speech delivered by his hon. friend on the front bench below was worthy of an answer by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The importance of the Amendment, which he maintained was far the most important point to be discussed that day, was apt to be lost sight of in the recriminations which had been indulged in as to what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee. It was entirely in the interests of safety that they believed that the two windings should be excluded if ever this Bill came into force. The right hon. Gentleman travelled a certain portion of the journey with them, but at the end of five years he parted company from them and branched off into the realms of speculation and at tempted to prophesy. He believed that prophesying was an indictable offence and came under the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. He asserted that in five years time invention would have made such strides that there would be means for providing for the safety which he, based on expert opinion, was convinced did not now exist, and so he joined with them in saying that two windings should be excluded. That was a curious way of legislating. He bound his successors to do something which he was not prepared to carry out himself. Was it not possible for him to accept the Amendment and to exclude both windings? If those inventions were brought into force, surely it would be possible in five years time to bring in an Amendment to this Act and so to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman desired.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said he would not detain the House for many moments, but the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that this was a very important matter, if not the most important they would discuss that day. The point was, Were the two windings to be excluded until Parliament otherwise determined, or for a period of five years only? He thought the wisest course was to leave the period open. They did not know at all how this Bill was going to work. It was quite capable for Parliament, when they had had experience of excluding the two windings, to pass another Bill to restrict it further, and that was the wise and the only safe course to adopt. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, it was in the interests of safety. He would like to quote one or two of his words in the Grand Committee. When moving the Amendment about five years which he had promised the right hon. Gentleman said— The Government adhere to the statement which I made to the House to impose the period of five years with both windings excluded, because we thought it was desirable in the interests of safety. There was the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave for moving that Amendment. Their point was that there was danger in winding, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that. For himself, he was astonished that more accidents did not occur. Did the House realise what a pit shaft was? It might be 500 yards deep, with cages travelling and meeting one another at twenty miles an hour. [An HON. MEMBER: Sixty miles an hour.] Well, perhaps at sixty miles an hour. If the period of winding was to be included in the restrictions the temptation would be to speed up and to get the men up and down as quickly as possible. The second reason was that the Bill as it stood, with both windings excluded, would put a restriction on output that would be very large indeed. Calculations had been made as to this, and if they estimated what the restriction of output would be by the diminished available number of persons engaged in bringing the mineral from the work place up to the top of the pit—because that was the proper index to the restriction, and it was not the amount of coal got by the hewer which would have to be taken into consideration, but the amount of coal they could raise to the top of the pit—they would get the amount of the diminished output which would be caused by this Bill. The proper index of restriction was the labour in manipulating the coal from the work place to the pit mouth. If they took that as a basis of calculation, as they would when this Bill became law, it would put a restriction on output of 8.76 per cent., amounting to over 21,000,000 tons per year. Was not that an important question? A much less quantity than that would affect the price of coal. The coal market was very sensitive to the slightest restriction on output. Perhaps 1,000,000 tons might affect the market, but here they had a calculation that the restriction, with the two windings excluded, would represent as much as 21,000,000 tons. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Windsor when he said that if they were going to have an alteration let them have it, for convenience, at one time. The proposal of the Government was now that there should be five years, with the two windings excluded. At the end of the five years, one winding would be excluded, but supposing the one winding was included there will be a further restriction, and the calculation was that a further restriction would perhaps amount to another 5,000,000 tons. That was a very serious matter, not only for the coal owners and coal consumers of the country, but for large industries like the iron and steel industry, and was especially serious in view of foreign competition, in combating which they could not afford to have the price of making steel higher than it was. For these reasons he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.

* Mr. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said he desired to say one or two words on this question, having been a Member of the Grand Committee. He quite acknowledged, as every member of that Committee must admit, that the subject which they were now discussing was one of serious importance. Take the arguments which they had just heard, namely, as to the question of economy and also that of safety. The question of economy seemed to be one on which it was perfectly safe to appeal to past experience, and he had what seemed to him to be an extremely important passage in the Report of the Departmental Committee. They found on page 23 of that Report the evidence of a witness whoso testimony could not possibly be questioned, as regarded either his competence or his experience. If the House would permit him he would read just one passage— Dr. James Dixon, who represented the coal owners of the West of Scotland, stated that in the year 1900, nine to nine and a half hours was the winding shift in the Lanarkshire mines, and that was reduced to eight hours. This was accompanied by a curtailment of meal hours and a 'hurrying up all round.' In answer to the question whether the reduction of working hours resulted in a commensurate diminution of output he replied: 'No, it certainly did not.' In Lancashire we find the produce per man in 1899, the year before the alteration of hours, was 422 tons; in 1901, the year after the alteration, it fell to 407 tons: but in the following year. 1902, it had recovered to 419 tons. That was the product per man. Surely the right hon. Gentleman on that basis would not venture to deny the evidence given by this experienced witness. This applied not only in regard to coal mines, but there was extremely important and valuable evidence given from the Woolwich Arsenal. He would not quote that at length, but it was a case in which some of them who had watched the economic side of this question for some years past, were forced to the conclusion that there was a reserve of working power in the case of every man, whether he was working underground or working elsewhere, and when that reserve of working power was put forward, as it was with reference to the question they were now considering, between those who represented the men and those who represented the masters, surely they might calculate upon that being operative in the case of coal mines as in the case of other great industries in the country. Listening as he did most attentively to a great deal that went on upstairs, it struck him that the general result of the Bill, if carried into law, would be a better understanding between those who represented the masters, and those who represented the men.

* MR. SPEAKER

That is hardly the question now before the House. The hon. Gentleman is making a Third Reading speech.

MR. VERNEY

said he would not pursue that part of his argument further. He merely wished to say that it seemed to him, at all events, that the quotation which he had read to the House was apposite, and very much bore out the contention of those who promoted the Bill.

* THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, Cleveland

said: I think it only right I should say that we should not rely too much on those quotations from the Report of the Committee. With regard to Lanarkshire, the figures quoted by the hon. Member on further inquiry have been shown not to be altogether accurate. The fact remains, however, that in many instances the reduction of hours has not been accompanied by a reduction of output per man. That fact remains as the experience of this and other countries both in regard to mining and other industries. The case of Lanarkshire, which, it is true, does not help the argument very much, is peculiar, and the deduction drawn from it by the hon. Member opposite is not accurate, because in Lanarkshire I am informed, on expert evidence, the collieries are being more and more worked out, they are becoming more and more difficult to work, and they are becoming less and less rich. That is the reason why the output per man is decreasing in that particular coalfield. In order to avoid possible misunderstanding, before we go to a division, I think it necessary to say an additional word as to the reason which has led the Government to propose this period of five years with the exclusion of both windings. It was thought desirable when we first introduced this Bill, for economic reasons to propose that during a period of eighteen months the hours should be nine a day, and that after that period the hours of labour should be reduced to eight hours from bank to bank. That, however, was objected to from the standpoint of the coal owners, who said it would be a great disturbance of trade after too short an interval. In order to meet their views, so far as possible the Government proposed that there should be an intermediate period of five years. Then the question arose, what should be the state of things during that period of five years? It was felt that to make it nine hours for five years would be too wide a departure from the purpose of the Bill. It was decided instead to have an additional half an hour during the period of five years. The question then became how that half hour was to be defined. There were two proposals. We might have said that eight and a half hours should be taken for a period of five years, or that eight hours should be taken for the five years, with both windings excluded, because one winding averages half an hour. The economic effect of either proposal would have been very much the same. We had to determine which of these two methods should be adopted. There came under consideration the question of safety, which has weighed very much with my right hon. friend who has spoken with emphasis upon it on more than one occasion. And it is for that reason that we adopted the method, instead of eight and a half hours a day, of excluding both windings, which is really the same as eight and a half hours a day. There is indeed a possibility that if both windings were included in a period, whatever that period may be, there might be some undue haste. As a matter of course the coal managers do now get the windings done as quickly as they can with due regard to safety. That probably will be so in future. What my right hon. friend has said is this: Not that all the dangers from winding will disappear in the period of five years—he has said that you cannot expect to get rid of all the dangers of winding whether you take a period of five, ten, or 100 years,—but that if you do allow the exclusion of both windings for some period you will reduce pro tanto that risk, and that during the period arrangements will be made by improving the equipment of the mines, by means of three deck cages, by means of additional shafts and so on, to mitigate any dangers of that kind. It is for that reason this method has been adopted. If the two windings were permanently excluded, then it would no longer be an eight hours from bank to bank Bill. Hon. Members tried to get forty minutes extra for refreshment and rest, and now they are trying to secure an extra thirty minutes on the ground of safety. The effect would merely be to establish in perpetuity an eight and a half hours day from bank to bank. For that reason the Government resist the Amendment.

MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

said the change at the end of the five years, would have a very serious effect on the old collieries where a winding sometimes took as much as one hour each way. It would also very seriously affect modern collieries, where the winding took much less time, often being done in as short a time as twelve minutes. He submitted that if this five years were left out, and the windings were permanently excluded, it would not have a serious effect on trade, and would make the Bill much more generally workable throughout. Nor would it have a very serious effect on some of the modern collieries. The hon. Member opposite had quoted a certain paragraph in the Report. He would like to refer him to the general conclusions of the Committee, which, he would find, offered a very different interpretation from that which was brought forward. If he looked at page 60, he would find that though the Committee did not agree in regard to some matters, they reported— That, nevertheless, some diminution of production would follow the statutory reduction of hours, whether introduced gradually or suddenly. They must take that to be the considered view of the Committee as a whole, and it was desirable to refer to that rather than to one piece of evidence in a contrary direction. The Home Secretary had told them that under the Bill they were really making increased provision for safety, because the inspector had to give his sanction to the particular time of of winding that was to be allowed for in each colliery. He laid very great stress on that point, and made out that by enforcing that regulation the Government were making increased provision for safety under the Bill. He could turn to his speech on the Second Reading on the Bill where he went largely into the question of safety, and he would like to quote his words— Very likely some of my hon. friends below the gangway will not agree with me in this, but I have a special responsibility in this matter, and accidents, when they do happen, are serious. A limitation which is unduly sudden may, and probably will, produce some danger. Under Clause 2 of the Bill inspectors have to approve a reasonable winding time. It may be said it ought to be discretionary to secure safety in winding, and, in my opinion, it is not by itself adequate. That appeared to him to be rather contrary to the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that the provision for the inspectors certifying times of winding would be adequate to secure safety for the miners in ascending and descending. He could not reconcile the two statements. He preferred to adhere to the former statement, and he thought that the Government themselves admitted, as they did then, and as the right hon. Gentleman did on the Committee stage of the Bill, that it was not safe for the full effect of the Bill to be brought in at once, and therefore an exemption must be allowed for five years. It was the right and honest thing not to put in the period of five years at all, but at the end of the five years if they found the production of coal had not been seriously diminished and the safety of the miners had not been jeopardised by the restriction of hours already enforced, it would be time for the Government to introduce another Bill imposing further restrictions.

* SIR C. J. CORY (Cornwall, St. Ives)

said the Under-Secretary had told them that the reasons the Government had for excluding the two windings for five years were on economic grounds and on the grounds of safety. The Home Secretary in Committee had laid down very strongly the reason for the ex- clusion of the two windings on the grounds of safety, and yet the Under-Secretary said, notwithstanding the strong reasons adduced in regard to the five years on the grounds of safety, he could not think of making it permanent, because it would destroy the principle of the Bill. Surely it was much more important to ensure the safety of the miners for all time than to preserve the principle of the Bill. Then the Home Secretary said the opponents of the Bill wished to exclude the two windings permanently; but that did not at all follow if it was left out altogether, because, as had been pointed out, there was nothing to prevent a future Parliament amending the Act so as to bring one of the windings in. He would much prefer, instead of excluding the two windings permanently, that the whole Act should be passed for a five years period leaving it for a future Parliament, if it was found that it worked successfully, and was not detrimental to the trade and the other industries of the country, and was appreciated by the miners themselves, to re-enact the provisions of the Bill. He was perfectly sure if that were done that any future Parliament, if it was a success, no matter whether it was a Liberal or a Unionist Government that was in power, would not dare not to re-enact it. They had, indeed, the example of the Agricultural Rating Act, which was passed for a period of five years. It was strenuously opposed by the Party now in power, but apparently it gave satisfaction to the agricultural interests in the country, or it was felt that it would be a revolution not to re-enact it, and the Government which opposed it when in opposition, re-enacted it when they came into power. It had been pointed out that the danger of including the winding period was that it would cause hurry and increase the number of accidents, and they knew from experience that men would hurry even to their own great danger, and were often glad to say a little longer at their work and get home quickly afterwards. In his own experience in the last few years he remembered the case of a dock company where a man was going home across the dock premises, and although there were the strictest regulations laid down by the company that men should never cross underneath trains, but should go over the over-bridges, the man rather than go fifty yards further down to an over-bridge went under a train. The train moved as he was getting under and he was at once killed. There was an instance where for saving a fifty yards walk a man ran a great risk which led to the loss of his life. Even with the two windings excluded it meant a great difference to the trade as it at present existed. It affected a very large number of men. It affected, as was shown by the Home Secretary's speech, 478,000 workers throughout the coalfields of the country, and it affected the time, even when the two windings were excluded, of these men very materially indeed. The time they were underground would be lessened in some cases by nearly an hour and a half. Then they had the example of France. There it only applied to hewers, and they had found it had not been a success. It was possible for the Government there to make exceptions and to exclude all collieries, and it was said the exceptions there were very much greater than the rule. Practically the effect was that hardly any collieries were affected by the Act, and it was ignored more or less by all parties concerned. He still hoped the Government would see their way to allow the two windings to be excluded permanently, and leave it for the future to decide as to what was the best thing that could be done in the interests of all concerned, as to whether they make it include one winding for the future or not.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

said it was amusing to listen to speeches made in the House and to note the difference between them and speeches made outside. Certain Members, in endeavouring to get elected, professed to be in favour of an eight -hours Bill from bank to bank, both windings included, but now that they were there it was eight hours from bank to bank excluding the windings.

SIR C. J. CORY

The name of the Member?

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

Sir Clifford Cory.

SIR C. J. CORY

The hon. Member for Rhondda has stated that I said I was in favour of this Bill before I came into the House. I distinctly and emphatically deny that I ever said anything of the kind. Perhaps he will name the occasion.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

Oh, yes, I can name the occasion very well; it is nothing new to me. The hon. Baronet addressed a body of his own miners in my constituency, and declared that he was in favour of the Miners' Eight-Hours Bill.

SIR C. J. CORY

This is absolutely untrue. I went at the request of the hon. Member for Rhondda to address a meeting in his constituency on the tariff question. He tried to involve me into agreeing with the whole programme of the Mining Federation of Great Britain by saying I came there as a supporter of the Mining Federation's programme. I distinctly said I came with the greatest pleasure to support the hon. Member as candidate there, but I had nothing whatever to do with the Mining Federation's programme. I differed from it in many ways, but that was no reason why I should not come and support him.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

said he had said what he had said, and he left it there. With regard to windings, they knew that in South Wales the men never had a voice in the arrangements made for winding. The arrangements were made distinctly at the dictation of the employers—four days a week in a number of collieries ten hours winding, two days a week seven hours winding. Would the hon. Gentleman deny that with the seven hours winding at the collieries of which he was part owner they were raising now, and had been for years, within 10 per cent. of what they raised in the long day of ten hours.

SIR C. J. CORY

The hon. Member made some personal reference, but I did not catch it.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

said that in the South Wales collieries—in the collieries of which the hon. Gentleman is a part owner—they have four long days and two short ones, notwithstanding any danger there might be, and the arrangement was made by the employers and the men had no voice in it, and they raised in the seven hours within 10 per cent. of what they raised in the long day of ten hours.

SIR C. J. CORY

No, nothing like it.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

said that before the Departmental Committee two of the great engineers of South Wales gave evidence. One said distinctly that the coal hewers could and did produce 10 per cent. more coal proportionately in a short day of seven hours on Saturday than they did on the four long days of ten hours, and that had been known for a number of years, and his experience was a very broad and general one indeed. But a man was expected to sit there and hear all these statements—

MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

We have to sit and listen to all this nonsense.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

said that if one could believe that these arrangements had been made in the interests of the men one could sit down and hear these statements, but the men were used to try to prove certain things in which they never had any voice and he thought it was time for the House to understand that these speeches were made distinctly in favour of the employers and to the detriment of the workmen.

MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said he strongly deprecated the attempt of hon. Members below the gangway on both sides of the House to stifle the opinions of those who represented constituencies vitally interested in this great question; but notwithstanding that attempt he had something to say upon this point and he intended to take that opportunity of stating it. To his mind if they had to have a Bill of this description it was absolutely necessary that they should have an Eight Hours Bill exclusive of both windings, and the very fact that they had heard such an extraordinary statement recently from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office proved the necessity for that. The right hon. Gentleman told them that they had to occupy five years in providing means of further safety for those going in and out of the mines. The very fact that he had acknowledged that it was necessary to have further precautions taken to ensure the safety of the miners showed that there was a danger connected with the operation of winding. Then he made the extraordinary statement that in the five years the mine owner I had to occupy his time in sinking further shafts and altering the cages. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what the operation of sinking a shaft meant? Was he aware that in the county of Durham there were shafts being sunk at present which had occupied years in sinking and had not yet reached the coal, although they had called in French and German experts and tried all means to sink the shaft? When they went into a theatre they saw emergency exits to be used in case of danger. It was not so easy to put these emergency exits into mines. With regard to the question of altering the cages from two to three deckers, did the right hon. Gentleman know what undoubtedly the experts below the gangway connected with mines knew perfectly well, that the shaft, the winding machinery, and the engine were designed for the cage? Ail the strains were calculated for, and probably the machinery that was necessary and fit for two-deck cages was absolutely unfit for three deckers. These were practical difficulties. It clearly showed they had not considered the Bill. They were not practical man, and they had not consulted practical men in drawing up the Bill, and yet hon. Members below the gangway tried to stifle any person who pointed out these difficulties. The hon. Member for Rhondda twitted the hon. Baronet opposite that he had been returned to the House after announcing himself to be in favour of an Eight Hours Bill. At any rate the hon. Member could not say that in regard io him. He was sent there without any pledge whatever to support the Bill; he thought he had a mandate which was very clear to oppose it. He quite recognised the difficulty in regard to the winding operation. They all knew the eagerness with which men left their work at the time for ceasing it. They had only to look at any building when the bell rang, or, as they called it in the North, the buzzer went, and see how every man came down the ladder and left the scaffolding as quickly as possible. There was a danger undoubtedly connected with the winding operation, and from the fact that the Government had made such an extraordinary proposal it was evident that they recognised it. The danger was not to be got over by extending the period to three or five years. It was a danger now, and it would be a danger three or five years hence. He supposed the result of the hurry which would be caused by the Bill would be that they would have a species of whip down the mine to hurry the men to the cages, and instead of hearing, as they did in the lobbies, the cry of "Door, door," they would hear the cry of "Whip, whip" to get to the cages as quickly as possible. They objected to any interference with the hours of actual labour, because they believed it would reduce the production of coal, and any reduction of coal inevitably raised the price far and away beyond what anyone could foretell, and therefore, he strongly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to trouble himself with the three or five years.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

said he understood they were going to take two divisions without further debate upon the proposal of five years, and he felt bound to say a word or two in reference to the proposal. He understood the Members who represented labour accepted the five years. As regarded the three and five years he did not propose to say anything except that it was adequately discussed in Committee. As regarded the two other points which arose upon this question, the first was that two disturbances would ensue, one when the Bill came into operation, and the other when the alteration took place five years hence. He should like to point out the almost absolute impossibility of avoiding a strike on both those occasions, which would be extremely disastrous to the country, and to the men and the employers alike. To show what the probability of that strike was, he would only refer to the fact that the day-wage men employed in the coal trade numbered hundreds of thousands. They had had it pointed out that in practice these men were working for twelve hours in. Lancashire and ten hours in South Wales, and now suddenly they were to have, the enormous boon that for the same wages they were only to work eight hours a day. Unless some rearrangement was made that must add to the cost of coal getting. All these men, he thought, were members of trade unions, and he rejoiced in the fact because they had to deal with the very able leaders of those trade unions in effecting conciliation and getting rid of disputes. Still there was the fact that they had to adjust the relations of, labour so far as regarded the men receiving a rate of wages, and suddenly having their work reduced by 20 per cent. Whilst he hoped, with the assistance of the labour leaders, that they might avoid a strike, yet he had very great doubts looking at the number of times the pits were stopped and the men drawn out for reasons much more trivial than would arise from this adjustment of labour. In addition to this there was the adjustment of labour as regarded the hewers. They heard that the hewer would do so much more work that in eight hours he would earn the same wages as in ten, but the question was whether the hewer would be content to work harder at the same rate per ton that he was paid now.

MR. MARKHAM

On a point of order, is the discussion which the hon. Member is now going into in order?

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

submitted that it was quite in order to show the probability of a strike taking place in consequence of the alteration of the hours of labour.

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL,) Lanarkshire, Mid.

I may point out to the hon. Member that the principle of an eight-hours day has already been determined by the House on an Amendment to leave out subsection (1). The House is now dealing with a proposed modification during a certain limited period after the commencement of the Act. The Amendment with consequential Amendments seeks to remove the limit of time.

SIR C. J. CORY

Is not the hon. Member arguing against the changes which will be effected by this Amendment?

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was only calling attention to the limits of the discussion. I was not giving a ruling on the hon. Member's remarks.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

said he really did not think he was out of order, because this question of the two dates was a very material part of the Bill. What he wanted to say was that, owing to the fact of this difference in the wages the men would get either less coal and less wages, or more coal and harder work, and it was almost certain that when this disturbance took place there would be a strike unless very great consideration and forbearance were exorcised. If that was the case at the present time, why did they say that in five years they were going to alter it again and allow a period of seven and a half hours? When that alteration took place, if for seven and a half hours work a man would receive the same wages, an adjustment would have to be made, with the absolute result that in five years they would be face to face again with a quarrel, or, at all events, a discussion, and they would have to arrive at a decision, with the result that another strike might take place. He disliked strikes and did his best to avoid them, but he was absolutely certain that the dealing with this question in two periods meant two strikes, and he thought the House ought to consider that when they were inserting words about five years. What was the reason for the five years term? It had been plainly stated by the Government and by the miners in accepting three years, that for perfect safety it was desirable to have a buffer term in which to work,

	AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barran, Rowland Hirst	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Agnew, George William	Beale, W. P.	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bowerman, C. W.	Byles, William Pollard
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Brace, William	Cameron, Robert
Balcarres, Lord	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cawley, Sir Frederick
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brigg, John	Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Barker, Sir John	Brooke, Stopford	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Barlow Sir John E. (Somerset)	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., 'Leigh)	Clancy, John Joseph

and that it was also desirable to exclude, two windings from the pit. He would much prefer that the Government had arranged this clause so as to exclude the two windings and have seven and a half hours work in the pit. That would have been more satisfactory, because the exclusion of the two windings tended to safety, and in the opinion of all mine owners and mine agents that he had ever come across, was the best and most proper manner of dealing with this matter. But apparently the Government, having admitted the principle that excluding the two windings was a means of safety, said: "Oh! we will leave it to you so to arrange that at the end of five years you may have a plan, and then, although at present we only have it in our imagination that there, will be a plan, we shall make these two windings separate." That seemed to him to be the height of folly. It was a post, obit and meant that in five years they would give them a promise of safety which they could not back at the present moment. It was obvious that it was unsafe to have two terms. The difficulty might be obviated by a fresh Act of Parliament when the question arose. It could be dealt with by the men themselves. The Government, however, were going to undertake to do five years hence what they could not do now, and that seemed to him, although perhaps like other actions of the present Government, to be not at all in consonance with the business habits of any business man, who desired to conduct his affairs in accordance with the care and consideration which events of to-day required.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 446.)

Cleland, J. W.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Clough, William	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Robinson, S.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Jowett, F. W.	Rowlands, J.
Cooper, G. J.	Joyce, Michael	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cowan, W. H.	Kekewich, Sir George	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Crean, Eugene	Kettle, Thomas Michael	Sears, J. E.
Crooks, William	Kilbride, Denis	Seddon, J.
Crossley, William J.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford	Shackleton, David James
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lambert, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lamont, Norman	Sheehy, David
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dillon, John	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lehmann, R. C.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Levy, Sir Maurice	Soares, Ernest J.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lewis, John Herbert	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Erskine, David C.	Lundon, W.	Staveley, Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Steadman, W. C.
Fenwick, Charles	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Ferens, T. R.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Ffrench, Peter	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Summerbell, T.
Findlay, Alexander	Macpherson, J. T.	Sutherland, J. E.
Flynn, James Christopher	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Callum, John M.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Crae, Sir George	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Gilhooly, James	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Gill, A. H.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Ginnell, L.	M'Micking, Major G.	Tomkinson, James
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Mallet, Charles E.	Toulmin, George
Glendinning, R. G.	Mansfield, Harry (Northants)	Verney, F. W.
Glover, Thomas	Markham, Arthur Basil	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester'
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Marnham, F. J.	Walsh, Stephen
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Massie, J.	Walton, Joseph
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Hall, Frederick	Meagher, Michael	Wardle, George J.
Halpin, J.	Menzies, Walter	Waring, Walter
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Middlebrook, William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Molteno, Percy Alport	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Hart-Davies, T.	Mond, A.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Watt, Henry A.
Harwood, George	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Myer, Horatio	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Nannet, Joseph P.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Helme, Norval Watson	Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset law)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Henry, Charles S.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Higham, John Sharp	O'Doherly, Philip	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Hodge, John	O'Dowd, John	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hogan, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Horniman, Emslie John	Pollard, Dr.	Winfrey, R.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Hudson, Walter	Power, Patrick Joseph
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Redmond, William (Clare)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Idris, T. H. W.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Jenkins, J.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

	NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Bull, Sir William James	Clive, Percy Archer
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Carlile, E. Hildred	Cory, Sir Clifford John
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Cox, Harold
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks-	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Craik, Sir Henry
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Chance, Frederick William	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Faber, George Denison (York)	Lupton, Arnold	Ridsdale, E. A.
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Fell, Arthur	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Fletcher, J. S.	Morpeth, Viscount	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Forster, Henry William	Morrison-Bell, Captain	Stanier, Beville
Gardner, Ernest	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield	Starkey, John R.
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Parkes, Ebenezer	Thornton, Percy M.
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Paulton, James Mellor	Younger, George
Hill, Sir Clement	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Mr. Beck and Mr. Bowles.
Lowe, Sir Francis William	Renwick, George

MR. GLADSTONE

This next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 13, to leave out the word 'three,' and to insert the word 'five.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the clause."

MR. KEIR HARIHE

did not think they could allow this Amendment to go through without protest, although they on those benches would not attempt to discuss it. He understood that the Miners' Federation had agreed to allow the "three" to go out and the "five" to be inserted. That was, in his opinion, a very serious blunder. He did not understand that either "three" or "five" was in the Bill now, and unless their hon. friends opposite forced a division they would not take any action in doing so. They left it to their responsible friends opposite.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,) Glamorganshire, Mid

I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is going to take that course. I think the action of hon. Gentlemen has been eminently wise. They have made this arrangement in order to secure the Bill, and, after all, the five years will not be so great a disadvantage as it would be if the Bill did not become law.

MR. BOWLES

understood that the Question would be put that the word "three" stand part. If that was so, since for his part he objected to any term, either of "three" or "five," it would be his duty, at any rate, to vote for the leaving out of the word "three." It would then be a matter for further consideration what word should be moved in. He desired to make that explanation in order that his position might be clear.

Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'five' be there inserted."

* MR. RUSSELL REA (Gloucester)

said that in opposing "five years," hedesired to substitute a more cautious graduation in instituting an eight hour day for miners. His desire, which would be carried out by the insertion of his Amendment was to restore the Bill to its original form so far as the first eighteen months of its operation was concerned. The original form was nine hours for eighteen months, then eight hours. The present form was eight and a half hours for three years (or five years), and then eight hours. He moved this because he considered a nine hours limit to be as great a step as it was safe to take in the first instance, and he would remind the House it was as great a step as was contemplated as a first step by the miners' representatives in the House in their own Bill of last year and of this year, as well as by the Government when they introduced this Bill. He could perfectly well understand his right hon. friend desiring to postpone the full operation of the Act for five years, a period which the Committee upstairs reduced to three years. But he could not understand why he thought it necessary, in order to secure an additional half hour's work for the whole of this period, to surrender the additional hour for the first eighteen months. These two objects were incompatible. The additional hour provided by the original Bill for the first eighteen months would have fitted in perfectly well with the proposal to permit the smaller extension of half an hour for the rest of the three years or five years as the case might be. On even possible occasion he had endeavoured to impress upon the House the fact that the greatest difficulty in the institution of an eight hour day in mines was to be found in the extraordinary differences in the hours and in the habits of the different mining districts of the country. The eight and a half hours day which it was proposed to establish for three years by the Bill would cause no change at all in the hours and customs of East Scotland or of Lanarkshire, although it might contract the working day somewhat in Ayrshire. It would affect few collieries in Yorkshire. In the Midlands it would take about half an hour from the full working day; and in Staffordshire something less than half an hour. But in Lancashire it would mean a reduction of one and a half hours in the full working day of many collieries, and in South Wales of no less than two hours on the four full days of the working week. In those two districts this first step, which was to be taken on 1st July, was a far greater step than the second, which would follow in three or five years. Its consequences, not only to the coal industries of those districts, but to all the local industries, were likely to be something more than embarrassing. He did not like to use the language of exaggeration, and he would not say disastrous or ruinous, but it must place those districts and all their industries and inhabitants in a position of relative disadvantage, and injure their competitive efficiency. In instituting a change of this character in a great industry it ought surely to be the first object to make it with the greatest possible regard to local conditions and local difficulties. And when it was found that local circumstances and conditions differed to so great an extent as they did in this industry, it would surely seem to be most reasonable to begin by a process of levelling up from the bottom—to begin with districts in which the hours were now the longest, and thus give them a chance of bringing themselves gradually into line with the more advanced localities. He knew that some members of the coal trade advocated making the entire change, if it was to be made, at one step. But these men had all along been the most determined enemies of making the change at all, and they did not pretend they made that proposal in the interest of the coal consumers, or the public at large. The Members of the House who represented the miners had never adopted that attitude, they had recognised the initial difficulties in applying the eight hours rule, and they had not asked for, and did not now, in their own Bill, ask for as drastic a first step as that now proposed by this Bill. If he were asked what would be the value of this half hour to the districts which must, in any case, reduce three or four half hours from their full working days, he would reply that its value for the first eighteen months would be immense, and out of all proportion to the other half hours docked from the day. Both in Lancashire and South Wales it would be possible to make many readjustments in their methods which would go far to neutralise the effects of the first hour taken from working time. In Lancashire by reduction or abolition of fixed stop hours and meal hours; and in South Wales by rearrangement of short and long working days; but the third and fourth half hour must be taken from the most productive time of the shift. It was assumed by many that if the Bill came into operation in a time of bad trade, of small demand, and general unemployment, it would come, as it were, without observation. Nothing could be more erroneous. He would remind the House that they were dealing in this Bill with a very inelastic industry, the most inelastic of all our industries. It was an industry of steady growth and expansion. This expansion took place, not by a leap forward in good times and then a stoppage, but by a steady growth through good and bad times almost alike. It would not respond to the stimulus of demand except in the matter of price; scarcely at all in the matter of quantity produced. It varied little from year to year in the quantity produced per man, and then not in any regular sympathy with demand. In fact, in times of the greatest demand such as the year 1900, the quantity produced per man had been known to diminish. In this year, which was supposed to be a year of great depression, the coal production was going on pretty much as usual. They did not know the total production yet, but if they took the foreign trade exports and bunkers together for the past eleven months, they found that in a trade of nearly 78,000,000 tons there had only been a decline of exactly 100,000 tons or one-eighth of 1 per cent. There was, therefore, no chance of a sudden expansion of production from the employment of unemployed colliers. They were told that all former prophecies of disaster and ruin to trade to follow restrictive regulations imposed by Parliament had proved baseless, and this would be like the others. He thought that argument could not be brought against him. He had devoted a considerable part of the Report of his Committee to the analysis, and he believed to a destructive analysis of such prophecies. But he found a solid kernel inside a prodigious husk in those prognostications. And that solid kernel was to be found in the more backward districts, in which the industry was less well organised, less modern, and in same respects less efficient, particularly in Lancashire and in South Wales. It was to bring the pressure first upon those districts—a moulding and not a crushing pressure—that he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper in his name. He had spoken as a friend of the Bill, and not as its enemy. His life-long knowledge of the industry, and his late investigations had convinced him that it could be carried on with an eight-hours day, with great benefit to the workmen and without injury either to the employers or the general public, if it were properly organised. The whole difficulty, in his opinion, was in the period of transition and in the organisation; and it was with the hope of reducing this difficulty to a point within the limits of safety that he ventured to submit his proposal to the Government and to the House.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

, on a point of order, said that the title of the Bill was "Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill." Yesterday Mr. Speaker ruled that it was an Eight Hours Bill. An Amendment had been submitted providing for an Eight and a Half Hours Bill.

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL)

No Amendment is competent to the question which is before the House, viz., that "five" be there inserted. A counter period, however, may be suggested in discussion.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said he believed that this Amendment would involve a triple operation of the Bill coming into force. It had always been held by those acquainted with the working of mines, that it was far better in the interests of the public, the employers, and the men, that when Parliament did insist on this change in the law they should raise the question fairly and squarely at once, and deal with it in one operation. The proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester raised a number of extremely interesting points, but he thought they could not vote for a double or triple operation of the Bill coming into force.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member who had just spoken has said truly that my hon. friend the Member for Gloucester has raised a number of interesting points which it would not be desirable to decide on now, and for the reason that they involve very close examination of the whole economic problems involved in this very difficult question. Let me say that my hon. friend himself stated that his proposal is limited to the transition period, that it did not relate to the future, to the more permanent results of the Bill, but only to certain disturbances, which he fears may be produced by the Bill coming into operation at too early a date. I frankly admit the great authority of my hon. friend. Everybody who has studied the Report of the Committee will admit that my friend had a guiding hand in the composition of that Report, and that he is entitled to speak with great authority on economic questions connected with mines and mining. Having regard to the present position of the coal industry, and the long notice which the employers have had, with all due deference I question my hon. friend's view that his particular method of inaugurating the Bill is preferable to that proposed by the Government. He said for example, that it will be necessary to consider the arrangements with regard to the men's wages and meals. I agree that that is a matter of very considerable importance, and I believe that more time is necessary to consider various other matters which have to be arranged by mine owners and managers before the Act begins to operate. But I would recall to the House that under the Bill as it stands, the country generally will have fully six months for completing their arrangements; and that the Bill was practically introduced eighteen months ago in its final form. At any rate, hon. Members must agree that distinct notice was given, so far as the Government is concerned, of the intention to deal with this question. And that was not the first notice; for a year before that the Government announced that they intended to deal with the question; so that for nearly three years mine owners have been possessed of information that the Government meant to introduce legislation on this question. All this time the most far-seeing mine owners, I will not say all, have been discussing and elaborating plans with regard to the possible operations of the Bill. That being so, and having got six months further notice, I cannot see that there is much in the argument that further time is necessary for making arrangements. As I understand it, my hon. friend suggests that in order to give more time to the mine owners to make their arrangements the men should work eight and a half hours during the three years after the commencement of the Act, and during the next succeeding eighteen months, eight hours. I must say that I could not be satisfied with that. The mine owners would not accept his suggestion, because it means three separate stages of the Bill coming into operation, whereas they want it to come into operation at once. Needless to say, the miners would not accept it. The Government could not go so far as to meet the mine owners; and their proposal was that the changes should come on in two stages. For these reasons I cannot accept the proposal of my hon. friend.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

I do not intend to say much on this point, but it is of very great importance. My own personal view is that by far the best arrangement would be to have any change that is decided upon made immediately, and when once brought into operation that it should be made permanent. But that is not the point before the House. The point is whether we should have the three stages of the Chairman of the Committee, or the two stages of the Government. As I have expressed my preference for a one-stage process, of course, logically, I am bound to vote for the two-stage process in preference to the three stage process. The hon. Gentleman speaks with all the authority of immense knowledge gained when he was Chairman of the Committee of Investigation; and I think his opinions are well worth listening to; but speaking quite frankly, I do not think he has given us full material for consideration, and I do not know now what is to be gained by this slower adjustment. What is the kind of adjustment? Is it an adjustment between the employer and the employee, or between the producer and the consumer, or is it both? That is a very important question. Take the case of Lancashire or South Wales, which the hon. Gentleman called "backward districts." By "backward" the hon. Gentleman may mean simply that they have longer hours, or that they are backward in plant and organisation.

* MR. RUSSELL REA

I mean in organisation; but both go together.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Is the plant in South Wales and Lancashire, then, so far different from that which exists in Leicestershire? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Well, if that represents the true facts of the case, and if a longer time were given to Lancashire mine owners to bring the machinery up to date, then the Amendment would not be required. But if Lancashire is not behind Leicestershire or Midlothian in machinery it must be that for traditional or economic reasons Lancashire works longer hours. How is that going to be improved by deferring the time at which the arrangement between employers and employed is to take place? All these readjustments involve difficulties, and I do not see that those difficulties will be lessened in any degree because you have eighteen months rather than six months to quarrel over the matter.

* MR. RUSSELL REA

The adjustment is not at the end of six months but at the beginning.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I understand that the adjustment is agreed upon at the beginning of the period, and not at the end; but as soon as it is agreed upon the effect will be there. If it is only a question between employer and employed, and if an arrangement can be come to at once, I cannot, for the life of me, see how, so far as these two classes are concerned, there can be any improvement by a slower adjustment. If I am right in my point of view as regards employer and employed, how about the consumer and the producer? I am afraid that under this Bill the consumer may suffer heavily; but will the consumer suffer less by these changes being delayed? I do not see that it would make the slightest difference. The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out how inelastic this producing trade was; and unless in the eighteen months new machinery or new methods of production are going to be brought into operation which will minimise the loss to the consumer, I cannot see how the consumer is to be affected one way or the other by postponing the term from six to eighteen months. I am quite aware that in coal-mining, as in all other industries, we move in a progressive age; and we cannot say that in eighteen months any invention for the production of coal will have a very material bearing on the cost of this universally necessary material. Of the two proposals I prefer that of the Government; although personally I would do my best to have the thing settled once and for all.

* MR. LUPTON

said that Lancashire was celebrated for the excellence of its machinery, and that South Wales had adopted the best mechanism which the coal owners could find. What the hon. Member meant was that they were behind in human arrangements; in the length of the hours which they worked; that they worked longer in Lancashire and South Wales than in some other parts of the country. If they went from ten and a half hours a day, which was the time they worked at present in South Wales, to eight and a half hours a day there was a reduction of 20 per cent. in the time worked. That would produce a reduction of 20 per cent. in the output and in the wages, and would cause great disturbance in the labour and coal markets. Now the proposal was, instead of reducing it by eight and a half hours, to reduce it by nine hours, and if that was done they would be able to speed the men up so that the output would be larger than it would proportionately be, the reduction of wages would be less, the reduction of the amount of coal in the market would be loss, and the inducement to strike would be less. There were certain conditions in human nature which must be complied with, and with ten and a half hours they could not speed the men up, but if they limited them to nine hours they could do so. If he had his way he would have ten processes and make the reduction ten times, and that was the only way in which a great crisis could be avoided. He approved the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucester, which, if it could be adopted, was, he thought, much bettor than the proposal of the Government. He found it a difficult thing to vote against the word "five," because if that were struck out he did not know what might be put in; but he should prefer in the interests of the consumer as well as in the interests of the miner to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucester.

Mr. MARKHAM

said the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester and that of the hon. Member for Sleaford were completely misleading. They did not work ten and a half hours; the Secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation assured him that there was not one mine in South Wales which worked ten and a half hours a day; they worked seven hours on Monday and Saturday, and ten hours on other days. He granted that this Bill would mean a reduction of from 5t to 48 hours. With reference to the three settlements might he say this? He believed that the Mining Association of Great Britain, and the majority of the coal owners in the country, recognised that they were going to have difficulties in bringing this Bill into operation, and if they were going to have these troubles and difficulties on three occasions instead of two it would make it much more difficult for the coal owners to settle down with their men. If the Leader of the Opposition thought he could make party capital out of the Bill because of dearer coal, he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that contracts which were made now for next year's supply of coal had been for the whole of the year at prices lower

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Fell, Arthur	Kekewich, Sir George
Agnew, George William	Fenwick, Charles	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Ainworth, John Stirling	Ferens, T. R.	Kilbride, Denis
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Ffrench, Peter	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Findlay, Alexander	Laidlaw, Robert
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Flynn, James Christopher	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle, of Wight)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lambert, George
Barker, Sir John	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lamont, Norman
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barnes, G. N.	Gill, A. H.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Ginnell, L.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Beale, W. P.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lehmann, R. C.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Glendinning, R. G.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Boland, John	Glover, Thomas	Lewis, John Herbert
Bowerman, C. W.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David
Brace, William	Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Lundon, W.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brigg, John	Guiland, John W.	Mardonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Brooke, Stopford	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hull, Frederick	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Halpin, J.	Macpherson, J. T.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Cameron, Robert	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	M'Callum, John M.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hart-Davies, T.	M'Crac, Sir George
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Chance, Frederick William	Harwood, George	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Claiming, Sir Francis Allston	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hayden, John Patrick	Mallet, Charles E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hedges, A. Paget	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cleland, J. W.	Helme, Norval Watson	Marnham, F. J.
Clough, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Massie, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Henry, Charles S.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Meagher, Michael
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Paneras, W.	Higham, John Sharp	Menzies, Walter
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Hodge, John	Middlebrook, William
Cooper, G. J.	Hogan, Michael	Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Holland, Sir William Henry	Mond, A.
Cowan, W. H.	Hooper, A. G.	Morrell, Philip
Cox, Harold	Horniman, Emslie John	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Crooks, William	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard
Crosfield, A. H.	Hudson, Walter	Myer, Horatio
Crossley, William J.	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Idris, T. H. W.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Delany, William	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Morton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Panoras, N.	Jenkins, J.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Nuttall, Harry
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Johnson, W. (Kuneaton)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.
Erskine, David C.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Essex, R. W.	Jowett, F. W.	O'Dowd, John
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Joyce, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

than those which had been made for several years. Only this week the railway companies had made their contracts in South Yorkshire at 2s. 6d. a ton less than they paid before.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes,47. (Division List No. 447.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Walton, Joseph
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pollard, Dr.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wardle, George J.
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Soares, Ernest J.	Waring, Walter
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Steadman, W. C.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Watt, Henry A.
Robinson, S.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Summerbell, T.	White, Sir Luke (York. E. R.)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Sutherland, J. E.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Rowlands, J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williams, Osmund (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.
Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras. S.)
Scars, J. E.	Thorne, William (West Ham)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Seddon, J.	Tomkinson, James	Winfrey, R.
Shackleton, David James	Toulmin, George	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Verney, F. W.
Sheehy, David	Vivian, Henry	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Walsh, Stephen

NOES
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fletcher, J. S.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester	Gardner, Ernest	Ridsdale, E. A.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eeclesall)
Beck, A. Cecil	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hill, Sir Clement	Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred	Houston, Robert Paterson	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kerry, Earl of	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Younger, George
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Craik, Sir Henry	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Renwick.
Cross, Alexander	M'Arthur, Charles
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)

* MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, College, is unnecessary. It is already provided for in the interpretation Act. Those standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury are already disposed of, and the other Amendments standing on page 12 are consequential. The Amendment on page 13, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford is disposed of by what has just been decided, and the other Amendments with regard to inserting the letter (c) are unnecessary. It is a printer's error, and I will undertake that it is corrected.

MR. BOWLES moved to amend sub-section (2) of the clause by extending to "other persons whose hours below ground are proscribed by this Act" as well as to "workmen" the exemption from the penalties of being below ground after the statutory hours if they were in the mine for the purpose of meeting any danger. The House would fee that the subsection contained an exception from the general rule of the Bill, which provided that no person was to be below ground in a mine for the purpose of his work more than eight hours in any consecutive twenty-four hours. The subsection, however, provided that in certain cases, such as if any workman was below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident or for meeting any danger or for dealing with any emergency the general provision of the measure should not apply. His object was to extend that exemption so that it would apply not only to any "workman," but to any person or persons working below ground whose hours were prescribed by the Bill. There were many persons working below ground who would not come within the description of workmen. Some of this class of persons were dealt with later on and their cases were met by a special exemption. Others had no exemption, but there was no reason in the world why such an exemption should not be extended to all other persons working in the mine whose hours were in any way affected by the Act. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any distinction in his mind, but he should like to hoar from him if he had. He bogged to move.

SIR F. BANBURY

seconded the Amendment which he said was necessary for all workmen or persons below ground whose hours were prescribed by the Bill. That was to say, it would allow a contracting out of the period of eight hours for any workman or person whose hours were prescribed by the Bill who was below ground after the eight hours had expired for the purpose of meeting any danger. The Amendment was moved because there might be a difficulty as to whether the word "workman" applied to all these persons. There might be men below ground who could not be described as workmen, but whose hours were regulated by the Bill, and it was necessary to provide that in cases of danger or emergency everybody who was below ground should be enabled to escape from the provisions of the Bill if he was there for the purpose of meeting danger. He could not conceive that there was any possible objection to the Amendment. It was really a drafting Amendment and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 26, after the word 'workman,' to insert the words 'or person whose hours below ground are prescribed by tins Act.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

The Amendment raises a question as to who is, and who is not, a workman within the provisions of this Bill, whose presence below ground will be perfectly excusable or justifiable in cases of danger, accident, and so forth. I think the intention of the mover of the Amendment and of the hon. baronet who seconded, was to make it perfectly clear that a person who was engaged in preventing fire or danger from arising should have an exemption from the provisions of this Bill as to hours. The definition of "workman" is to be found at the foot of page 2 of the Bill in subsection (7) of this section. It says— For the purposes of this Act the expression 'workman' means any person employed in a mine below ground who is not an official of the mine or a mechanic or housekeeper, or a person engaged solely in surveying or measuring. And I think it is clear that a person of the class of fireman or deputy is a workman within the meaning of the provision which we are now discussing, and therefore it is not absolutely necessary to have any words at all in order to confer upon them the exemption which is here extended to the workman who is there to deal with danger. If a fireman is an official he does not come within the scope of the Bill at all, and if he is a workman he does come within the provision we are now discussing. But in order to make it perfectly clear I am willing, when we come to line 40 on the next page, to insert the words "other than a fireman, examiner, or deputy." Then the subsection would read: "For the purposes of the Act the expression 'workman' moans any person employed in a mine below ground who is not an official of the mine other than a fireman, examiner, or deputy." That will show quite clearly that the fireman, examiner, or deputy will be within the word "workman," though they are sometimes described as officials. If those words are inserted the Amendment of the hon. member will be fully met, but I should prefer to insert them when we come to that portion of the Bill.

MR. BOWLES

said that in view of the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which he thought was a very fair one, he did not think he should be justified in dividing the House. He therefore asked leave to withdraw

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

said the Amendment standing in his name was nothing more than a drafting Amendment. The whole of this sub-clause caused a great deal of discussion upstairs, because, after having passed the general provision that no workman should be under ground for more than eight hours, it became necessary to consider very carefully under what circumstances exceptions and exemptions should be made, and the latter part of this clause was framed with a view of safeguarding the interests of the miners and the mine owner, and if possible preventing any accident arising. The clause as it stood read thus— Nor shall any contravention of the foregoing provisions be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident, or for meeting any danger. And it was proposed to insert after the word "meeting," the words "or preventing." He understood that the Homo Secretary had undertaken to consider this Amendment, which was suggested, he would remember, in Committee. The only object was to avoid any possibility of any accident happening. If a man was enabled to meet a danger when it occurred, then, of course, it was far more important that he should endeavour to prevent the danger from arising and should be protected in so doing. If it was necessary that a workman, as defined by this Bill, should be under-ground for more than eight hours with a view to meet any danger happening, it was, he contended, necessary that he should be protected if he was there to prevent the possibility of any danger. He begged to move.

MR. HICKS BEACH

begged to second the Amendment, which, he thought, was a reasonable one. It was only proposed as a safeguard, and it was really a drafting Amendment, introduced, he thought, to carry out the express intentions of the Committee. They were told in the Committee upstairs that the words, "for meeting any danger" were the same in regard to meaning as preventing any danger. That was much too large a pill for some of them to swallow. But they had not the assistance upstairs of a Law Officer of the Crown, and had to consider the clause by themselves. But it occurred to some of them that "meeting" and "preventing" were not the same thing, and therefore they proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, after the word 'meeting,' to insert the words 'or preventing.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

Neither the word "meeting" nor the word "preventing" is a legal term, and it is quite unnecessary to go through the form of giving them a legal construction, and anybody is qualified to express an opinion as to the meaning of those words as English words. I really think they do mean the same thing, and I do not think it is necessary to put in the words "or preventing" at all. The hon. Member for the University of London talks about meeting a danger when it occurs. But this does not necessarily refer to a danger that has occurred. It is a danger of something happening. I really do not think the words are necessary, though if I thought they were any good I would put them in. If any alteration were desired at all, I should suggest the word "apprehension" or "apprehended." But I do not think that these words are necessary, or apt, or quite intelligible, therefore I appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

said he certainly could not agree with the hon. Member as to there being no difference between "meeting" and "preventing." If, however, he would accept the word "apprehended," he should be willing to withdraw. Would he accept that?

SIR S. EVANS

Oh! yes; I made the offer and I will accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR F. BANBURY moved to insert after "danger" the words "or apprehended danger."

MR. GLADSTONE

Does the hon. Member want to put in the word "apprehended" before "danger"? (Cries of "No.")

SIR F. BANBURY

said he was very anxious to be explicit, but the right hon. Gentleman did not understand him. He moved to put in the words "or apprehended danger," so that it would read; "or for meeting any danger or apprehended danger."

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 3, after the word 'danger,' to insert the words 'or apprehended danger.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

I do not think that is quite the offer I made, but I have no objection. I can only say that if further criticism is made elsewhere the language may be altered, but, however that may be, I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton) moved to omit the words "or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with the ordinary work of the mines or of any district of the mine." He said he moved the Amendment because the representatives of the miners believed that if these words were left in they would load to unnecessary confusion in the working of the Bill. They believed they would lead to litigation and labour troubles and prevent the Bill working smoothly. For those reasons he begged to move that those words be struck out.

MR. HODGE (Lancashire, Gorton)

formally seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 3, to leave out from word 'danger' to end of line 7.'"—(Mr. W. T. Wilson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'through' in page 2, line 4, stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member has moved his Amendment in the fewest possible words and I shall endeavour to emulate his example and reply in the fewest possible words. This Amendment upon which a statutory issue was raised in Committee between myself and the hon. Member was duly dealt with. I refrain from going over the ground again. I can only say what I said then, that I cannot accept it.

MR. BOWLES

said the right hon. Gentleman had said, with truth, that this Amendment raised an issue, and his answer to that issue was that he had already dealt with it upstairs. He would just like, in this instance, to point out that the issue raised was not only with regard to this Amendment, but was an issue between the hon. Member who moved it and the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have just said so.

MR. BOWLES

said that these words were necessary for the purpose of dealing with emergencies or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which required to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine. Those were the words that the hon. Gentleman wanted to get rid of, and in support of his contention he said that if they allowed people to be below ground after eight hours under these circumstances they would shortly have labour troubles. That put the matter in a rather different light, because if it meant anything at all it meant that those who most desired the Bill desired to have the eight hours at all costs. Whether there was serious danger or not, whether serious emergencies were involved or not, in any circumstances, except those of absolute security of life and limb, everything was to go by the board to secure that there should be only eight hours labour. That appeared to him to be an untenable and an indefensible position, and he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman who desired to assume that position made so short a speech.

Amendment negatived.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS moved to omit the words "through unforeseen circumstances," and he had no doubt that the Government would accept that Amendment. He did not see how the Government could possibly define what "unforeseen circumstances" were. It must inevitably give rise to serious trouble if those words were left in. The position was sufficiently defined by the words which followed, which were "which require to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine." Whether those circumstances were foreseen or not foreseen it was surely desirable that persons should remain down in the mine for the purposes of dealing with any emergency or work which had to be completed without interruption in order to prevent serious interference with ordinary work in the mine. He therefore begged to move.

MR. HICKS BEACH seconded the Amendment. He said he wished to make quite clear what would be the position in the development of the future. Coal cutters had been mentioned. If hon. Members would look at the Report of the Departmental Committee on page 60 they would find that it was proposed to mitigate the general decrease of production under the Bill by some improvement in the efficiency of labour, improvements in the mechanical equipment of collieries, an extension of the use of labour-saving machinery (coal cutting machines and conveyors), etc. Then if they looked at page 44, they would find the classes of people who ought to be exempt from a rigid time-limit, namely, minor officials (overmen, deputies, firemen, etc.), the miscellaneous class (including pump men, furnace men, horsekeepers, etc.) comprising less than 3 per cent. of the people underground; and persons employed in working mechanical coal-cutters and conveyors. With regard to these, the Committee said that a strict observance of a limited day would, in their opinion, greatly interfere with this method of mining. Then, on page 27, they said— 'There was a general consensus of opinion on the part of witnesses as to the inadvisability of enforcing a rigid time-limit to the hours of those engaged in working the coal cutters, as operating adversely to the economic application of the machines and tending to discourage their further use. Then on page 88, they wont on to describe the actual operation and use of these machines and said— Occasionally there are breakdowns in the machines, or interruptions to the continuous cuttings from a variety of causes, such as obstacles inherent to the seam itself—the floor and so forth, so that it may occasionally happen that by the end of the cutting shift the machine his not accomplished its cutting journey. That was the important point, that it sometimes happened that for some reason the machine did not get to the end of its journey. There was evidence given in the Committee by witnesses who admitted that these machines were not yet perfect; that though some had been in use for many years the makers themselves admitted that they were by no means perfect. They were liable to breakdowns and although the breakdown might be very small the men and the machinery would be stopped for a long period, perhaps hours. The whole thing would be out of work and would thus destroy the chances of the succeeding shift of men getting to work. He mentioned that to draw attention to the fact that the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading held out hopes to the House that any decrease in the production of coal by reason of the introduction of the Bill would be considerably diminished by the increase of coal cutters. This was a point which the Bill could not make quite clear. If a man was engaged on a coal cutter when it broke down, it might be necessary for him to remain in the mine more than eight hours; but he would then be transgressing the law of the country and both he and the manager would be subject to very serious penalties. It was because they wanted this point cleared up that this Amendment was moved.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'through unforeseen circumstances.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR SAMUEL EVANS

I quite understand the desires of the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment. I do not think there is much difference between us as to what ought to be the meaning of the section. I think most people will agree that there ought to be no loophole which could assist any evasion of the Act, and these words were put in in the Committee in order that it might be clear that there should be no evasion of the Act, and that if there was no evasion of the Act and no Unforeseen circumstances no person should be down the mine more than eight hours. I think the circumstances alluded to by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury would be clearly unforeseen circumstances, and as they could not be foreseen these exemptions would come into operation. We cannot accept the Amendment to omit these words, and in order to enforce what I have just said I may be allowed to point out that the words "unforeseen circumstances" were inserted upstairs in Committee, and that among the Members who voted in favour of their insertion was the hon. Member for the London University, the junior Member for the City of London, and the hon. Member for Sleaford.

MR. BONAR LAW

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that there is a provision in the Bill which deals with that matter. But assuming that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right we have to consider what the particular effect of these words is. The real point is whether or not circumstances under which they ought to allow the work to continue a little longer would come under the category of "unforeseen circumstances." Take the case that has been mentioned of a breakdown of a machine. I am told that these machines are so imperfect at present that you might foresee a breakdown at any time, but on the other hand where is the danger in leaving the words out? I do not see any danger. The words are "or work uncompleted which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine." Surely that is enough. It is of the utmost importance that coal cutting machines and appliances of this kind should be introduced into the mines. There is some suspicion that hon. Gentlemen who represent the miners do not wish to see this kind of work increase in the mines. The fact that they object to leaving out these words is in itself sufficient ground to give some colour to that suspicion. This Amendment is justified apart altogether from whether the circumstances could be foreseen or not. A case of this kind might arise: the coal which a machine was cutting might be a little harder than usual, and it might only want another quarter of an hour to complete the whole day's work, yet it all has to be stopped because of this rigid rule. This is, in my opinion, a very important Amendment, and before we decide upon it we wish to be clearly shown that the Government are not going to discourage the extension of coal cutting machinery.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

Whit would be the effect of these words being left out? The effect would be that no offence would be committed if a man remained down the mine for nine, ten, or twelve hours. Supposing the manager of a mine was anxious to fulfil a contract and he wanted to keep the men down nine or ten hours of the day it would be easy for him to do so.

MR. BONAR LAW

Unless I am mistaken, the words are: "in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work of the mine." Therefore the state of things contemplated by the right hon. Gentlemen could not arise.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

That is not my point. The purpose of this Bill is to establish an eight hours day, and if you say men may be below ground in order to complete uncompleted work, whether due to unforeseen circumstances or not—if you are to permit that, then you need not have any Bill at all. These words in the Bill do deal with the question of machinery, and there is no doubt whatever that if the machinery broke down and the work was uncompleted in consequence, the case would be covered by these words. The words as they stand seem to me to meet all the legitimate desires of hon. Members, and if they were omitted they would make the exemption so wide that it would not be worth while to have any Bill at all.

MR. BOWLES

said the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman certainly showed that this was a very important matter, and that these words "unforeseen circumstances" were intended to apply to the machinery. The position, as he understood it was, that the Government desired in the ordinary limits of this Bill that work should be so carried on that the ordinary work of every man should be exempt from serious interference; that in future, day by day, the ordinary output, the ordinary product of a mine, should not be subject to any interference. That was what the Government and the House desired. But it seemed to him that if they limited the hours of labour at each end and did not make some provision of this sort, they might cause the gravest injustice between one mine and another. If the object of the Government was, as it certainly was, to avoid an evasion of the Act, why was it they were afraid of these words being omitted? Let them take the case of the coal-cutter which broke down. Supposing it broke down from circumstances which could not be foreseen, it would be covered by this section; but if it broke down through want of attention then the exemption would not apply, and the men would have to come out of the mine leaving it in an unworkable condition. Every time the coal-cutter broke down—it was working in the dark—they would have to decide at once whether that breakdown was due to what the Solicitor-General and a Court of law would call "unforeseen circumstances," or whether it was due to neglect. It seemed to him it was really providing difficulties for themselves to put into an Act of Parliament words so doubtful, the meaning of which the House desired to be that the work should be protected from serious interference. If that was their desire, as he was sure it was, let the Government say so in the Bill, and not deal with the matter by any such doubtful phrase as "unforeseen circumstances." In view of the grave doubt which still existed he hoped that the Government would see their way to reconsider the matter.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that in the Committee his hon. friend the Member for London University and himself voted for the inclusion of those words. That was one of those statements which was half a truth only. When the Bill came before the Committee it contained in the phrase dealing with this matter the word "exceptional." In the Committee the word "exceptional" was left out and the words "uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances" were put in. Those words were, in their opinion, certainly bettor than the word "exceptional," and although they did not approve of those words, as they were better than "exceptional" they took them. Then he believed his hon. friend moved to put in the words "or breakdown of machinery." They said that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to put in "or breakdown of machinery" they were willing to accept "unforeseen circum- stances," but if he did not they must vote against those words. It would be almost impossible for the coal-cutting machine to delay the work unless something broke down. The coal-cutter worked along the face of the seam, and then there was a conveyor which took the coal away. As the coal cutter came along the coal was cut and dropped into the conveyor, and if the cutter got out of hand or broke down the work of the shift might be stopped for the whole day. What they were afraid of was that if "or breakdown of machinery" was not put in discussions might arise as to whether the breakdown was unforeseen. The hon. and learned Gentleman rode in a motor car; he had seen him in one; but would he venture to suggest that when he entered into that motor car and it shortly afterwards broke down, that he would call that breakdown an "unforeseen circumstance?" He knew perfectly well it was only what he might expect.

SIR S. EVANS

If I was seen in a motor car, it belonged to someone else. I have not got one.

SIR F. BANBURY

I can only say I am glad the hon. Member possesses such generous friends. I have seen him in it. It could not be denied that when they came to deal with machinery a breakdown was not an unforeseen circumstance. It was for those reasons that they wished these words left out, but they would be prepared to accept their inclusion provided a breakdown in machinery was dealt with later on in the Bill.

* MR. PONSONBY (Stirling Burghs)

said he had not the privilege of being in the Committee, and the reminiscences from upstairs so continually occurred that really he felt that it would be a considerable advantage to them if the objectionable word "upstairs" could be omitted from the Report stage altogether. He had special representations made to him about this particular part of the clause from the miners in his constituency, and he certainly would have supported the hon. Member opposite in the previous Amendment. He had heard no argument against it, because the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill merely said that upstairs this point had been disposed of. The debate as it continued showed how much confusion there was in the wording of the last few lines of this clause, and the particular point they were on now in itself showed how loosely the interpretation of these lines might be taken, and what confusion might come from these last four lines. He himself would have been quite ready to have accepted the words up to "emergency," and to have omitted from "emergency" to the end of the subsection. He thought nearly all the cases which had been brought forward by the last few speakers came under the denomination of "emergency" and were met by that word, but if these four lines had to stay in, which he understood was the case, then, in his opinion, the words "through unforeseen circumstances" must absolutely remain in the clause. He appealed to the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, whenever it was possible, to give some sort of explanation for the benefit of those who had not been upstairs.

* MR. G. D. FABER (York)

said he rose to deal with an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. He was not in Committee on the day when this particular discussion took place. The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that great importance was attached by the Government to these words "through unforeseen circumstances." The Bill as originally introduced, and as it was before the House on the Second Reading, did not contain those words at all, and, therefore, the Government made the discovery later that these words were so important. The Government had plenty of time to study the whole question before the Bill was introduced, yet this particular contingency was not provided for when the Bill was introduced. Who was to decide whether the circumstance was foreseen or unforeseen? Perhaps, suddenly, and half in the dark, a coal-cutter went wrong, the eight hours were over, and the men ought to be going up the shaft in order to comply with the terms of the Act of Parliament; who was to decide whether this was an unforeseen circumstance or not? It had to be decided there and then; they could not take it into the County Court. There was the object lesson in front of them. The coal-cutter had gone wrong, and somebody had got to decide on the spur of the moment what was to be done. Suppose the manager of the mine was called in to give his judgment upon it, and he said it was an unforeseen circumstance. The work went on. Perhaps later on it came to the ears of the inspector of the mine that this particular work was continued after the eight hours were over. How was that official to decide whether the circumstance was foreseen or unforeseen? He was trying to put himself into the position of the miner at work. [An HON. MEMBER: Impossible.] Well, he would remind the hon. Member that hardly anything was impossible, although he might be justified in saying it was improbable. He would imagine the miner at work, that the eight hours were over, that something happened, and that he had got to decide whether the instance he had taken was an unforeseen circumstance or not. The Solicitor-General himself could not tell them, and, therefore, how on earth was this poor miner to tell? It shewed the absurdity of putting this sort of legal expression, throwing it in anyhow, into an Act of Parliament. When they came to deal with it in fact and in deed it was impracticable. Besides, what did it matter whether the circumstance was foreseen or unforeseen? It was for everybody's good, he supposed, that an obstacle causing a stoppage of work should be removed, and that the men should be able to go to their ordinary shifts the next day and perform their ordinary eight hours work. He could not see that it would lead to any evasion of the law. The point was whether serious interference with ordinary work in the mine would result from allowing the obstacle to remain. It seemed to him that this was the cast-iron, rigid system gone mad. From no point of view would hon. Members below the gangway allow any infraction to be made of the sacred eight hours day, which had become a fetish with them. He knew the Government were tied on to the tails of hon. Members below the gangway. It might be said, however, that there were no tails below the gangway, and that they were all heads, but in that case he wished, even at this late hour, the Government would exercise their own heads and give way in a case like this, where common sense dictated that the concession asked for should be made.

MR. MARKHAM

said he did not think the mover of the Amendment knew what the actual operation would be in practice, or he would not have moved it. What actually happened in many cases was that there was a fall of roof which stopped the machine. If these words were deleted and a breakdown took place, every time there was a fall of roof and the machine could not cut fast enough, the men would not be entitled to stop behind and get the coal out. So the hon. Baronet would be defeating his own object. The words of the Amendment were to leave out the words "through unforeseen circumstances." He did not think a fall of roof could be described as an emergency. He thought in coal cutting a fall of roof was almost as frequent as an accident to the machinery. With regard to what the hon. Member for York said as to the poor miner not being able to understand what unforeseen circumstances meant, miners were not the kind of poor fools that the hon. Member gave them credit for being.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

said the whole difficulty, it seemed to him arose from the decision of the Government not to put coal cutters among the class excluded from the Bill in accordance with the recommendation of their own Committee, on p. 44, where it was stated that they were very few in number and that the strict observance of a limited day in their case would greatly interfere with this portion of mining. They had to recollect that there was a paragraph earlier in which the Committee said— The introduction of machines of this sort has not been forced without considerable difficulty and opposition on the part of the men. And he thought that was the reason why they had not been able to get a clear issue in this matter. As they had chosen in this roundabout way to enable coal cutters to be within the scope of the Bill, he thought a reference to p. 27 of the Report was interesting, where it described the conditions under which coal cutters were used. They said it was conditioned by seven different reasons, of which the human factor was only one, and he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last showed how difficult it was to know what was an unforeseen circumstance or not. He said a fall of roof might or might not be an unforeseen circumstance, and they could go through each of the things mentioned in the Report in the same way. The cutter might be obstructed by the character of the roof, the thinness of the seam, the nature of the coal, the character of the floor of the seam, or geological circumstances, and last of all by the human factor, and the unfortunate people were left in the pit to decide which of these reasons applied to the case.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked whether in the opinion of the Solicitor-General a fall of roof was an unforeseen circumstance.

SIR S. EVANS

Yes, clearly.

MR. RENWICK

said they had heard a good deal with regard to coal-cutting machines, but it seemed to be forgotten that that was not the only machine in a coal mine. Various other classes of machinery were affected, and unless these accidents were repaired the whole mine was laid up. If these words were left in it would have the extraordinary effect that they would find the manager calling in the officials of the mine, looking at the accident that had happened, and discussing the question as to whether it was unforeseen before they dared touch it. That was an absurdity. Surely the experts and the certificated managers were able to say that if there was an accident it must be repaired with the least possible delay. While they were discussing these questions which lawyers might take hours to settle, the whole mine was kept idle, and the miners suffered. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to leave out these words. Let him make them as simple as he possibly could, and trust to the managers and to those in charge of the mine to carry out the terms of the Act.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

said he scarcely thought the Solicitor-General acted quite fairly by him in complaining that he voted for this Amendment in Committee whilst he voted against it now. He did not state that he voted for these words in Committee in preference to the words already in the Bill, viz., "exceptional work." They found it impossible to understand what the framers of the Bill meant by the word "exceptional." Since then he had had a fortnight to reconsider the question,

	AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.	Hooper, A. G.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Horniman, Emslie John
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Agnew, George William	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hudson, Walter
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dillon, John	Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Alden, Percy	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Idris, T. H. W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Illingworth, Percy H.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jenkins, J.
Balcarres, Lord	Erskine, David C.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Essex, R. W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Fenwick, Charles	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Beale, W. P.	Ferens, T. R.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Beauchamp, E.	Ffrench, Peter	Jowett, F. W.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Flynn, James Christopher	Joyce, Michael
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Boland, John	Gibb, James (Harrow)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Bowerman, C. W.	Gilhooly, James	Laidlaw, Robert
Brace, William	Gill, A. H.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Ginnell, L.	Lambert, George
Branch, James	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lamont, Norman
Brooke, Stopford	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Glendinning, R. G.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Bryce, J. Annan	Glover, Thomas	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Lehmann, R. C.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Guiland, John W.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Byles, William Pollard	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Lewis, John Herbert
Cameron, Robert	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hall, Frederick	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	Lundon, W.
Chinas, Frederick William	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Lynch, H. B.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Cleland, J. W.	Harwood, George	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Clough, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Macpherson, J. T.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Helme, Norval Watson	M'Callum, John M.
Cooper, G. J.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	M'Crae, Sir George
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Henry, Charles S.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Crooks, William	Higham, John Sharp	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Crosfield, A. H.	Hodge, John	Mallet, Charles E.
Curran, Peter Francis	Hogan, Michael	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Markham, Arthur Basil

and he need scarcely say that he had devoted considerable [...]e to these particular words, and he had come to the conclusion that it was far better to omit them. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that the miners were so intelligent that they would be able to understand at once what unforeseen circumstances were. Might he ask the learned Solicitor-General if he could explain them?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 448.)

Marnham, F. J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Masterman, C. F. G.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Meagher, Michael	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Menzies, Walter	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Tomkinson, James
Middlebrook, William	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Toulmin, George
Molteno, Percy Alport	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Mond, A.	Robinson, S.	Verney, F. W.
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Morrell, Philip	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Vivian, Henry
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Rose, Charles Day.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Rowlands, J.	Walsh, Stephen
Murray, Capt. Hn. A C. (Kincard)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Walton, Joseph
Myer, Horatio	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wardle, George J.
Napier, T. B.	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Waring, Walter
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Sears, J. E.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Seaverns, J. H.	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Nolan, Joseph	Seddon, J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Shackleton, David James	Watt, Henry A.
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Nuttall, Harry	Sheehy, David	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Grady, J.	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Paulton, James Mellor	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Steadman, W. C.	Winfrey, R.
Pollard, Dr.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Summerbell, T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank
Radford, G. H.	Sutherland, J. E.
Rainy, A. Rolland	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.	Fletcher, J. S.	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beck, A. Cecil	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pretyman, Ernest George
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Renwick, George
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hill, Sir Clement	Ridsdale, E. A.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Houston, Robert Paterson	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kerry, Earl of	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cross, Alexander	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Valentia, Viscount
Davies, David (Montgomery Co)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Faber, George Denison (York)	McaCaw, William J. MacGeagh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Philip Magnus and Mr. Hicks Beach.
Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Arthur, Charles
Fell, Arthur	Mason, James F. (Windsor)

MR. BOWLES moved to substitute the word "substantial" for the word "serious" in the concluding passage of the same subsection. The House would see that the clause as it stood required that any exemption under it should be an exemption of those dealing with work which had to be dealt with in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine. Serious interference was, after all, a very vague phrase, and it appeared to him that it was essential that they should not leave occasions for doubt and litigation hereafter where they could possibly avoid doing so. The object of the clause as it stood was to ensure that so far as possible the ordinary work of the mine should go on without interference. For his part, he did not know why the Government could not say in the clause "work which requires to be dealt with in order to avoid interference." If what they wanted was to preserve only ordinary work in the mine, let them say so. What was the use of putting in the word "serious" before interference? But if they insisted on qualifying the interference, then he suggested that the word "substantial" was a better word than "serious," as being a little more limited in extent, and a little more definite in character. He hoped the Government would take the same view. He begged to move.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH seconded the Amendment of his hon. friend. He could not say that he attached very much importance to it, but he thought of the two words "substantial" was substantially the better and was likely to be open to less doubt than the word "serious." He knew the Solicitor-General would say that "serious" was in other Acts of Parliament, but all the same the word was open to a great deal of misinterpretation. He thought the Act would be benefited by the word "serious" being left out altogether, and that it should simply read "in order to avoid interference." Then there would be no difficulty as to specifying what serious interference meant.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 6, to leave out the word 'serious,' and insert the word 'substantial.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'serious' stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

If I could accept the word proposed I would, but after having given it careful consideration, and having regard to the fact that we have the word "serious" in labour legislation of this kind in other Acts of Parliament, we have come to the conclusion that "serious" is a better word than "substantial."

SIR F. BANBURY

said in Grand Committee they were unfortunately deprived of the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown.

MR. GLADSTONE

Oh, no; far from that being the case, the Solicitor-General for Scotland was present.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he was not there regularly. The point he made in Grand Committee was a legal one. He adduced evidence to show that he was correct in saying that under the Workmen's Compensation Act Judges, County Court Judges and legal luminaries had been unable to put an interpretation on the word "serious" and in consequence that part of the Act had almost become a dead letter. He might be quite wrong, but that was what had influenced him in moving to leave out the word "serious." Certainly the evidence before the Departmental Committee went to show that he was correct in his assertion that at any rate there was a difference among the Judges, in view of their decisions, as to what the word "serious" meant. No two Judges agreed on the point. That being so, he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman what objection there was to leaving out the word "serious." "To avoid interference with the ordinary work of the mine," was plain English, and they did not want in this Bill, which everybody admitted was going to be an extremely complicated one, to complicate it more than necessary by putting in words which might lead to legal proceedings, and would not tend to the harmonious working of the Bill.

MR. HICKS BEACH

asked whether it was not a fact that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act a year or so ago, there was very great difficulty indeed in deciding what "serious" meant, and that various employers took one view and 'other employers took another. Was it not also a fact that the difference became so great that only last year the Government introduced a new Bill in which they laid down what was a "serious accident." Did not that go to prove that the word "serious" was a very difficult word to construe, and that therefore it would be much better in the interests of everybody concerned if in this Bill they were to take out altogether, as his hon. friend suggested, the word "serious." If that were done the Bill would really be much better carried out.

SIR S. EVANS

We cannot omit the word "serious" because any interference, however slight, would be "an interference with the ordinary work of the mine." With regard to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, it is quite true that there has been a difficulty among Judges upon all kinds of facts, as to whether misconduct under the Workmen's Compensation Act was serious and wilful misconduct or not. That difficulty, of course, will always arise when an adjective is used in regard to any accident. But we must have the word "serious" in the Bill; otherwise interference, however slight, might be said to raise the right of exemption. The hon. Member opposite is right in saying that a Bill was brought in last year, but, if I remember aright, there was another definition given in that Bill, and I think the seriousness of an accident was to be determined by the number of days during which the person who sustained the accident suffered from it. I think that is a good reason why the word "serious" should be put in here in preference to "substantial."

MR. BOWLES

did not think he would put the House to the trouble of a division. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, no doubt with truth, that he must stick to the word "serious," because if it were taken out it would enable any interference, however small, with the "ordinary work of the mine" to give the right of exemption. The effect of that would be one of the extraordinary practical effects of this Bill in operation. In the last half-hour, towards the close of the eight hours day, delay might be caused, and if an interference had been taking place, whether large or small, it would have to be considered by the managers of the colliery then and there, and they would have to see whether or not within the meaning of the Act it was a serious interference with the work of the colliery. If the manager was put face to face with the necessity of arriving at a decision, and he failed in his judgment, then he would be liable under the Bill to serious and heavy penalties, together with the men involved in his fault. That was an extraordinary state of things which the Government were apparently not ready to remove. They, at any rate, had made their protest, and it could not be helped. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS moved to substitute the word "part" for the word "district," with a view of ascertaining whether the Government had given "serious" "substantial" consideration to the last few words of the subsection. Was it not on the whole preferable to substitute the word "part" for "district"? In the Bill as it came before the Committee the words "or in any district of the mine" were not included in the clause, and he thought it was on the Motion of the Home Secretary that words to that effect were put in the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman suggested these words he first proposed that the words should be "or in any part of the mine," and subsequently he accepted the word "district." He thought the word district was a technical term, and meant a particular section of the mine. He might be wrong, but he was ready to be corrected if he was. He was sure it was the intention of the Government that the exemption should apply in the event of the danger occurring in any particular section of the mine, or in any part of the mine as well. Therefore, he asked the Government whether on further consideration they would not prefer the word originally used by the Home Secretary, namely, "part" instead of "district."

MR. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'district,' and insert the word'part.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'district' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member sail I made this arrangement. It was not I but my right hon. friend the Under-Secretary who suggested the words "in any part of the mine." In the discussion which took place it was pointed out that it might mean any spot in the mine, and it was thought that such a phrase would not be right. Therefore the Committee came to the conclusion to put in the words "in any district of the mine." There was a division on that, and the words were supported by the hon. Gentleman himself.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

No.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Gentleman himself voted for the word which he now proposes to omit.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

I do not propose to omit the word, I propose to substitute "part."

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member voted for these words "or in any district of the mine" as they are now proposed.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

I only propose to substitute "part" for "district."

MR. GLADSTONE

That is the whole point. The omission of the word "part" was moved in Committee, and a division was taken on the question of the word "district," "that that word be there inserted," and the hon. Gentleman voted in support of that proposition.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

I did not vote on the question whether it was to be "district" or "part."

MR. GLADSTONE

The question whether the word "part" should "stand part" was negatived. ["It was withdrawn."] It did not matter whether it was negatived or withdrawn, and then the Question was put "or in any district of the mine," and I suppose I am right in saying that the hon. Member did in fact vote for that. I would submit to the House that the word "district" is an understood term, and that the word "part" is not. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

MR. LUPTON

said that the wording of the subsection was one of the few concessions they got from the Government in Committee, and, therefore, he appealed to hon. Members opposite not to press this particular Amendment.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have now to move an Amendment to add to the end of the subsection that in the case of stallmen there should be exemption when engaged in the process of taking down top coal in square or wide work in the thick coal of the South Staffordshire district so long as their presence in or near the stall is necessary to ensure safety. I am under the impression that there is a general agreement with regard to this Amendment. It was one on which there was some discussion, in which my hon. friend the Member for North-West Staffordshire took part. I need not go into the merits of the question.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, at end to insert the words 'or in the case of stallmen when engaged in the process of taking down top coal in square or wide work in the thick coal of the South Staffordshire district, so long as their presence in or near the stall is necessary to ensure safety.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. ALBERT STANLEY (Staffordshire, N.W.)

said that if the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to introduce any further exemptions than were contained in subsection (b), then he realised that the words now proposed were far better than the words put before the Committee when this matter was under consideration. The first suggestion included a chief stallman, and gave him exemption. His objection was that every stallman should be responsible for the safety of the stall, and that if they singled out one man and made him specially responsible they would lighten in proportion the responsibility of other men who would feel that it was work for which they were not altogether responsible, and they would not be so alert mutually to keep the stall in safety. He thought, however, that this objection was very largely met by the words here used. He thought the subsection did cover it for all practical purposes, but it being a question of safety, and inasmuch as it was strictly confined to stallmen, and at the time when the stallmen were taking down top coal in square or wide work, and they were only to be there when it was necessary to ensure safety, under those circumstances he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment.

* MR. PARKES (Birmingham, Central)

said this Amendment was defeated by one vote in Committee, and he supposed now it was reintroduced in another form the hon. Member for North-West Staffordshire would vote for its acceptance. Although it was rather a technical question, and he dared say not understood by all Members, yet it was a very important one, and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had seen fit to reintroduce the Amendment in another form. He personally thanked the Home Secretary for having gone into this matter, and he was certain that South Staffordshire would be very gratified at the course he had taken.

MR. BOWLES

said that as a non-expert he thought he was entitled to understand what had been settled. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with this point in Committee by moving to insert words which covered the chief stallman, and the words had reference to the working of mines in the South Staffordshire district. The right hon. Gentleman now proposes to add different words. He would like to know what the difference was.

MR. GLADSTONE

said that there was in fact, in these mines, a chief stallman, but on examining closely into the matter he found that the general practice in this district was to place three or four stallmen to do the work, and that there was substantially no recognised chief stallman. That was the difference.

Amendment agreed to.

* SIR C. J. CORY (Cornwall, St. Ives)

, said the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to agree to a workman being below ground for the purpose of meeting any danger or apprehended danger but they did not apply to maintaining the safety of the mine and of the men underground. His right hon. friend, when he received a deputation of the Miners' Association, on that occasion said— Of course, we all agree that one of the first considerations is the security of those who work in and about the mines. It would be indeed disastrous if by hurrying work or interfering with anything necessary to the safety of the man, that the ratio of accident should be increased through failure of legislation. In regard to the Amendment which he now moved, namely—to insert the words "or for the purpose of maintaining the safety of the mine or any part thereof or of any person or persons employed therein"—he really thought his right hon. friend's own words were justification for its acceptance. It was necessary, he would urge, to obviate danger by maintaining the safety of the mines and by doing, say, extra timbering or some such work before an accident actually occurred.

MR. RENWICK

, in seconding the Amendment, said it was very necessary that the proposed words should be inserted. The object they had in view was to make the Bill as clear as possible, not to the legal mind, but to the lay mind. In the discussions in connection with the Bill, whenever they had raised a question with regard to the meaning of certain words which they did not understand, an eminent lawyer was put up to answer them. He might understand it, but they did not. They wanted words in the Bill that the ordinary lay mind could understand. Therefore he thought there was the utmost necessity that these words should be added to the clause. They were under the greatest difficulty in discussing the Bill, because they had not had what they ought to have, namely, the assistance of experts representing the mining constituencies. They were left to themselves to argue these points. Why hon. Members below the gangway were silent he could not tell. The object of a mine was for the purpose of getting coal out of it, and therefore, those in charge of the mines ought to know distinctly and without any equivocation how they could set to work to remove any danger to those engaged in the mines. It was because they wanted to make the Bill perfectly clear to those in charge of the mines that they desired to insert these words. If there were any objections to them he trusted that they would hear those objections, not only from eminent legal gentlemen, for whom he had great respect, but also from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Further, he should like to hear some objections to-day, not only in the lobby, for undoubtedly certain members below the gangway would vote against this, but objections raised by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who should tell them what their objections were. That was all they wanted in discussing this question, and he thought it was an injustice to the House in a technical measure of this description that hon. Members below the gangway should not give them their assistance.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, at the end to insert the words 'or for the purpose of maintaining the safety of the mine or any part thereof, or of any person or persons employed therein.'"—(Sir C. J. Cory.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

It is quite true that I answer legal questions, but it is also true that on occasions I can speak with some knowledge on mining matters. I have had great experience in mining cases. As I have told the House before, I have constantly been underground investigating the state of affairs where there have been individual accidents or great explosions. I am going to answer my hon. friend behind me, not as a lawyer, but as one who understands these matters. First of all, in legislation of a legal kind it is a very dangerous thing to put in words that limit the meaning in an Act of Parliament, where you have words of either a less limited meaning or a more extended meaning in the section. If you have words of an extended meaning you run great danger of minimising the intention of those words by afterwards putting in words as to a particular question which ought to be in the bigger category and within the extended words. With that preliminary observation I want to call attention to the words "or for meeting any danger." It is quite clear that if a workman is kept down the mine for the purpose of preserving the safety of the mine in the event of danger or apprehended danger, the case is covered by the words already in the clause. There might be great mischief attending the acceptance of the words of my hon. friend. Let me tell him of one case. Obviously timbering would be work which would be carried out for the purpose of maintaining the safety of the mine. That being so, the Amendment of my hon. friend would convert the Bill into something very different from the Eight Hours Bill. It would mean that a man would say: "I can work at my coal up to the end of the eight-hours period which I am to be underground, but I will leave the timbering until the end. Timbering is necessary for the safety of the mine or any part thereof, and I can ride a coach and four through the Act of Parliament and say I am doing that work." The same thing could be said with regard to the other part of the Amendment. Of course, it is obvious that to include words of this kind "any part thereof" would make the provision of the Act of Parliament void and of no effect. My answer, therefore, to my hon. friend is that for all purposes of emergency and providing for the safety of the mine, in that sense you are fully empowered by the words already in the clause. If you go beyond those words you are running a risk, as I have said, of minimising the words of extended meaning, and you are also making a loophole in the provision of the Act of Parliament that would enable anything to be done underground after the eight-hours day. I have mentioned timbering, but there are other things done underground. Indeed practically most of the work done underground, such as watering the roads, is work carried on for the safety of the mine. Obviously work of that kind could not be embarked upon after the eight hours; if it could be the Act of Parliament would be a dead letter.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOWLES

in moving to leave out of subsection (4) the word "approved," and to insert the words "not disapproved" said this Amendment was a small one in point of volume, but he thought it was important and serious in point of substance. The House would see that the whole working of the Act would hinge upon four points of time in the ordinary working of the mine. The first point of time was the period between the times at which the first workman in the shift left the surface and the first workman in the shift returned to the surface, and the period between the times at which the last workman in the shift left the surface and the last workman in the shift returned to the surface. Subsection (4) provided that— The interval between the times fixed for the commencement and for the completion of the lowering and raising of each shift of workmen to and from the mine shall be such time as may, for the time being, be approved by the inspector as the time reasonably required for the purpose. The effect of that as he understood it was that they would not work the mine at all after this Bill came into force, until they had had those points of time set up according to the regulations, and approved by the inspector of mines. There would be the further consequence that if the clause remained as at present, then, as he understood it, it would be perfectly impossible in cases where they might consider it desirable to extend the time for winding the men either in or out of the mine, or whore it might be for the purpose of safety or otherwise desirable to do so, unless before they did it they got the express approval of the nearest inspector of mines. That imposed an altogether unnecessary obstacle in the way of the little elasticity which was left to the manager of the mine. He could quite understand Parliament might desire when any change was made in the interval between these times that the inspector should be informed, and if he come to the conclusion that the alteration which had been made was for any reason an improper one, he should be able to disapprove of it. But to say that when that time was once fixed it was never under any circumstances to be altered without first obtaining the approval of the mines inspector was really to make an unnecessary provision which might result in grave inconvenience and cause disorganisation of the ordinary working of the mine. What he proposed was that the time should be such as the inspector did not disapprove of, and he should be perfectly ready to agree if the House thought it necessary, to insist upon such a condition as that any alteration of time should at once be communicated to the inspector. All he said was that liberty ought to be left to the management to alter these times in circumstances where it was desirable on communicating the fact at once to the inspector and without waiting for his formal official approval. He thought the Amendment was a reasonable one, and by accepting it the Government would make the Act, if not more workable, at least less unworkable than it promised to be at present.

MR. HICKS BEACH

seconded. He regarded this as a very reasonable Amendment and one that would conduce to the smooth working of the Act. He understood that this was the only instance in which an inspector had to give his sanction to any action in the mine before the regulation was carried out. As he understood, all other regulations under the Coal Mines Regulation Act were first of all laid down by the controller of the mine, and then submitted by him to the inspector of mines. If the latter had any objection to raise he communicated it to the mine manager. He did not, understand why this particular Bill should introduce a novelty in the place of an arrangement which was stated to work most satisfactorily, and which, surely, was much simpler than what the Government proposed. There could be no danger whatever in accepting the Amendment. The manager of a mine would not be a fool and lay down regulations which could not be accepted. If an inspector had to give his official sanction to the time before the mine could be worked a serious amount of inconvenience might be caused. Should the inspector be by chance called away from his office, or be taken ill, or be absent from any other cause the result might be to delay the whole working of the mine for a day.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 22, to leave out the word 'approved,' and insert the words 'not disapproved.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That the word "approved" stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

I am afraid it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. First of all, I think it is essential that the times to regulate the working of the machinery of the shafts, the winding up and winding down, should be fixed by the inspector. There is, I would point out, a considerable interval of time between now and the date when the Act will come into operation, and I am not conscious that there will be any difficulty at all in these times being fixed. Therefore "approved" is in my opinion, much the better word with reference to the first fixing of these times. I think it must be so for another reason. If you say the management can fix such times as they like until disapproved of then nothing need be done by them, and there would be no check at all by the inspector for a considerable time. I think that is a good answer to this Amendment so far as the first fixing of the time is concerned. With regard to the alteration of the time, I think there is some reason in the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but as it would involve a good deal of amendment in this clause, which we cannot now properly go into, I hope the hon. Member will accept an assurance from me that the matter will be carefully considered when the Bill goes to another place.

* MR. LUPTON

was much obliged to the Solicitor-General for making a slight concession on this point. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norwood was a most important one, and was exactly similar to one he moved himself in Committee. The Chairman, however, ruled that his Amendment was frivolous, and would not allow it to be put. Mr. Speaker, he was glad to say, took a different view. It was most important that the working of the mine should not be delayed. Already the Government inspectors were at work from early in the morning until late at night. The conditions in the mines were continually altering. A mine which to-day had fifty men employed might, by the time the Act came into operation, have 500 men at work, and the times, therefore, would be materially affected. If the time could not be fixed without the approval of the inspector great delay might be caused or, on the other hand the Act might be disregarded, because it would be well known that in such circumstances no Court would inflict a penalty.

MR. BOWLES

, in view of the sympathetic references and assurances of the Solicitor-General, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

I now beg to move an Amendment to carry out a promise I gave in Committee. Possibly some unforeseen circumstance might happen involving to some extent the winding machinery and this might make it dangerous to lower the men at the usual rate of speed. The Amendment, which deals with this point, is to insert a new proviso at the end of subsection (4).

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 23, at the end to insert, 'Provided that in the event of any accident to the winding machinery, or other accident interfering with the lowering or raising of workmen the interval may temporarily he extended to such extent as may be necessary, but in any such case the owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall on the same day send notice of the extension and the cause thereof to the inspector, and the extension shall not continue beyond such date as may be allowed by the inspector.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment made.

SIR F. BANBURY moved to insert the following new subsection: "(6) The owner, agent, or manager shall supply a printed statement of the regulations referred to in Section 1, subsections (3), (4), and (5), gratis to each workman who applies for a copy at the office at which such workman employed by the owner, agent, or manager is paid." He understood the Home Secretary had given notice of an Amendment, to come in later which was practically the same as his. He gave an undertaking to the Home Secretary that he would not move his Amendment, but since he saw the right hon. Gentlemen an hon. friend had put a similar Amendment down and he was told that there was some advantage in inserting the Amendment in the place proposed instead of later in the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Therefore he moved the Amendment formally in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of saying what his opinion on the subject was.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 29, at the end, to insert the words: '(6) The owner, agent, or manager shall supply a printed statement of the regulations referred to in section one, sub-sections three, four, and five, gratis to each workman who applies for a copy at the office at which such workman employed by the owner, agent, or manager is paid.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

was very much obliged to the Government for having incorporated this Amendment in another clause in the same words. His only anxiety in reference to it was as to its position, and he still thought it would be better for it to come in at this place, in which he understood Mr. Speaker ruled it might be introduced. The point he wished to make was that if the Amendment was inserted in Clause 6 he understood it would really come under the Coal Mines Regulation Act and would fall under the penalties mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 6, namely, a fine not exceeding £2. But if the words were connected with subsection (a) of Clause 6 the owner would be involved in a new way in that he would be made guilty of an offence with which, he had nothing to do. He wanted to make it clear that any reasonable failure to supply a copy of the regulations should only make the owner liable to the penalty under the Coal Mines Regulation Act.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

Clause 6 covers all the offences specified in Clause 1 or any other clause, and would equally apply to the hon. Member's Amendment if inserted here as it would apply to my right hon. friend's Amendment if inserted in Clause 6.

MR. MARKHAM

thought that instead of accepting this Amendment it might be enacted that a copy of these particular rules should be supplied with the special rules at present supplied to every miner. Otherwise they would have men coming to the office and asking for a copy of these rules when they might be embodied with the special rules and all trouble obviated.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

We will consider that suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 31, to leave out the first word 'the' and insert 'a.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 31, after the word 'inspector' to insert the words 'under the last foregoing subsection.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. F. MASON

asked whether the limitation of the functions of the inspector by this Amendment to the w[...]nding described in the subsection was imposed with a definite view to preventing appeals in regard to other points. Was there any definite object in limiting the inspector's functions to this subsection?

MR. CLADSTONE

The decision of the inspector refers only to these particular proceedings.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the clause said— The interval between the times fixed for the commencement and the completion of the lowering and raising of each shift of workmen to and from the mine shall be such as may for the time being be approved by the inspector as the time reasonably required for the purpose.

Would this point be limited to that?

MR. GLADSTONE

Yes, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment changing the appeal from a Judge of the County Court to a Judge of the High Court. He understood that these words were in the provisions of the Arbitration Act, and it seemed to him that it would be the proper proceeding under this Bill. It was obvious that it would be better for these proceedings to come before a Judge of the High Court rather than before a Judge of the County Court, and he would, therefore, move the Amendment without further argument.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH in seconding the Amendment said he had an Amendment lower on the Paper in which he proposed to insert the words "Chairman of the general or Quarter Sessions of the peace within the jurisdiction of which the mine or any shaft of the mine is situated." As he understood it generally the law left these matters to the High Court if the arbitrators disagreed as to the appointment of an umpire, but in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, of which this Bill was a part, when a matter came to arbitration the umpire was appointed by the chairman of Quarter Sessions in the district.

AN HON. MEMBER

No.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said he thought he was stating a fact. He did not put forward anything in regard to the law of which he was not certain. To his mind there was a certain amount of substance about the Amendment. It was inadvisable to leave a matter of this kind to the Judges of the County Court, for many reasons. Local conditions might affect their minds, and he thought it would be better to leave it to one of the authorities put forward either in his Amendment or in that of his hon. friend.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 34, to leave out the words 'the Judge of the County Courts for the district,' and to insert the words 'a Judge of His Majesty's High Court of Justice.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

Under the general principle of the Arbitration Act, in the event of arbitration not being agreed upon, application can be made to a Judge of the High Court, but that is a very different thing from the appointment of a person to decide a question of this kind, which is a matter between the inspector and manager of the mine. In the first place, I do not think that disputes of this kind will occur very often. The inspectors are sensible, practical men, and the managers of collieries are also practical and sensible men, and I think that these questions are, therefore, hardly likely to arise. I am satisfied that when they do arise, a Judge of the County Court is a very much better person for this purpose than a Judge of the High Court. In regard to the proposal of the noble Lord, I hardly think the chairman of Quarter Sessions is the proper person for this purpose, for his Court only sits once in three months, and there would therefore be delay. If this matter were left to a Judge of the High Court, there would also be delay. He would almost, of necessity have to get evidence by affidavit or otherwise as the case may be as to the best person to appoint as umpire, and that involves delays and expense; which may lead to ill-feeling between the parties, whereas if you leave it to the County Court Judge, who sits every month, and in some cases every fortnight, he is in possession, as a rule, of intimate local knowledge which would suffice for the purpose of this appointment. The chairman of Quarter Sessions rarely has anything to do with mining experts, but the County Court Judge has them before him constantly and knows the men who are practicable, and if he wants one he has the names of three or four ready who would be suitable for the purpose. I hope the hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment to a division.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

said he still hoped the Government would consider this Amendment thoroughly, and that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would give way. The very grounds which he had given against it were those which were most in favour of the Amendment. He said that these cases would very seldom occur, and that both parties were extremely sensible and practical men of high character. Surely, if these cases were going to occur very seldom and both parties were of such high character, the cases when they did occur would be serious, and such as ought to be taken to the High Court and not to a County Court Judge, who was too much connected with local affair to be independent.

SIR S. EVANS

I think hon. Members do not understand that this is not a question where a Judge of the High Court or a Judge of the County Court shall decide the matter, but one which deals merely with the appointment of an umpire.

MR. RENWICK

said that he, on this occasion, could not agree; with the hon. Baronet. He thought the Amendment was a reflection on the Judges of the County Court. They in the North of England had the highest possible opinion of County Court Judges, and he with others had recently been endeavouring to increase their status He should not like, therefore, to put this reflection on them. It would be a reflection, for by the Bill they were giving this power in Scotland to the sheriff of the county. He submitted that a Judge of the County Court was at least equal to the sheriff of the county.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Brace, William	Curran, Peter Francis
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bramsdon, T. A.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Branch, James	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Agnew, George William	Brodie, H. C.	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Dillon, John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Bryce, J. Annan	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Balcarres, Lord	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dunne, Major, E. Martin (Walsall
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Byles, William Pollard	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cameron, Robert	Erskine, David C.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Essex, R. W.
Barnes, G. N.	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Evans, Sir Samuel T.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Fenwick, Charles
Beale, W. P.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Ferens, T. R.
Beauchamp, E.	Cleland, J. W.	Findlay, Alexander
Beck, A. Cecil	Clough, William	Flynn, James Christopher
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Gilhooly, James
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Gill, A. H.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Crean, Eugene	Ginnell, L.
Boland, John	Crooks, William	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Bowerman, C. W.	Crossley, William J.	Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

LORD R. CECIL

thought this was a delicate subject to go into. He was sure the Solicitor-General would agree with him that most County Court Judges were entitled to and received the respect of the public, but it did happen sometimes that a County Court Judge got into rather a groove in his district, and listened to one set of people rather than another. Unless a man was of exceptional strength, sitting constantly and having the same set of people before him constantly, he did get into the hands of one set of people, with the result that where there was a case of real importance requiring real discretion there was an advantage in submitting it to someone outside the locality. He thought under these circumstances it would be better to leave the matter to the Judge of the High Court. He quite agreed that in the great majority of cases no question would arise, but he thought it would be well to make provision that in default of agreement as to the person nominated the matter should go to the High Court. Such a case would only be one where there was real feeling. He should have thought that the right Amendment would have been one providing that the person to act as umpire should be appointed by the parties concerned, and failing agreement by a Judge of the High Court.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 449.)

Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Glover, Thomas	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.	Rose, Charles Day
Gooch, George Pea body (Bath)	M'Crae, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)
Hall, Frederick	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mallet, Charles E.	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Sears, J. E.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Seaverns, J. H.
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh	Marnham, F. J.	Seddon, J.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Massie, J.	Shackleton, David James
Harwood, George	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Middlebrook, William	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Spicer, Sir Albert
Helme, Norval Watson	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Henry, Charles S.	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Hodge, John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Steadman, W. C.
Hogan, Michael	Napier, T. B.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Horniman, Emslie John	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Sutherland, J. E.
Hudson, Walter	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nolan, Joseph	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Idris, T. H. W.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Tomkinson, James
Jackson, R. S.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kikenny)	Toulmin, George
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Doherty, Philip	Walsh, Stephen
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Dowd, John	Walton, Joseph
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Grady, J.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Joyce, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wardle, George J.
Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Pollard, Dr.	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Power, Patrick Joseph	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Laidlaw, Robert	Radford, G. H.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh
Lambert, George	Rainy, A. Rolland	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Lehmann, R. C.	Renwick, George	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lewis, John Herbert	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Roberts, Chares H. (Lincoln)
Lupton, Arnold	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Macpherson, J. T.	Robinson, S.

	NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Gardner, Ernest	Nield, Herbert
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Renton, Leslie
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hill, Sir Clement	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hunt, Rowand	Thornton, Percy M.
Cory, Sir Clifford John	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Valentia, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Cross, Alexander	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Younger, George
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Arthur, Charles	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Bowles.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Fardell, Sir T. George	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Fell, Arthur	Morrison-Bell, Captain

On Mr. BRACE being called upon to move an Amendment standing in his name to amend subsection (7) so as to include in the expression "workman," a fireman, examiner, or deputy,—

SIR S. EVANS

asked to be allowed to move this Amendment himself. He said he had promised earlier in the day, when the House was discussing the word "workman" to make it perfectly clear that the exemption should be expressly intended to apply to examiners or deputies, by moving the words "other than a fireman, examiner, or deputy." That made it perfectly clear that these persons would be entitled to exemption under Clause 1.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 40, after the word 'mine' to insert the words 'other than a fireman, examiner, or deputy."—(Sir S. Evans.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. LUPTON

said he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman should propose this Amendment. It seemed to him that it would make the management of a mine exceedingly difficult. They could not set on any number of officials to deal with the working of the mine. A deputy had sometimes to be in the mine day and night. He was sometimes the only man who understood the situation, and this Amendment would make it far worse. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persist in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. LUPTON moved an Amendment to exclude an engineman from the expression "workman." He said that there were a great many enginemen who had a very nice quiet life down below, with very little work to do beyond sitting on a bench and reading the paper, in some cases smoking a pipe, and perhaps oiling the engine occasionally. This measure might deprive them of their means of livelihood, because four enginemen would be required to do work which was now done by two, and the result would very likely be; that the owner or manager would say he could not afford four enginemen and would have to send one man round to the various engines to see that they were in order, taking the risk of a breakdown. At present decidedly middle-aged or elderly men were employed in this capacity and ended their days very happily in the engine-house. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment not seconded.

*SIR C. J. CORY moved an Amendment to exclude from the expression "workman" any person employed in working or shifting a coal-cutter, conveyor or other mechanical appliance for the purpose of getting or conveying the coal. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to agree to this Amendment in the interests of the men themselves. If the coal-cutter were stopped before the cut was completed, a large number of men might be delayed in their work the next day, and therefore it was to the interests of the mineowners and the men themselves that these words should be accepted.

MR. BECK

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 40, to leave out the second word 'or.'"—Sir C. J. Cory.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

This Amendment goes very much further than the one discussed a few minutes ago. So far as the possibility of a breakdown of coal-cutting machinery, and the inconvenience caused thereby to the working of the mine are concerned, that point has been already adequately dealt with by the exemption in the case of serious inconvenience caused to the working of the mine through unforeseen circumstances. The hon. Member now proposes to exempt from all the provisions of the Act, in all circumstances, all the men employed in working or shifting a coal-cutter, conveyor, or other mechanical appliance for the purpose of getting or conveying the coal. There can be no justification for that.

MR. J. F. MASON

said that, so far as he understood, the point raised by the Amendment was that the coal-cutter had to go a certain distance to prepare the work of the next day. Would any stoppage in the coal-cutting through a breakdown which prevented the finishing of the complete cut of coal for the next day be covered by the provision mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

Certainly, if it were an unforeseen circumstance; but supposing there were some natural defect in the scam which it was well known would stop the coal-cutter for a certain time, then our contention is that allowance ought to be made each day for the well-known conditions of the mine, and that can be done and is done by any capable manager. Where there is any unforeseen circumstance such as a fault in the seam which is discovered for the first time and was not previously expected, no doubt that would be a case covered by the exception.

Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH moved to substitute the word "number" for "body." He said it was not an Amendment of very great importance, though he thought it would be agreed that the word "body" was not quite a suitable word. He was not aware that there was any precedent for the word "body" in this respect, and he suggested that the word "number" was far more suitable. The word "body" convoyed the idea of a large number of men, and had a somewhat military sound, and therefore ought not to commend itself to hon. Members opposite. He thought the word "number" fairly met the case, as it might mean anything more than one man, and there were circumstances in which two men might be affected by the clause. It was purely a drafting Amendment.

SIR C. J. CORY

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 1, to leave out the word 'body,' and insert the word 'number.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said he rose to move an Amendment of substance, and one for which he asked the attention of the Government. It was to amend the provision of Clause 1 which permitted a fireman or deputy to be employed nine and a half hours during the probationary period of three years after the Act, and nine hours a day afterwards. All Members acquainted with the working of a mine were aware that the duties and responsibilities of these men were of a very heavy and a very serious kind. They were required to go down into the pit early in the morning and examine the working places, and they had the whole responsibility of seeing to the ventilation, the absence of fire-damp, the provision of a proper supply of timber, and things of that kind. They must all be aware that these men could not go down into and come up from the mine at the same times as the colliers. They must go down before to examine the places and perform their other duties. What they were attempting to obtain by this Amendment was that their hours of labour should not exceed eight per day. As a matter of fact, in those parts of the coal-fields with which he was best acquainted, even though the hours of the working collier and the other employees were long, those of the firemen usually did not exceed eight per day. Employers found it to their advantage to give those men a short working day because of the heavy responsibility resting upon them and the need for obtaining a superior class of workmen. If they were to say to these men that they were to be kept at work for an hour to an hour and a half longer than the ordinary colliers, it would not only inflict a very serious injustice upon them but would lead to a lower typo of workmen being employed for the performance of those special duties. He moved that the fireman and deputy be exempted from the subsection in order that they might come within the scope of the Bill and obtain the short working day. He did not know that the point required to be laboured, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment. Otherwise most serious consequences would follow.

MR. THOMAS RICHARDS (Monmouthshire, W.)

seconded the Amendment and joined with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in hoping the Government would accept it. Perhaps he might be allowed to congratulate their hon. friends that at last the conspiracy of silence had broken down, and that ought to be proof of the importance of this Amendment. They had not felt it necessary to talk very much upon tins measure. He thought it was really modest and becoming of them to allow other Members to have their say upon it. Then, too, if they had taken up the time of the House they would have been deprived of some, perhaps, of the very many interesting speeches they had had from the Members from the North. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had referred to the important duties the men referred to had to perform in the mines. The shortness of the time at their disposal prevented anything like a lengthy argument, but the learned Solicitor-General had already given so very many indications of his intimate knowledge of mining, and as he knew personally that he was very intimately acquainted with the work these mea performed in the mines and the difficulties under which they did it, he did not think it was essential to labour the subject. Sufficient for him to say that these men entered the mine; each went to his own districts, traversed the dark galleries, and was responsible for examining every nook and corner of the mine for dangers that might be lurking there. That work required the utmost exercise of every faculty the men possessed, both mental and physical. Then if, perhaps, he did not notice a danger, and the workmen went in after the examination and was killed, the fireman had to attend the inquest, and was very often kept about all day, and had to go down the mine again when the hour arrived for the performance of his onerous duties. He did not know if this was included in the printed opposition they had received from the Mining Association, but he did not think any responsible colliery owner would seriously object to giving these men the benefit of this Act of Parliament. After all, eight hours of continuous labour such as these men had was surely enough under the most pleasant conditions' but when it had to be performed in the dismal darkness of the mine, everybody would agree that it was enough. There was no question here in which either the Coal Consumers' League or the general public were in any sense whatever concerned. The benefit to these workmen and the additional safety of the miners would be great if only reasonable working hours were allowed, and he earnestly begged the learned Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 5, to leave out the words 'firemen or deputy.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'firemen' stand part of the Bill."

MR. MARKHAM

joined in the appeal to include these men in the sphere of operations of the Bill, He spoke at some length on the question in Committee and did not, therefore, wish to detain the House by reiterating the arguments. Taking these men all over the country they were as fine a body of men as could be found. They went through great dangers, receiving as a rule a much lower rate of pay than the colliers working in the pits. In South Wales more particularly their duties were extremely onerous, and he thought they ought to participate in this legislation. He hoped the Government would accede to the appeal, because under the clause as it was drawn the the deputy would actually be in the pit for full nine and a half hours, or very nearly so, because the winding was excluded, whereas the working miner, who had a less onerous work, had only to be in the mine eight hours.

MR. LUPTON

said it seemed to him that the effect of the Amendment would be that the deputy would only be allowed in the mine for half an hour less time than the ordinary miner, because he would not be in a shift of workmen and his time would only be eight hours from bank to bank. He would like to know what the effect was likely to be in a small mine. In many small mines the deputy went down in the morning, then came out of the pit and got his breakfast or dinner, and then went down in the afternoon and saw the men out. Would the effect be that from the first time he went down to the last time he came up would be counted as eight hours; would he be allowed to go down the pit twice in twenty-four hours? It would be a serious matter if the Government accepted the Amendment without careful consideration.

* SIR C. J. CORY

thought the Amendment would be an undesirable interference with the management of a mine. The fireman or deputy was not necessarily down the whole time during the working of the pit, but might go up and down. After all, the liability and responsibility for the safety of the men rested upon the mine owner, agent, or manager and if he kept the fireman down an unreasonable time so that he could not perform his duties satisfactorily, that would be brought up against him if any legal proceedings arose. He did not think it was desirable to include these men.

SIR S. EVANS

I do not wish to bind the House in any way, but this matter was discussed in Committee very fully. The arguments that have been brought forward have convinced reasonable Members that under all the circumstances this very small and very capable class of men ought not to be exactly in the same position as the ordinary workmen. The ordinary workmen are included as working in the shift, and although a fireman may be in a shift he does not belong to that particular shift. There is laid upon him the obligation of going down before the shift goes down, and he goes down an hour, sometimes one and a half hours, sometimes two hours, before the shift actually begins, so that he may satisfy himself as to the safety of the mine generally and the safety in all working places. So that he does not really belong to a particular shift, and therefore, there is a great difficulty in dealing with the cases of the fireman and the examiner. Everybody knows how serious a responsibility rests upon the firemen. Their work is extremely responsible, and it is because of that that I think it would be wise, in the interests of the management or of the miners themselves, to say that in no case should a particular fireman be underground for a period of more than eight hours. We think on the whole, having given great consideration to this matter, that it is a question as between a small body of men and the management of the mine.

MR. MARKHAM

These men are not in the Miners' Federal ion or the other miners' organisations.

SIR S. EVANS

They are a small body of men taking, certainly, a more direct part in conjunction with the management than the other men. Although it is right to restrict within certain limits the hours underground of the firemen and deputies, we think that on the whole it is better to leave this matter to an arrangement between the masters and these officials themselves. It is perfectly true that the responsibility for the safety of the mine rests with the managers and the officials, who have to take the necessary precautions they are bound under the Act of Parliament to take, and who are subject to the very severest penalties if they do not perform that obligation. In the case of anything like culpable negligence they might even be prosecuted for manslaughter. The new provisions in regard to these men are that as compared with the eight or eight and a half hours proposed for the ordinary miner they are to be allowed underground for nine and a half hours. But, of course, this does not preclude in any degree, or in any sense, any arrangement which may be required for the safety of the collier, between the management of the mine and these men for regulating still further the hours. The clause lays down that the "maximum period" shall not exceed nine and a half hours during the three years after the commencement of this Act, and thereafter nine hours.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

inquired if it was not the case that firemen might be made a shift under the terms of the clause?

SIR S. EVANS

There is no question of numbers of workmen here at all. It is the case of an official sent down for a particular purpose, and you cannot say that a fireman is in a particular shift. In answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I wish to say that in my opinion the provisions of the clause would not make the firemen a shift of workmen. Upon the whole, I hope the House will accept the decision of the Government upon this. They look at it from the point of view of those who are mainly responsible not for their own safety and health, but for the safety of the men generally who are working in the mine.

MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM

could not agree with the idea that this question, could be settled between the firemen and the management, any more than it could be settled between the management and the workpeople. Certain employers had introduced a system of three periods of eight hours in the twenty-four for their firemen, and in conjunction with that he was glad to say the number of accidents had been considerably reduced.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment, proposed— In page 3, line 5, after the word 'firemen,' to insert the word 'examiner.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GLOVER

proposed to insert after the word "deputy," the words "mechanic, horsekeeper." He said his object was to bring these two parties under the Bill.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have we not already passed these words in subsection (3), and therefore would it not be impossible to insert them here?

* MR. SPEAKER

That is so. I did not notice that.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

Is it not clear that mechanics and horsekeepers are not workmen within the meaning of the Act as decided in subsection (7)?

* MR. SPEAKER

I think that is so. I think subsection (7) excludes them altogether.

MR. LUPTON moved to insert after the word "fireman" the word "engineman." He need not remind the House, he said, that there were a great, many enginemen engaged below ground. He did not know whether an enginemen would be one of a shift of workmen, but if he was he would not be able to get to his place before other workmen in order to get his engine ready, though as a matter of fact the workmen would require the engine to start as soon as they got in the pit. From his experience of mines, he did not hesitate to say that a very serious hindrance to the working of the mine would be caused unless the engineman was added.

MR. BOWLES, in seconding the Amendment, said the object of the whole of the subsection was to take care that all the persons whoso work was essentially necessary to the work of the shift, but was not of such a character that they could be regarded as part of the shift, should be allowed ample time to prepare for the work of the mine. It was quite clear that among such men enginemen must be classed. If they were going to insert the pump-minder and fan-minder, he could not see why the engineman should not also be inserted. He thought the Government would see the reasonableness of the proposition, and he hoped they would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 6, after the word 'fanman,' to insert the word 'engineman.'"—[Mr. Lupton.)

Question proposed, "That the word "engineman" be there inserted."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

The colliery winding engineman is, of course, not concerned in this Amendment, because he works above ground. It can only refer, therefore, to the engineman employed below ground in connection with haulage. Some time ago I received a deputation from persons representing the coal owners, and I would tell the House that this point was not pressed. We went through all the categories of officials most carefully, and discussed them one by one with a view to seeing whether they should be exempted or not. It was never suggested by the deputation that exemption was necessary in regard to the engineman below ground, and we are advised that it is not necessary. In these circumstances the Amendment cannot be accepted.

MR. LAMBTON

did not think the point just made by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office was a very conclusive one. Surely it was not contended that, because these coal owners did not ask for these men to be included it was a conclusive reason why they should not be? The enginemen employed below ground were most important persons so far as the working of the mine was concerned, and he very heartily supported the Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

asked if the Government were going to give the House no better reason than they had done for resisting the Amendment. The argument that the engineman was not mentioned among the officials by

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, George Denison (York)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fell, Arthur	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Renwick, George
Beck, A. Cecil	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Ridsdale, E. A.
Bull, Sir William James	Houston, Robert Paterson	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Valentia, Viscount
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lupton, Arnold	Younger, George
Cory, Sir Clifford John	M'Arthur, Charles
Craik, Sir Henry	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Lambton.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Mason, James F. (Windsor)

NOES.
Abraham William (Cork. N. E.)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Agnew, George William	Byles, William Pollard	Erskine David C.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Cameron, Robert	Essex, R. W.
Balcarres, Lord	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Evans, Sir Samuel T.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Fenwick, Charles
Barnes, G. N.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Ferens, T. R.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Clancy, John Joseph	Findlay, Alexander
Beale, W. P.	Cleland, J. W.	Flynn, James Christopher
Beauchamp, E.	Clough, William	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Fuller, John Michael F.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Gilhooly, James
Berridge, T. H. D.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Gill, A. H.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Crean, Eugene	Ginnell, L.
Bowerman, C. W.	Crooks, William	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Brace, William	Curran, Peter Francis	Glover, Thomas
Branch, James	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Bryce, J. Annan	Dillon, John	Hall, Frederick

the deputation that waited on the right hon. Gentleman was not at all a convincing one. The Government exempted all the people who had to go down before the shift, except the engineman, and he would like to know why they left him out.

MR. GLADSTONE

These men are exclusively employed below ground. They have plenty of time in the course of the shift to attend to their engine as regards cleaning, which is an operation that would take perhaps an hour or more. This, I am given to understand, is done in short odd shifts, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to extend the exemption to enginemen as proposed by the Amendment.

MR. LUPTON

I may say that do not want to go to a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 450.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Rowlands, J.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Mallet, Charles E.	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)
Harwood, George	Markham, Arthur Basil	Seaverns, J. H.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.	Seddon, J.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Middlebrook, William	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Hayden, John Patrick	Molteno, Percy Alport	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Spicer, Sir Albert
Henry, Charles S.	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Hodge, John	Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.	Steadman. W. C.
Hogan, Michael	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Napier, T. B.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Horniman, Emslie John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Tomkinson, James
Idris, T. H. W.	Nolan, Joseph	Toulmin, George
Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jackson, R. S.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Walsh, Stephen
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Walton, Joseph
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Joyce, Michael	O'Doherty, Philip	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	O'Dowd, John	White, Sir George (Norfolk
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Grady, J.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.
Lambert, George	Parker, James (Halifax)	Whitey, John Henry (Halifax)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Pollard, Dr.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lehmann, R. C.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Radford, G. H.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Lewis, John Herbert	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
MacNiell, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Macpherson, J. T.	Robinson, S.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 8, to leave out the word 'three,' and insert the word 'five.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH moved to add at the end of Clause 1 the words "except in legal proceedings." He would like the Solicitor-General to satisfy him that there was absolutely no doubt, on this clause. The words he suggested, "except in legal proceedings." sounded as though they would overload the Bill, but as it stood there might be some doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Was there any doubt whatever?

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 23, at the end to add the words 'except in legal proceedings."'—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR S. EVANS

Those words are quite unnecessary, because the words "otherwise than in legal proceedings" appear in the Bill.

MR. BOWLES

said the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had not perhaps grasped the point that had just been raised. The doubt they felt was this. The House would see that it was enacted that— If any question under this section arises (otherwise than, in legal proceedings) the question shall be left to the Home Secretary to decide whether any person is a workman or a workman of a particular class. Supposing the question arose, and the inspector took one view and the manager another, application would be made to the Secretary of State to decide whether the man was or was not a workman. If after that decision had been given a case came before a Court of law, what would happen? Would it be possible for the Judge in that Court to say: "This case comes before me in legal proceedings, but before it came before me the Secretary of State gave a decision on the point, which by statute law is final." The Amendment was intended to remove the doubt on that point. He did not know that this was the best way of removing it, but the insertion of these words certainly would remove it. The point on which they would like a reply from the Solicitor General was whether the decision of the Home Secretary would bind a Court of law.

SIR S. EVANS

With the permission of the House I will say a little more fully what my opinion is and what are my reasons for that opinion. I think there is no doubt that in any legal proceedings, the decision which had been given by the Secretary of State would not be binding. The Judge will say: "These are legal proceedings and there are facts into which we have to inquire and on which we have to decide," and the decision would be given without reference to the decision of the Secretary of State. The same phraseology is used in the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LAMBTON moved to omit from Clause 2 the words "and the cause thereof." This clause said that there should be a register kept at the pithead in which was to be put down the hours the men were lowered into and raised from the mine, and that in cases in which a man was below ground for more than the time fixed by the Act the cause thereof should be entered. If this register was kept at the pithead it would be impossible for the man at the pit-head in charge of the register to know the cause why a man was below longer than he should be. It had been suggested that the owner or agent should be responsible for a man being up in time. Clause 6, subsection (a) said that the owner or agent should only be responsible for providing for the lowering and raising of the men at the proper time, and that their functions did not extend beyond that. Under this clause, the owners came under special penalties. The subsection said that— If any person makes a false entry in the register which is to be kept under this section, or causes or permits any such entry to be made, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding £5. The workman could give any cause for being late that he liked to the man who kept the register, and that must then be entered in the register. There was, however, a penalty for making a false, entry, and if the man coming up late gave an excuse, and that excuse was found to be false, if attention was called to it he was liable to a fine of £5. The removal of these words would make no difference to the principle of the Bill.

MR. BOWLES seconded the Amendment. He could not help thinking that it was not necessary for the purpose of the Act that anything should be known except that a man had been below ground for a longer period than the law allowed. Whatever the cause might be if they were going to proceed further they would have to have an inquiry into the whole circumstances to find out whether the cause for delay came under the provisions of the Bill. The statement of the cause was quite unnecessary and would be of very doubtful validity in any case. This provision could not be of any use, for all the inspector wanted to know was whether a man had been down He mine longer than was allowed by the law. He thought the Government should give way on this point. The words were really unnecessary and irritating and he hoped the Government would allow them to be taken out.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 31, to leave out the words and the cause thereof.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

If it really were the case that these words were unnecessary and of no substantive value at all, we should of course be very glad to accept the Amendment; but I think I shall be able in a very few moments to convince the hon. Gentleman, that these words are necessary. The Bill prescribes certain limitations of hours and gives a number of exemptions from those hours. It is obvious, if you do not have some control, that these exemptions may be so used by wrongly disposed persons as to evade the whole purpose of the Act. You must have some simple method of enforcement and of check. That is provided for by the register, which has to state the time at which a man goes down and comes up, and if the stay exceeds the times allowed then the register must state the reason. It would not be enough for the register merely to say that such and such a person came up an hour late and so on. It would afford no guidance whatever to the inspector, and since the inspector's visit might be a fortnight or month later he would have no basis on which to form an inquiry. And he would have to inquire into every case. If the inspector saw against a man's name that he came up late became there was an accident below ground, and there were several other men who were also late for that reason, the inspector would know that might be accurate because he would already have received notice of the accident from the owner of the pit and the two things would tally. I think it would be most inconvenient if you merely stated times and not the particular exemption under which a man had exceeded his time. As to the owner being liable in cases where he was incorrectly informed I am told by my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General and we were told in Committee by the Solicitor-General for Scotland that that would not be so. We do not say he would be liable if an inaccurate entry were put in the register. It must be, to his knowledge, false.

MR. LAMBTON

thought he pointed out just now that the only excuse the person could put down in the register was the excuse that the man himself gave and therefore, if he put down the excuse given him by the man who came up late, and that excuse turned out to be false, the man who kept the register was liable to a fine.

MR. BRACE

Is the hon. Gentleman permitted to make a second speech?

* MR. SPEAKER

If he likes.

MR. LAMBTON

said he did not want to make any if he could help it, and if the Government would only accept reasonable Amendments he would not trouble them. The registrar could not possibly know what was the cause, and if it should turn out, through no cause of his, that he was liable to a penalty it was most unfair.

MR. LUPTON

thought the man who kept the register at the pit-head would find plenty to do to keep the times of the men coming up, especially if they were late. He would have to give his attention strictly to keeping the time, and if he had to enter into any inquiry as to the cause it would involve a large staff of clerks at the pit-head. The real record of the case would be kept by the manager in his own defence. He would have another book in which he would enter the cause, so that when the inspector came round and found that a certain number of men had not come up the pit at the proper time, and he proceeded to inquire, then the manager or deputy would produce the book, and not the register, which should be simply a record of the times the men went down and came up.

MR. MCARTHUR

asked whether the word "alleged" before "cause" would not meet the case.

MR. MARKHAM

said he was certain in practice it would be quite impossible to keep this register. It would consist of inaccurate entries. He did not know what was the use of having a register unless it was a true register. The Solicitor-General for Scotland assured him the word "false" covered any owner who put down the cause in the register if he thought that cause was the correct one, but in point of fact the Solicitor-General could not deny that it would be quite impracticable where they had 3,000 men in a mine and, say, 100 came up late. Owing to the many exemptions in the Bill it would be quite impossible for the manager to know or register the cause. He urged on the Government the importance of having a register, but he thought if the manager of the mine had to find out the cause it would be a very serious thing indeed. He was quite confident the register would not be correct, and it was impossible to keep a correct one. The question was whether under these circumstances the House should pass legislation which it knew could not possibly be carried out in practice.

SIR S. EVANS

I think the difficulty of keeping a register in compliance with this section has been rather exaggerated by the hon. Member. It is of the greatest importance in order that the Act may be properly carried out that there should be a statement made at the time as to the alleged cause, because it is only alleged. I entirely agree with what I understand is the opinion of my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that the words "false entry" necessarily implies knowledge on the part of the person making the statement. If it is thought desirable, however, the word "knowingly" might be inserted, though I do not think it is necessary.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

After the speech we have just listened to would it not meet the point if the word "alleged" which was used by the Solicitor-General were inserted?

SIR S. EVANS

I used the word "alleged" because, at the moment, it served my argument. But if you insert the word in the clause, the question would arise: "By whom alleged?"

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

I think the point would be fully met if the word "knowingly" were inserted. Although in the view of the Government the word is not necessary, if hon. Members desire it we have no objection.

MR. RENWICK

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the use of the word "alleged," and also the word "knowingly," because all that the keeper of the register could put down was alleged as the information was given to him by somebody else. It seemed to him that there was the greatest reluctance on the part of those in charge of the Bill to meet them in regard to these matters. The conclusion he had come to was that there was rather a desire to create offences and penalties, than to legislate in a common-sense way.

MR. LAMBTON

said he was not satisfied, but in view of the promise of the right hon. G3ntleman the Undersecretary, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOWLES moved an Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 2 to prevent more than one person being stationed by the wrorkmen of a mine at the pithead for the purpose of observing the time of lowering and raising. He thought it would be a good thing to limit this power to one person at a time. The object, of course, of the clause as it stood was to enable the workpeople at the mine to inform themselves if any infraction of the Act was taking place. The duties of these persons would be merely those of observation, not of intricate movements, but merely of the time the cage arrived and returned. That could be perfectly well done by one person; in fact, he could hardly suppose that the workpeople in the mine would dream of sending more than one person to check. He did not think hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would say it was essentially necessary to have more than one person at the pit-head for the purpose of observing the times. If that were so, it seemed to him that the House would be well advised, in view of the possibilities of the Bill, to limit the number of persons who had a statutory right to be at the pit-head, for the avowed purpose of observation. Subject to any enlightenment he might get, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

SIR F. BANBURY seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 35, to leave out the words 'one or more persons,' and insert the words 'a person.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. MARKHAM

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept no limit, because in the large pits where many men might be going up or down in three or four shifts it would be quite impossible to state in the Act how many persons would be required.

MR. GLADSTONE

Obviously it is anticipated that these men will be there for certain purposes. If so they are under the Mines Regulations Acts and proceedings can be taken against them to prevent misbehaviour. There is no reason to expect such misbehaviour. Where you have a two or three shifts mine working all through the year it is impossible to say that there shall be only one man in the mine to deal with them. I really cannot see that any real argument can be made in favour of the Amendment, and therefore cannot accept it.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

thought the Amendment might be altered to "one person or a reasonable number of persons." Peaceful picketing was not unknown and it would be perfectly possible to stand at the pit-head an enormous number of men who might not be coming within the purview of the law. He thought the objections that had been put forward might easily be met by altering the Amendment to "one person or a reasonable number of persons."

* MR. WALSH (Lancashire, Ince)

said he certainly thought their hon. friends above the gangway were attaching too much importance to this Amendment. There were hundreds of cases in which there were three windings during the day. In such cases it would be physically impossible for the one man appointed to undertake the work of supervision. Then, supposing they limited it to one man and there was a conflict of evidence between their own agent or manager and the workman who had been appointed. The matter might find its way into Court—they hoped those things would not find their way into Court, but they might—where they had only one man giving evidence on behalf of the men his evidence might amount to no more than the evidence of the manager. They were hoping that this course would not be required, and that, as a matter of fact, the pro- cedure would work much more smoothly than the fears of some hon. Gentlemen would seem to predict; but for the purposes of evidence it might often be required to have at least two men so as to have corroborative evidence. Anyhow what he submitted was that it would be necessary in the case of the very large pits—and the large pits were very rapidly increasing in number—where there were hundreds of men going down in very heavy windings, it might be absolutely necessary, so as to have smoothness of working, to give at least the power of appointing one or more persons. There must at least be the possibility of more than one being present for the purpose of corroborative evidence. Of what were hon. Members afraid? The duties performed by these men must be held within the duties, and conditioned entirely by the limited powers of the checkweigher and his relations to the owner, agent or manager, and that being the case any such thing as a large body of men assembled upon a pit-head for any other purpose than the one set forth would be a criminal act.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The object of the Amendment is, I believe, to prevent an improper use of the provision. I understand, per contra, that the Government say that an improper use is absolutely prevented by the existing provisions as to checkweighers, and I think perhaps we should all be satisfied if the learned Solicitor-General would explain the Checkweighers Act at this stage.

SIR S. EVANS

It is quite clear. The Checkweighers Act lays down that he must not interfere in any way with the management of the mine or exceed his duties as a checkweigher. Cases have been brought in South Wales where the checkweigher has distributed notices to those in the colliery, and stated that he was acting as an agent of the Miners' Federation, and not a checkweigher.

MR. BOWLES

I am very much obliged, and after what the right hon. Gentleman has said I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to provide that Section 1, subsection (4) of the Coal Mines (Weighing of Minerals) Act, 1905, should not be applied to the person appointed under subsection (2) of Clause 2. The hon. Baronet said the reason that he moved to omit the section was that if "one or more persons" were to be allowed to attend for these purposes it might be that the mine-owner might have to erect shelters for fifty or even more persons, and taking the clause as it stood, he did not think it was advisable that this section should be included.

MR. BOWLES seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 40, after the word 'weigher,' to insert the words 'other than Section 1, subsection 4 of the Coal Mines (Weighing of Minerals) Act, 1905.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

I do not think that any reasonable colliery owner would avoid doing what the Act of Parliament says he ought to do in cases of this sort. These men would practically be performing similar duties to those of the checkweigher. They may have to be out in all sorts of weather. The Checkweighers Act makes it necessary for them to provide no palaces or houses, but sheters where the men may keep their books, and for other purposes. I do not think any reasonable employer would object to do this.

SIR F. BANBURY

I do not press the Amendment, and ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to omit the words "and to the relations of the owner, agent, or manager of the mine to the checkweigher" in the subsection (2) of Clause 2, making the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations Act applicable to the person appointed. The hon. Baronet said the provision only related to the relations of the owner to the checkweigher. Surely the checkweigher had some relations to the owner or agent which ought to be set down. He had an idea that the right hon. Gentle- man had had that before him, and that it was proposed elsewhere to insert words which would provide for that.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 40, to leave out from the word 'weigher' to the word 'shall' in line 41."—(Sir F. Banbury.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I am prepared to accept the Amendment if the hon. Baronet would agree to its being altered so as to make the last two lines of the subsection run thus: "relating to the checkweigher and to the relations between the owner, agent or manager of the mine and the checkweigher."

SIR F. BANBURY

I accept that.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 4, line 5, after the word 'person,' to insert the word 'knowingly.' In page 4, line 6, after the first word 'or' to insert the word 'knowingly.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. LUPTON moved to add at the end of the section, the words "Provided that the total amount of fines for offences under this section committed at any one pit in any one period of twenty-four hours shall not exceed twenty-five pounds." It seemed to him that the provision in the Bill would make a man liable for any amount of money for some false entry and that was a serious matter. He admitted that the word "knowingly" which the Home Secretary had just inserted made a considerable difference so far as his (Mr. Lupton's) opinion went, although he believed the Solicitor-General contended that it made no difference at all. He looked upon this as a serious matter, because they might be dealing with hundreds of men, and that a man who made a mistake in the register should be liable to penalties amounting, perhaps, to thousands of pounds was very hard. The Solicitor-General said that a man would not be liable unless he knowingly made a false statement, but, of course, the prosecution would allege that it was done knowingly, and it was not an easy thing always to disprove charges of that kind. It was only necessary for people to get up a case against a man who was alleged to have made a false entry, or caused one to be made, and he might be fined quite an unlimited amount. He knew of no case similar to this, and he could not imagine any thing more reasonable than the Amendment he now proposed.

MR. BECK

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 8, at the end to insert the words 'Provided that the total amount of fines for offences under this section committed at any one pit in any one period of twenty-four hours shall not exceed twenty-five pounds.'"—(Mr. Lupton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

I accept the Amendment.

MR. MARKHAM

said he was very sorry to hear that. If the Government had got on with the business of the session instead of bringing in Education Bills they would not have come to this pass. The Eight-Hours Bill which had been one of the first measures in the Government's programme for the last three years had been constantly delayed, and he could not be a party to any agreement which involved the acceptance of such Amendments as this. It was simply monstrous that in order to save a few minutes time and get the Bill through at the very end of an autumn session the Government should accept an Amendment under which the proprietor or manager of a large colliery who deliberately permitted false entries to be made in the register was not to be liable to a penalty of more than £25 a day. He thought the Amendment was too silly for words.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should like to point out to the hon. Member that if the Amendment is adopted it will not have the serious consequences which he appears to anticipate. It merely relates to the keeping of the register. For the offence of keeping men illegally below ground there will be the penalties under Clause 6, and there is no such limitation provided with regard to Clause 6. It is felt, however, that, where you have a cumulative fine for errors in keeping the register, and you can get more than one penalty imposed against a man on one occasion, to make the total unlimited would be too severe.

Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH moved, after the word "mine," in Clause 3, to insert the words "or seam." He said this was a very important Amendment, and he sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. He could not help thinking that the omission of the words "or seam" in this clause dealing with the power to extend the hours of working on a limited number of days during the year was a pure oversight. It must be borne in mind that there might be in one pit two seams of coal—house coal and steam coal. He thought it must be obvious that an owner who possessed two separate pits, one for steam coal and one for house coal, would be in a far more favourable position than the other owner who had one pit with two seams of different coal. There must be a certain amount of doubt as to how the extension would operate in the case of a pit containing both a seam of house coal and a seam of steam coal. Would the owner with two seams in one pit be entitled to the extension of sixty days in regard to only one seam or to both? That was a point which ought to be cleared up unless great confusion and uncertainty was to prevail in the event of the Bill becoming law.

MR. FELL

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 12, after the word 'mine' to insert the words 'or seam.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

We cannot accept this Amendment, because it would be impossible, in administering the Bill, to distinguish between two seams in one mine. We follow here the same practice as is adopted in regard to overtime in a factory.

LORD R. CECIL

remarked that the analogy of a factory was very misleading, because in the factory they had one business being carried on, whereas here, they had what were substantially two businesses—a steam coal business and a house coal business. They might have this done by two mines or by one mine. He should have thought it was quite plain that they might have one mine with two seams of coal in it of a totally different kind. The position under the Bill was this: If they had two mines, one dealing with steam coal and the other with house coal, then they might work sixty days extra in each. But if they had two seams in one mine, then they could only work sixty days extra for both. Surely that was an unfair provision in the Bill, and his noble friend's proposal ought to be accepted.

MR. GLADSTONE

It would be necessary to keep a separate register for the men working at the different seams in a mine.

MR. BOWLES

said from the right hon. Gentleman's statement the only difficulty in working the Amendment appeared to be an administrative one; that was to say, the difficulty of keeping the register. Was the House really to understand that that was the Government's objection? The kind of man who was going to keep the register would be capable of most things, and surely the Home Secretary did not wish the House to believe that it was impossible at the pit-head for the man keeping the register to say in what seam of the pit any particular man was working. The truth was that his noble friend had really put his finger on a clear and palpable injustice as between the owner working seams of house coal and steam coal in separate pits, and the owner doing the same business in one pit. The first man would be able to get an extension for sixty days twice in a year; the second man would be able to get the extension only once in a year. That was clearly an unfairness, and if the only objection to it was that it was impossible to decide at the top of the pit in which seam particular gangs of men were working he could not see that the objection was very serious.

* SIR C. J. CORY

knew of collieries where entirely different classes of coal were worked. In such cases it might very well happen that they would have very large contracts for one class of coal and be very slack in another class. A heavy demand for the latter class might however arise all of a sudden and it would be very hard if the colliery proprietor was not able to get the extension of one hour a day in order to enable him satisfactorily to cope with that demand. He could not see for a moment why the Government should differentiate as regards collieries which worked different seams from the same shaft and those that worked them as separate mines by means of separate shafts or drifts. If they did so he was afraid that at times it would cause some inconvenience.

MR. MARKHAM

was not quite clear how they stood in regard to this particular case. He was the owner of a mine where he had a hard coal seam quite distinct from an upper seam, which was a house coal seam. The hard coal mine worked all the year round, and the soft coal mine only for five or six months a year. Under the Bill would it be possible to have an extension of time for sixty days both for the hard coal and the soft coal? It was important to remember that there were two shafts, which were common to both seams, but the men signed on for the upper or the lower mine as the case might be. The house coal was worked only during the winter months, and it would be those men who ought to have the longer hours, but, if the extension was confined to the hard coal, then it would be impossible for them to take advantage of this clause. As far as he could remember this point was missed in Committee, and it was one to which the Government ought to give consideration. If they would promise to do so when dealing with the matter in another place he for one would be content. If the clause was to remain in the Act they should make it workable. If he wished to disobey or evade the law, he would, as the clause stands, be able to do so.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

May I mention in a word a provision in the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, which provides that where two or more parts of a mine are worked separately the owner, agent or manager of the mine may give notice in writing to the inspector for the district, and unless the Secretary of State objects on the ground that the separation is intended to facilitate evasion of the Act, each part shall thereupon be held to be a separate mine. Separate mines for the purpose of the Coal Mines Regulation Act will be separate mines under this Bill. But if an owner is freely allowed to work his men overtime sixty days in one part of a mine, and then transfer them and work them sixty days overtime in another part of the mine, it will be possible to evade the Act.

AYES.
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Cory, Sir Clifford John	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craik, Sir Henry	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Renwick, George
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Houston, Robert Paterson	Valentia, Viscount
Beck, A. Cecil	Hunt, Rowland
Bowles, G. Stewart	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lupton, Arnold	Viscount Castlereagh and
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Mr. Fell.

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Glover, Thomas	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hall, Frederick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barnes, G. N.	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Beale, W. P.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	O'Doherty, Philip
Benn, W. (Tow'r Hamlots, S. Geo.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hodge, John	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Brace, William	Hogan, Michael	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)	Seddon, J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Joyce, Michael	Shackleton, David James
Clough, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Kettle, Thomas Michael	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Crean, Eugene	Lewis, John Herbert	Steadman, W. C.
Crooks, William	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Crossley, William J.	Lundon, W.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)	Walsh, Stephen
Dillon, John	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Walton, Joseph
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macpherson, J. T.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	MacVeigh, Charlcs (Donegal, E.)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Flynn, James Christopher	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Mallet, Charles E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gilhooly, James	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Gill, A. H.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Ginnell, L.	Nolan, Joseph

*MR. BECK moved an Amendment to extend to ninety days the period in which overtime might be worked, which in the Bill stood at sixty days. He believed the Amendment would be in the interests of coal consumers and of the older mines, and, moreover, it was moved in Committee by the

* MR. BECK

said he was very sorry, but he must add his voice to the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had been all along working on behalf of the coal consumers, not, be it under stood, the Coal Consumers' League, for he knew nothing of that body. He must press for this Amendment to be accepted. If it was not, and hon. Gentlemen opposite went to a division, he must vote with them.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 20; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 451.)

hon. Member for Gloucester who, as they all knew, was the Chairman of the Departmental Committee. He thought the hon. Member's weighty speech that afternoon, in which he warned them of the serious effects which would accrue if the Bill became law too abruptly, had shown that the least that they could do was to provide some means by which they could defer those effects. The Amendment, by giving ninety days instead of sixty, would do something in that direction.

MR. HICKS BEACH

seconded this Amendment, because it was moved in Committee upstairs by the Chairman of the Departmental Committee, who considered it to be a very sound proposal. In this safeguard, he thought, lay the only salvation for the older mines of the country. He could not help thinking that if the Bill passed in its present form, and one winding of eight hours was approved, it would be the ruin of the older mines. He believed that the sixty days exemption was put in to save some of those older collieries, and if they were going to assist them surely it would do no harm to make the exemption ninety instead of sixty days. If the men did not wish to work the extra thirty days which it was proposed to add they had a strong enough federation to enable them to resist any attempt which might be made to make them do so. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, to leave out the word 'sixty,' and to insert the word 'ninety.'"—(Mr. Beck.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE

Originally this exemption was thirty days of two hours, but it was altered to sixty days of one hour. We cannot go further than that. We deem this period sufficient, and there is already a very strong objection to the clause as it stands. I would also point out that, whatever figure you put in, it depends on the mutual co-operation of workmen and employers whether it becomes operative.

MR. BECK

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FELL moved to amend Clause 4 by providing that His Majesty might, by Order in Council, temporarily suspend either wholly or in part, the operation of the Act, in the event of a rise occurring in the price of household coal to the extent of 5s. above the average price of the preceding three years. He said that the case covered by the Amendment did not very often happen, but it had happened something like every ten years or more, and when it did happen it occasioned immense distress. This was the only clause in the Bill which was really the concern of the consumer and no one else. It was for the benefit of all the large number of consumers of household coal that he moved the Amendment. Every now and then, for some reason or other, the price of household coal rose, and that created the greatest hardship amongst all the poor, and among the middle chases. He proposed that when the price rose to the extent of 5s. above the average price of the preceding three years, the Home Secretary should have power to intervene, and to suspend in respect of the coal mines of the country, or of any district, the operations of the Act. That would be an immense boon to the consumers in the country, and would do little harm to anyone else, because both masters and men would, in such circumstances, be making fine profits. The hardship which would be entailed on the men was nothing to what they had endured up to the present day, and the benefit given to the consumer would be so great that it would more than counterbalance any hardship to the workmen at certain collieries. The Amendment would enable the Home Secretary, by giving collieries power to work longer at such a time of commercial crisis, to come to the assistance of the general public by suspending the Act for a limited time.

MR. BOWLES

said he had great pleasure in seconding, and he was not altogether without hope that the Amendment would be accepted. He thought there was some hope that Gentlemen below the gangway, who sat there in solid opposition to the consumer of coal, would in this case show some little consideration for that large and suffering class. They had on the one side the interest of a small section of the community and nothing else; on the other side the interest of the whole mass of the people and particularly of the poorest class. The Amendment proposed that where the price, not of steam coal or coal used in other ways, but of household coal which, as hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House knew, was a matter that mainly concerned the poorest classes in the country, rose above a certain level, the Home Secretary should step in. They asked on behalf of the community of household coal, some mercy from Gentlemen below the gangway. He really thought the Government might show some tenderness for the consumer in this case. They had done in other cases. He did not know whether his hon. friend had any figures. He did not suppose the case would arise often, but it would be serious in such a case as the Amendment supposed, and would certainly occasion great distress. Unless the Government and Gentlemen below the gangway were prepared to say that at a moment like that they were ready to look on and profit by the distress of the consumers of household coal, they would accept the Amendment or something like it. It was because he could not really believe that either Gentlemen below the gangway or the Government wanted to do that that he was not without hope.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 27, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'or a rise in the price of household coal to the extent of 5s. above the average price of the preceding three years.'"—(Mr. Fell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. Member said that a rise in the price of coal would be a symptom of grave commercial crisis. That being so the case is already provided for by the Bill. The clause provides that His Majesty may in the event of war or of imminent national danger or great emergency, or in the event of any grave economic disturbance due to the demand for coal exceeding the supply available at the time, by Order in Council, suspend the operation of this Act to such extent, and for such period as may be named in the Order either as respects all coal mines or any class of coal mines. Further, the Amendment proposes no machinery for ascertaining prices. Of what classes and in what districts are prices to be taken? These matters are left uncertain. If there is a case at all for an Amendment of this character, I do not see that it should be limited to household coal, because the distress of the people might be increased as greatly by a rise in the price of coal for industrial purposes as by a rise in the price of household coal. Therefore, there is no reason for discrimination between the two. Lastly let me point out that this clause as it stands is a very unusual clause. It gives power by Order in Council to suspend an Act of Parliament. That is a very exceptional power indeed, and I think it should only be in the gravest cases of national emergency that Parliament should enable it to be used.

MR. RENWICK

said the Under-Secretary had stated that was an exceptional clause. The whole Bill was a most exceptional Bill, and it was because he wanted a clause in the Bill that someone could understand that he supported the Amendment. If there was no limit of the description of the Amendment put in they would have to argue as to when a grave economic crisis had arisen. To his mind the case supposed would be a grave economic crisis in the lives of many poor people. He would not have risen to take part in the discussion on the Amendment had it not been for the jeers of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. The Amendment was designed to enable the poorest consumers to get coal to keep themselves warm in their houses, and yet they had Labour Members laughing and jeering when it was proposed at a certain point to give them an opportunity of having the price of coal kept down in order that they might do that. The Under-Secretary said: "If household coal, why not manufacturing and steam coal?" He would tell him. With manufacturing and steam coal the users of these classes had an opportunity of raising the price of the commodity they provided correspondingly with the increase in the cost of production. It was not so in the case of poor people. Therefore he thought hon. Members beyond the gangway might restrain their jeers and laughter.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said this sudden development of sympathy was most interesting. He could only wish that it took a more practical shape when matters affecting the poor were before the House. The object of the Amendment was ostensibly to protect the poor man against an increase in the price of coal. The poor in the past and in the present had had to suffer very considerably from increase in the price of coal, and he was not aware that either of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken ever took any active steps to assist the poor against the extortion now practised upon them. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury would probably remember a speech made by his illustrious father when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Boer War in which he pointed out that in one year the colliery owners and agents of this country, including probably the Member for St. Ives, pocketed the sum of £30,000,000 sterling in excess of the average profits yielded from the trade. There was no protest then about extortion from the poor. If hon. Gentlemen were so anxious to protect the poor he would make them a sporting offer. The late Mr. Seddon of New Zealand, when he found the poor were being robbed by private colliery owners and agents, established State mines from which the coal was supplied at cost price and a check thereby put upon the extortion. If hon. Members really wanted to protect the poor, let them join in a crusade to nationalise the mines and minerals of the country. Then the interests of the poor would be protected. But they jeered from the Labour benches at the arrant hypocrisy of men who on every occasion when the interests of the poor were really at stake came there and pretended to be in favour of an Amendment which everybody knew was not meant to help the poor, but to keep the poor collier working longer than the Bill permitted.

LORD R. CECIL

said they had just listened to what was a very remarkable speech to address to the House at that hour. He could not see that the greater part of the speech had any very close relevancy to the Amendment. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman he must decline to enter upon a dis- cussion as to whether or not the nationalisation of the mines of the country would be ultimately in the interests of the poor. He knew it was quite hopeless to endeavour to induce hon. Gentlemen who held the views of the hon. Member who had just spoken to believe that anyone except themelves and their immediate colleagues could have the interests of the poor at heart. They had so often said that they, and they alone, represented labour that possibly they had themelves come to believe it. The real point of the matter was whether they should give any indication to the Home Office as to what was meant by a serious economic disturbance. If he understood the Amendment aright, what was proposed was that if household coal went up 5s. a ton that really meant a serious economic disturbance, and that, therefore, in that event, the Government of the day ought to interfere. He thought there was something to be said for the view that they ought to give some indication to the Home Office of what was intended by the words "serious economic, disturbance." It would be a very difficult thing for the Home Office to exercise powers under the Bill. There would be tremendous pressure by the "friends of the poor" to prevent any disturbance of the Act, and he should have thought the Government would have been disposed to agree that some kind of indication to the Home Office would have been of value in connection with that proposal. If the Government would give an assurance that they would consider the giving of ome indication of what was meant by a serious economic disturbance he should think his hon. friend would be satisfied and would not press the matter any further.

* SIR C. J. CORY

said he had had no intention of taking part in the discussion on the Amendment until the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil thought fit to reproach the coal owners, and to introduce his name, for having, as he had said, extorted high prices from consumers and obtained extravagant profits. He had sat for a good many years on the old joint sliding scale committee, and more recently on the Joint Conciliation Board, and he remembered on many occasions hon. Gentlemen representing the colliers blamed the coal owners for underselling one another and giving their coal away too cheaply, thereby doing the miners out of the higher wages they would have got had the prices been kept up. He, therefore thought it came ill from those hon. Gentlemen to accuse coal owners of endeavouring to put prices up when, if they undersold each other, the representatives of the miners were the first to reproach them. He thought that was a reply which he should be permitted to make.

Amendment negatived.

SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to Clause 6 to omit the penalising of any person for permitting any other person to contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of the Act. He asked the Solicitor-General if the owner or the manager could prove that he was really taking the proper precautions he would be exempt from the penalty.

MR. BOWLES

, in seconding, said the plea which had been made that a similar provision, making a man guilty of an offence if he permitted certain infractions of the Act of Parliament, had already been made in the Coal Mines Regulation Act was really no plea at all. The Coal Mines Regulation Act, and that particular provision of it especially, was an Act for maintaining the precautions absolutely essential to the lives and safety of the men employed, and this provision did not apply to the whole of the regulations. It applied to the obligation upon employers to carry out rules definitely made with regard to certain things. There were to be such and such pumps, such and such ventilation arrangements, and this, that, and the other arrangement, and if they did not comply with, or if they permitted anybody to fail to comply with them, they were to be liable to a penalty. It was an entirely different thing in principle and essence from the first proposal. This was a Bill to interfere between master and man in a way that had never been done before, setting up machinery and imposing a penalty upon a man, not merely for failing to carry out the details of that machinery, but even for permitting any other person to make one of the innumerable slips that might occur. That was a thing totally unprecedented in the history of legislation in this country and one in regard to which the plea about the Coal Mines Regulation ct had no force whatever. The thing was unjust. If the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General could show them either that this has been done before, or that it was essential for the carrying out of the let that these words should be put in, they would then have something to go on, but at present they had nothing.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 2, to leave out the words 'or permits any person to contravene or fail to comply with.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

If these words are allowed to remain in there will be no injustice to anybody. If the Act becomes law a case such as the following might very well arise. Supposing these words were omitted a lot of men might go to the manager and say: "We know the Act of Parliament, We do not mind doing a certain thing ourselves: do you object?" and the manager says: "You can do as you like." Do you say that in that event it will not be right to subject the owner or manager of the mine to a penalty? The hon. Member for Norwood, referring to that part of the provision in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, said that it was a different kind of provision because it refers to various rules that have to be carried out and which are set out in that Act. The section to which I refer is an employers section dealing with the register, the employing of boys and girls and women underground, and so on. Obviously the owner would not in any case have to keep the register, but nevertheless, if he permitted that not to be done under the section of that Act, the words of which are reproduced in this particular clause, he would be liable to a penalty. Immediately an owner shows that he has published the necessary regulations as to raising, lowering, etc., supplied the workers with a printed statement, and done his best to enforce the regulations, he cannot be hit under this section for the offence of permitting a person to contravene or fail to comply with the Act. Without these words, to all intents and purposes, so far as the owner, manager, and agent are concerned, the Act would be a dead letter.

Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out the words 'for which a special penalty is not provided.'" He wanted to know what exactly was the force of these words. Did it mean that this section only applied in a case where a special penalty was not provided? He did not understand that that was so. The clause read— If any person contravenes or fails to comply with, or permits any person to contravene or fail to comply with any provision of this Act for which a special penalty is not provided he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act. Why was this confined to cases for which a special penalty was not provided?

MR. HICKS BEACH seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 3, to leave out the words 'for which a special penalty is not provided.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

My answer to the noble Lord is that this refers to Clause 2 where the noble Lord will see by subsection (3) it is provided that a special penalty shall apply. This is the general penalty clause.

LORD R. CECIL

said, he did not question why this should be an offence. His point was, why should it be an offence to permit a person to make a false entry in the register, but should not be an offence to permit a person to commit other acts?

SIR S. EVANS

We have passed that. I thought the noble Lord was merely asking the meaning of these particular words. These words are put forward here to deal with the particular case that has been mentioned.

LORD R. CECIL

said that if these words were not inserted, nobody would be guilty of an offence if he permitted a false entry to be made. As evidently there was no answer to that, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

SIR S. EVANS

There is an answer. It is an offence to permit a false entry to be made under Clause 3.

MR. MARKHAM

asked, was there any precedent in any Act of Parliament for a person making a false entry to be liable to a fine of less than £25?

SIR S. EVANS

When that matter arises in its proper place I shall be prepared to deal with it. It is a matter which has been dealt with already.

MR. MARKHAM

asked when was the proper place. He was not quite sure which Amendment they were now discussing.

SIR S. EVANS

I rise to a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the whole penalty when only this particular penalty is under discussion?

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No, it is not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR C. J. CORY moved to amend subsection (a) of Clause 6 by leaving out from the word "offence," to the end, and inserting the words "unless it is proved that he wilfully prevented or attempted to prevent such workmen from observing the provisions of this Act, or, failed to afford reasonable facilities for such observance." The clause would then read: "The owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall not be guilty of an offence unless it is proved that he wilfully prevented or attempted to prevent such workmen from observing the provisions of this Act or failed to afford reasonable facilities for such observance." On Clause 6, subsection (1) on the previous night, the Government were good enough to agree to leave out the words "or be allowed." Before they gave way in that respect they said that if an employer published the regulations and supplied to each workman a copy he would have done all that was required of him, and he would not be liable under Clause 1. This Amendment, he thought, would bear out what the Government told them on the previous night. The employer had to publish the regulations as to the raising and lowering of the men, by posting them at the pit-head and supply a copy to each workman who made application for it. As the clause stood amended the employer had first to publish then to supply copies. Beyond that what could he do to enforce these regulations if he had afforded all reasonable facilities for the men to comply with the Act? He could not go into the mine and make a man come out. All that was required was that he should publish and supply copies of the regulations. That being the case, it was only reasonable that the Government should accept this Amendment which only carried out what the Government agreed to on the previous night. When the Bill was in Committee the Home Secretary had said that the owner complied with the law if he provided the necessary facilities for the men to come up out of the mine. If he made regulations, published them, and supplied the men with a copy, after providing the necessary facilities for the men to come up, he surely had done all that he reasonably could be required to do.

MR. HICKS BEACH seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word 'offence,' to the word 'and,' in line 16, and insert the words 'unless it is proved that he wilfully prevented or attempted to prevent such workmen from observing the provisions of this Act or failed to afford reasonable facilities for such observance.'"—(Sir Clifford Cory.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'publishing,' in line 10, stand part of the Bill."

SIR S. EVANS

It is absolutely impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. What my hon. friend suggests is that if the owner makes regulations, publishes them and supplies a copy to the men, he cannot be found guilty of any offence. It is futile to ask us to accept an Amendment of that kind. Supposing the regulations have been made, printed and published, and supplied to the men, the manager can say "There are the regulations, no offence at all can be proved against me." Let me refer once more to the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, dealing with all the rules with which my hon. friend is so familiar. One of them says that if any person contravenes these rules the owner or manager shall be guilty of an offence unless he can prove that by all reasonable means, by publishing the rules and informing the men about them, he has done his best to prevent an offence.

SIR C. J. CORY

said that was all very well as regarded safety, but would the Solicitor-General tell him what the employer was to do to enforce those regulations to the best of his power? How was he expected to enforce them? Was he expected to go and drive the men out of their places, or could he do anything beyond publishing the regulations and giving the men notice? If after that they would not come out how was he to get them out?

LORD R. CECIL

asked whether the Solicitor-General had realised what the Amendment was that the hon. Member had moved. He did not quite follow what the hon. Member himself had said, but he understood that he was moving the Amendment at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mansfield.

MR. MARKHAM

My suggestion?

LORD R. CECIL

Yes.

MR. MARKHAM

I am opposed to this Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said the Amendment was not open to the criticism the Solicitor-General had just directed at it. He had an Amendment on the Paper, but he did not intend to move it if he could make the point he wanted to males clear. What he desired was that there should be no ambiguity about the words which required the owner to enforce the Act. He knew the wording of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, but he thought it applied mainly to the provision of apparatus which it really was in the power of the owner to see to, and which he must properly supply. That did not apply to this Act, and here they had to find some means of enforcing the Act. He did not think it could be asked reasonably that the owners should do more than give notice to the men of what the Act was, and afford to them every facility for complying with the Act. That was what he understood the Home Secretary himself said in Committee, and he did not see what more they could ask. To put in words about enforcing the provisions of the Act was to use language not appropriate to the kind of obligation put on owners. What they wanted the owner to do was to give facilities for the observance of the Act. If they wanted to do that why not say so? That was what the Amendment did say. He would have thought it would be much clearer and much less likely to lead to occasional cases of hardships and questions of disputed construction. It was not germane to the particular discussion to say that the words existed in a previous Act of Parliament. They were particularly appropriate there, and they did not appear appropriate in this Act. What were the other steps they wanted the owner to take besides affording reasonable facilities?

MR. SHACKLETON

It is done every day in the week.

LORD R. CECIL

What is done? What steps?

MR. SHACKLETON

Enforcement.

LORD R. CECIL

said that hon. Members who spoke with appearance of knowledge and said it was done every day in the week did not say what steps were taken. He thought it was much better to have specific words saying what they meant. What was wanted was that an owner should be bound to give all facilities. Otherwise they had the proper remedy, that an inspector might take proceedings against anyone who was to blame. When the owner had given all facilities proceedings should be taken against the men.

MR. WALSH

said that at the risk of detaining the House for a few moments longer he would like to answer one or two of the questions asked by Gentlemen above the Bangway. It was asked first of all, what the Amendment meant. The Amendment provided that unless it was proved that an owner wilfully prevented, or attempted to prevent, workmen from observing the provisions of the Act or failed to afford reasonable facilities for its observance, he would be exempt from blame. That meant that unless the owner or agent had taken the positive step of preventing men coming out they would be held to have complied with the Act. Now in every case the principle of devolution applied in the mine. There was the owner, the agent or manager, the overman, and the deputy or fireman, and upon all these a definite responsibility was saddled. It was the duty of the overman in the mine to tell the fireman that at, say, two o'clock the district over which he acted must be cleared. That did not mean that the fireman was to take the men out on his back. What he had to do was to let the men know what time of day it was, and that it was time to get out and leave working at the "face." When he did that his responsibility was taken away. Surely that was a great deal more in consonance with the provisions of the Bill than the proposition of wilful contravention. The Amendment would simply require that the owner, agent, or manager, or any of the officials appointed on their hehalf, should take up a negative attitude, and let things stand alone. That would doom the measure to impotence. He had endeavoured, he did not know with what satisfaction, to give the explanation he conceived was desired, and he hoped it would be found satisfactory.

SIR S. EVANS

The noble Lord who moved the Amendment proposed not to move another he has later on the Paper if I answered his question. He asked what more a manager had to do than to publish regulations. According to the section he must do his best to enforce the regulations. I will take an illustration. Supposing a manager of a mine knew there were fifty men underground contravening the Act of Parliament. If he does nothing it is clear he is not doing his best to enforce the Act. It is his duty in such a case to go to the men and say: "You are contravening the Act and you may land me in for a prosecution." Take another case. A man says he is going to work longer than he is allowed by the Act. It the owner does not warn that man or threaten him with prosecution or dismissal and give information to the inspector, he is not doing his best to enforce the Act. Merely to provide as the Amendment does against wilful contravention would not be enough. According to the noble Lord it would be enough to say that the owner of a mine satisfied the requirements of the Act by affording reasonable facilities for obedience to it to the men under his charge. As to affording facilities it is affording facilities to provide that a cage should be there. There has been complete evasion of the law in France because the owners in respect of such a provision did put a cage at the pit and said: "There is a cage, you can come up." If we accepted the Amendment the Act would be evaded every day of the year. Our own proposal is perfectly reasonable. The colliery owner has to do his best to enforce the regulation. If he does not do his best to have the regulations carried out we hold him guilty of contravention.

SIR C. J. CORY

said he wanted to put one question to the Solicitor-General. He said the remedy of the owner was to dismiss a man summarily.

SIR S. EVANS

I did not.

* MR. KEIR HARDIE

said that in reference to the last point of the Solicitor-General's statement that in France provision was made for the men to come up by putting a cage in readiness, the men who took the lead were so victimised and the rest were so terrorised that the Act often became a dead letter.

MR. J. F. MASON

Do I understand that the method of enforcement is by prosecution?

SIR S. EVANS

I am very sorry I have not made myself clear. Employers are to enforce the Act by the best means in their power. What I said was that if they allowed constant contravention of the Act and did not warn a man, or threaten to dismiss him, or in the long run dismiss him, or did not prosecute him, or did not give information to the inspector, it was perfectly obvious they were not using the best means in their power for enforcing the Act.

SIR C. J. CORY

The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that the remedy of the owner is to dismiss the man.

SIR S. EVANS

No.

SIR C. J. CORY

Then I do not understand language.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GLADSTONE moved an Amendment requiring owners to "make" as well as publish and enforce regulations.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 10, after the word 'by' to insert the word 'making.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GLADSTONE

formally moved an Amendment substituting for the description of the regulations given in the clause as "regulations as to the times of raising and lowering the men referred to in Section 1, subsections 4 and 5 and supplying to each workman who makes application a printed statement of the said regulations to prevent the contravention or non-compliance," the words "regulations for securing compliance with the provisions of this Act."

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 11, to leave out from the word 'regulations' to the word 'to' in line 15, and to insert the words 'for securing compliance with the provisions of this Act.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. LUPTON moved an Amendment providing that the total amount of penalties inflicted under the clause upon the owner, agent, or manager in respect, of offences committed at any one mine during twenty-four hours should not exceed a total of £25. He said the Amendment was of a similar kind to that which he brought forward a little time ago. The reason for it was so simple, so clear, so overpowering, that he did not think the Solicitor-General could refuse it. If the owner, agent, or manager of a mine committed an offence they were only liable under this clause to a fine of £2. But the extraordinary thing about the Bill was that if the owner was proved innocent he might then be indicted for a fine of £2,000. Suppose 100 men delayed to come up. If those 100 men were prosecuted and they alleged in self-defence: "It was not our fault that we were delayed in the mine: it was the fault of some arrangement made by the manager, running the hauling machinery when he should not have done so and not winding the winding machinery as he should have done." If they proved that, then those 100 men were innocent and had committed no offence, but the manager, or whoever it was who allowed the machinery to run when it ought not to have run, was liable to a penalty of £2. That was a very moderate penalty, and he had no fault to find with it, but if those men made the same plea, but the manager proved satisfactorily that the hauling machinery was stopped and the winding engine was running, and that it was entirely and deliberately the fault of the men that they stopped in the pit, then each one of those 100 men might be fined 10s. He assumed that they were fined 10s. Under this Bill the owner, agent, or manager of those 100 men, each of them having committed an offence, had himself committed an offence, and was now liable to be indicted for a penalty of £2 in the case of each one of these men. The owner or agent having proved himself innocent was liable to be indicted for a penalty of £200. That was a monstrous proposal to pass into law. He supposed it would be said that no one would be so wicked as to sentence an innocent mine manager to this penalty, but why should magistrates and Judges be so much cleverer and wiser than Parliament, and have so much better knowledge of the law than His Majesty's Solicitor-General? Having regard to human nature they should limit the penalty; the agent or manager who was either guilty or innocent should not be liable to a greater total of penalties than £25 for any one mine in a period of twenty-four hours. That agent or manager should be able to sleep soundly in his bed and not wake up to find himself a ruined man owing to the action of that House.

Amendment not seconded.

*MR. HICKS BEACH moved to insert a provision that the Bill should not apply to the mines situate in the Forest of Dean. After explaining that he had no personal connection with the Forest of Dean, the hon. Member quoted passages from the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, recommencing that in certain classes of mines, such as the household coal mines in the Forest of Dean, the difficulty attending the reduction of hours would be so great that it might be necessary to make special regulations. The Home Secretary had put in an Amendment to the Bill to meet the case of South Staffordshire, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider what would be the effect of the Bill in the Forest of Dean. Mr. Brain, in giving evidence before the Committee, based his evidence on a bank to bank Bill, and he estimated that the increase of cost in the production of coal in the Forest of Dean would be 3s. a ton, and as the net profit of the mines then working was about 6d. a ton, he declared that consequently a bank to bank Bill would ruin the older collieries in the district, and they would be forced to close down. The same Gentleman calculated that when the present Bill came into full operation in five years the cost of working would then be increased by 1s. 8d. a ton, which would mean that all these coalpits would have to be worked at a loss. The natural result would be that the collieries would be closed down, and the colliers would lose their employment. That, he thought, was a very serious prospect. It had been asserted that the owners and miners were quite prepared to accept the present Bill, but he had telegraphed to the representatives of the owners to know whether they were really in favour of the Bill or not, and he got a very definite reply from the secretary of the Owners' Association to say that they were not in favour of any Bill which included one winding in the eight hours. The chairman of the Owners' Association also telegraphed to him that he had spoken to Mr. Rowlinson, the miners' agent, who said he was in full agreement with him as to the necessity of both windings being outside the eight hours.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

interposed and said that Mr. Rowlinson had come up to London to see the hon. Member in opposition to this Amendment; and had failed to find him, but had left a letter for him.

* MR. HICKS BEACH

said he had received no letter from Mr. Rowlinson, and read the telegram he had received for the Owner's Association.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said that he did not intend to contradict the hon. Member.

MR. HICKSTEACH

said that according to the evidence before the Committee, that was the only class of Eight Hours' Bill that would suit the Forest of Dean. Reading the evidence before the Committee he could not help coming to the conclusion that unless both windings were excluded from the eight hours limit it would be the ruination of the colliers in the Forest of Dean, and also of the allied trades.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 34, at the end, to insert the words '(2) This Act shall not apply to mines situate in the Forest of Dean.'"—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

I may say that since the Committee reported I have had no representations from the Forest of Dean in regard to this matter. The miners themselves of course took a certain view upon a bank to bank Bill. So far as I know they are in support of this Bill. As regards the employers they have not communicated with me. Had they foreseen this ruin owing to this Bill I presume they would have made a special representation. I have had special representations from other quarters, but not from the Forest of Dean. I have no reason whatever to think that this Bill would injuriously affect them. The pits produce house coal and the demand is very slack in the summer. These men for the most part have considerable gardens and occupy themselves in that respect in the summer. As regards the winter when there is a demand for house coal, I maintain that the provision in the Bill allowing sixty days in the year on which overtime may be worked would amply meet the case.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said the only thing to be added to what had been said was that there had been nothing said about overtime in any agreement. Of course, it did make an essential difference, but the men had never asked for overtime. He could not support the Amendment.

* MR. HICKS BEACH

said there was a very, very strong recommendation in the Departmental Committee's Report, and he was very much surprised that the Government had not taken some action; but if he understood that the right hon. Baronet would vote against the Amendment he would not press it to a division.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

indicated assent.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GLADSTONE

proposed that in the case of mines situated in Durham and Northumberland the date on which the Bill shall come into operation shall be January 1st, 1910, instead of July 1st, 1909.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 35, after the word 'operation' to insert the words 'as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, and elsewhere.'

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR C. J. CORY

said he thought if the right hon. Gentleman granted this to Northumberland and Durham he certainly should grant it to the coalfields all round. It would be very unfair to South Wales and Monmouth-shire if the Government gave an advantage to Northumberland and Durham, who were their great competitors. In South Wales two-thirds of the contracts were made from January to January, and, therefore, if the Act came into operation in the middle of the year it would make it inconvenient for everybody, and very hard to carry out the contracts without a very heavy loss. Then the agreements with the men ended on 31st December, 1909, and if the Act came into operation in the middle of that year, great difficulties would arise. If the Government would allow the Act to come into operation at the beginning of the next year it would enable the employers and the miners to discuss some arrangement to provide for the altered conditions under the Act, in the new agreement. He hoped the Government would see its way to grant that this extension which it now proposed for Northumberland and Durham should be extended to all collieries.

MR. RENWICK

said he was pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that at last he had realised that Durham was entitled to some special consideration under this Bill. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the very slight concession which he had made, but he was far from satisfied with the extension of six months, which was utterly inadequate for reasons which he was extremely sorry to have to explain to the House at that late hour on a Friday night. It was not their fault that all through their debates they had been without the aid which he had quite expected they would have from the miners' representatives of Northumberland and Durham. He was the only Unionist representative, and at the time that he was returned this Bill was before the House, but when those hon. Members who had been silent throughout the whole debate were elected they were hostile to the Bill. That fact made a very great difference. He was sure that in Northumberland and Durham and throughout the country generally consumers were perfectly willing to make sacrifices if they thought that those sacrifices were for the benefit of the miners, either from the point of view of safety or pecuniarily. But they were in the extraordinary position of being called on to make their sacrifices while at the same time they were told by the miners' leaders that the men were not going to benefit by them. They were told by the miners that it was going to be absolutely impossible to carry on the trade of Northumberland and Durham if this Bill was passed. The miners of these counties were opposed to three shifts. They would work two shifts, but they refused to work a night shift. Therefore it was almost impossible to carry on the measure If the Bill was passed they recognised that by some means or other they would have to find more men for carrying on the trade. The extra six months which was granted to them was, however, utterly inadequate. They had two shifts of hewers and one shift of boys to carry on the work, and they were told by the hon. Member for Wansbeck that every hewer's place in the country was filled. They were also told that no hewers would come into the country unless they could get employment promised to them. They would have to import boys from the outside districts to work as boys from the age of thirteen to eighteen or nineteen, and then when they had served their apprenticeships in the mines there would be no place for them, and they would be turned out to swell the ranks of the unemployed. That was a gross case of exploitation of boy labour, and in view of the speeches which had been made recently against the exploitation of boy labour, he was surprised at the leaders of the Labour Party advocating it. There were sentimental reasons which made some people think that they ought not to work these boys in the mines for ten hours a day, but that had been dealt with by several hon. Members in this House.

MR. MARKHAM

You have never defended it.

MR. RENWICK

said the hon. Member for Morpeth had defended it and he had supported him. It had been pointed out that physically no harm was done to these boys. The law protected them until the age of sixteen by providing that they should not work more than ten hours a day, and over that age by providing that they should not work more than ten and a half hours a day. The hon. Member for Wansbeck had told them that he went into the mines at the early age of ten, and judging by his appearance, and the appearance of the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley, no physical harm was done. They wanted extra time to enable them to find the extra boys to carry on the work under the altered conditions, and they could not do that in six months or in five years. He acknowledged that the birth rate in the counties of Northumberland and Durham was commendably high, but in the short time that he had mentioned it was impossible to get these extra boys. The Home Secretary had given away his whole case by acknowledging that Northumberland and Durham were entitled to extra terms and they appealed to him to give them more time still. This time was quite insufficient. He had an Amendment on the Paper that the Act should not come into force till 1920. Possibly that was a little unreasonable, but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more generous to this industry in the North of England. They were entitled to it and he thought they ought to have it. He was entitled to ask the representatives of those counties, and especially the representatives of the miners, to assist in the appeal which he had made. If it was true, as hon. Members had told them, that there would be a dislocation of trade, they feared there would be a great increase in prices and a great scarcity of fuel. If that would not be the case let hon. Members who said it would not rise in their places and say so.

MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R. Barnsley)

said that, not having intervened in the debates on the Bill, perhaps as a colliery owner in Northumberland and Durham he might be allowed a moment or two to say that to his knowledge his hon. friend the Member for Newcastle had been guilty of very considerable exaggeration. He could quite understand the hon. Member's opposition to the Bill, for at the Newcastle election he had seen what magnificent assistance he was receiving from the Coal Consumers' League. He saw a procession in which were huge sacks of coal marked "Renwick," and small sacks of coal marked "Short," and placards saying that the price of coal would be raised 5s. a ton after the passing of this Bill, and, therefore, the electors must vote for Renwick and not for Short.

MR. RENWICK

said he would like to say in justice to himself that he had nothing whatever to do with that. He never, in all the speeches that he made, said that coal would rise in price 5s. a ton, for he did not think that it would.

MR. JOSEPH WALTON

said he was glad that the Government had agreed to postpone the operation of the Act till January, 1910, for Northumberland and Durham, for it was perfectly true that in many of the collieries very important changes would have to be made in the plant and machinery which would not be necessary in other collieries, and, therefore, they were glad to have the extra time for making these changes. If the hon. Member for Newcastle said that this could not be done in five years, he showed small knowledge of the ingenuity of the many engineers of Durham and Northumberland. He had never denied that the cost would be somewhat increased. But he said as a colliery owner, knowing something of the trade, that there never was a Mining Bill before the House the disastrous effects of which were so overstated when it was discussed as had been the case in connection with this Bill. He ventured to say that if the Bill passed, before it had been in operation many months, let alone many years, it would be seen how overstated the position had been. There was no question of a shortage of coal with scores of pits working only two or three days a week. All they had to do was to put on another shift. They knew that contracts were being made at an enormous reduction in price, and, therefore, this cry that the industries of the country would be ruined and the coal-consuming public fleeced to an unfair extent would be found to have no relation to fact when the Bill passed into law.

MR. LAMBTON

said he did not know whether the hon. Member meant to accuse him of exaggeration. He did not think he had exaggerated when he spoke on the Bill. He had to express his thanks to the Home Secretary for the concession he had made. It was in evitable he should make that concession; indeed, the counties concerned were desirous that there should be a longer concession. The counties of Northumberland and Durham were in a special position. He was rather surprised that a free trade Government should bring in a measure of that sort, and he tried to point out on Second Reading that in their case there was a very large export coal trade. Eighty per cent. of Northumberland coal was sent abroad. The Members of the Miners Federation and for Wales looked lightly on this matter because they had the home market under their control. The Midland counties could get their price out of the British public, and Wales had a monopoly. But Northumberland was not in that position. Four-fifths of their total production had to compete with German coal. If a measure was going to raise the price of coal it might kill their export trade, and might kill the export trade of Durham. Over and over again in connection with the coal tax it was pointed out that there was no monopoly in this coal trade, though there might be in others, and they had to compete every day under more unfavourable circumstances with Germany. It was his duty, therefore, to warn the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LUPTON

said he ventured to protest most strongly against the Amendment. The thing was fought out in Committee. They asked for local option there and it was not given. Now, at the last moment, a concession was made. He did not wonder at a colliery owner in the North being pleased he was going to have a six months extra run on the old basis. But they in Derbyshire were going to be penalised by the Act during that time. He did not call that fair. These counties got a benefit at Derbyshire's expense. Let them have fairness all round. The Amendment would enable the northern counties to make hundreds and thousands of pounds, whilst others were penalised. He thought it grossly unfair.

MR. MARKHAM

said he very strongly objected to the Amendment for the reasons he stated last night. What had happened was this: that South Yorkshire used to have a considerable proportion of Swedish contracts. Immediately the Home Secretary said he was going to exclude Durham and Northumberland, by some mysterious means these contracts had found their way to Durham and Northumberland to South Yorkshire's exclusion.

MR. GLADSTONE

Is the hon. Member aware when the decision of the Government was made known?

MR. MARKHAM

Three weeks ago the Home Secretary definitely stated that after the Committee stage upstairs he would give favourable consideration to the question of Northumberland and Durham.

MR. GLADSTONE

I merely said I would consider the question. There was no compact.

MR. MARKHAM

said he did not say there was, but the language was sufficiently definite for members of the coal trade to know well enough that, having a large docile majority at his back, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry any Amendment he brought forward in the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sleaford for the first time. Northumberland and Durham paid their men considerably less than he did. He was paying a wage 55 per cent. above the standard.

MR. FENWICK

Which standard?

MR. MARKHAM

I am not going into the standard now.

MR. FENWICK

Most misleading.

MR. MARKHAM

said it could not be contradicted by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain that the wages paid in the Midlands were higher than those paid in Northumberland and Durham. Yet they were going to give this preference to those counties, while they increased his cost fourpence and sixpence per ton. He was not exaggerating when he said that the present profit on certain coal, owing to the large reduction that had taken place in many collieries, was actually less than that, and in many collieries it would not exceed 3d. to 4d. per ton. And yet they were going to give a six months preference to the North of England. As had already been stated, South Wales had no real monopoly. If South Wales coal had certain particular markets, apart from these it had to stand on its own bottom, having regard to its value for steam-raising purposes. He protested against this contracting-out. He thought the proposal was utterly unjust. It was going to dislocate the trade of the Midlands for six months. When the matter was considered by the Yorkshire Coal-owners' Association a few days ago, they were unanimously of opinion that the Government could not do such a silly thing as dislocate their trade and also that of Derbyshire by doing this. Why should they give this advantage to these counties? What had they done to warrant it? They said they could not change their methods of working when every other coalfield would have to. This coalfield had been the bugbear of progressive legislation. His men could earn £1 to £1 5s. per day at the face. If these counties could show that he might say they were asking for something reasonable. The fact was, the more pressure they put on the Government, the more they got out of them. Northumberland and Durham had squeezed the Government, and, like an orange, the more that Government was squeezed the more it gave way.

LORD R. CECIL

said he would like to say one word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member and which was a speech characterised by all his usual candour. What the hon. Member said was this: "If you exempt Durham and Northumberland from the benefits of this measure, which is to confer an advantage on mine-owners and everybody concerned for six months, you dislocate the whole trade." He (Lord R. Cecil) asked the attention of the Government to that observation from a supporter and approver of the Bill. What did it mean? It meant that a variation of prices of 6d. per ton might well operate to throw into confusion the whole trade.

MR. MARKHAM

Even 3d.

LORD R. CECIL

3d. What did that mean? It meant that this Bill, if the hon. Member was right, when it operated all over the country would throw into confusion the whole trade of the country, because, let it be observed, the hon. Member agreed that the coal trade of England was in sharp competition with the coal trade of Germany.

MR. MARKHAM

I said nothing of the kind.

LORD R. CECIL

said the hon. Member for South Durham at any rate stated there was great competition with Germany. If that 6d. a ton which the hon. Member estimated would be the effect of the Bill was added to the burden of the coal mines of the country, they would be put at exactly the same disadvantage as the hon. Member said other mines would be by exempting Durham and Northumberland for six months. He asked the Government to appreciate this, that coalowners who were now making a profit of 3d. or 4d. per ton were going to have an added burden which, on the hon. Member's own showing, was 6d. per ton. The Opposition thought it was going to be much more. It was the strongest condemnation of the Bill which had been uttered during the whole course of the debates. Why the hon. Member was a supporter of the Bill was a mystery he alone could solve. One thing was certain, his contributions to the debates yesterday and to-day had quite swept away any lingering doubts from his (Lord R. Cecil's) mind as to the desirability of the Bill's becoming law. As far as the particular Amendment was concerned, he would support it as a mitigation of the Bill which, however inadequate, was something they ought to be thankful for.

Amendment agreed to.

*SIR C. J. CORY moved an Amendment to insert January instead of July as the date for the Act to come into operation. The hon. Member said the time for Durham and Northumberland having been extended to 1910 he felt sure that all that had been said in favour of it for these districts could equally be applied elsewhere. The hon. Member for Durham had said that Newcastle coals competed with German coals and not only did South Wales coal compete with German coals but with coals, from all over the world. South Wales and everywhere else would be handicapped by allowing Durham and Northumberland to have this advantage. He had had the strongest representations from the Chambers of Commerce of South Wales to press for this to be applied to the whole of the coal pits.

* MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member referred to 1909. If the hon. Member intended to bring the Bill into operation for other places at the same time as in Durham and Northumberland, he ought to have drawn up his Amendment in another way. The Amendment as now proposed, even assuming that they could add the words 1910, would not read properly, and would be very bad drafting.

SIR C. J. CORY

said his Amendment was put down before the Home Secretary's was on the Paper.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the period of five years from the commencement of this Act hereinbefore referred to shall be calculated from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, as well in the counties of Northumberland and Durham as elsewhere.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 405.]