Commons Sitting of 5 December 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the county of Ayr (Northern Division), in the room of Andrew Macbeth Anderson, esquire, K.C., His Majesty's Solicitor-General for Scotland.—[Mr. Gulland.]
SHOPS BILL (AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED ON REPORT).
Copies presented of the Bill (1) as passed by the Standing Committee, showing the Amendments to be proposed on Report, and (2) as it will read if so amended [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DIVORCE BILLS.

  PILKINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MAXWELL'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  (a) CLOSURE.

  1.

  2

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  (b) SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  Date when Motion for Selection of Amendments moved, and by whom.

  Business before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Pilkington's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Maxwell's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in each case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES).
Address for "Return showing the systems adopted by the Governments of the great European Powers for the preservation of Ancient Monuments."—[Mr. Noel Buxton.]
SESSIONAL RETURNS.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.
  Return ordered "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 328, of Session 1910.—[Mr. Whitley.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1911 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:—
  and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before Committee when moved.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 350, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1911; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords; but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.214 of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1911; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.216, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1911 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.213, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "for the Session of 1911, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the
  1198
  four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of Sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.212, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1911, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.215, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  BUSINESS or THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing with refer-to Session 1911, (1) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under the Standing Orders during the entire Sitting; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at which precedence was given to Government Business up till 8.15 p.m., and to Private Members at 8.15 p.m., and the number of Sittings on Fridays at which Private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of Sittings at which Government Business

  1199
  was given precedence under a special order of the House during the entire Sitting; (4) the number of Saturday-Sittings; (5) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (7) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 329, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1911, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Goals and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; Naturalisation; Nationality; Hospitals, Name, Legitimisation, and Miscellaneous:
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1911 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1911, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names
  1200
  of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  "And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.211, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Whitley.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897."—[Military Manœuvres Bill [Lords.]
MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 380.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Imperial Treaties.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give any definite information as to whether any foreign countries will sanction the contracting-out of Imperial Treaties by certain Dominions without the treaty being denounced?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Swedish Government have consented to the separate withdrawal of the Dominions from the Anglo-Swedish commercial treaties by which they are bound. The Mexican Government, who were approached before the negotiations recently commenced were opened, have also agreed to the withdrawal of certain of the Dominions from our commercial treaty with Mexico.
  Mr. CROFTasked whether the opinion of the Dominion Government of Canada has been ascertained with regard to the proposal to alter the existing Imperial trade treaties to the exclusion of certain dominions from those treaties?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the

  1201
  14th of November last. There has been no occasion for consulting the new Canadian Government on the question, and no object in doing so. It is not a question of the exclusion of the Dominions from the commercial treaties by which they are bound, but of securing for them the right of separate withdrawal, in case they desire to exercise it.

  French and Dutch Colonies.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain what restrictions, if any, based on racial considerations, are imposed on the admission of candidates for the public service in the French and Dutch Colonies in the East?
  Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend agrees with the opinion already expressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that no useful purpose as far as we are concerned would be served by obtaining this information; and, in view of the heavy demands made upon the staff generally for information, I do not see that it would be justifiable to ask for a special investigation and report on this question. If there are published regulations available I will give instructions that they should be obtained.

  Russia and Persia.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether, in reply to a protest from the Persian Government, the British representative in Teheran declared in September, 1907, that the object of the two Powers, Russia and Great Britain, in making this agreement is not in any way to attack but rather to assure for ever the independence of Persia; not only do they not wish to have at hand any excuse for intervention but their object in these friendly negotiations was not to allow one another to intervene on the pretext of safeguarding their interests; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to this declaration of their intentions; and what steps they propose to take to carry out their pledge?
  Mr. ACLAND: The text of the declaration made to the Persian Government by the British and Russian representatives at Teheran in September, 1907, has been published, and can be found on page 48 of a Parliamentary Paper, Persia, No. 1, 1909. His Majesty's Government still adhere to this declaration, and neither have done nor will do anything to depart from it. The Russian Government have
  1202
  given the most categorical assurances that their action is purely provisional, and that they have no intention of infringing the principles of the Anglo-Russian Agreement. I must add, with regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, that it is not a quotation from the declaration referred to.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are not the statements in this question quotations from a statement made by the British Minister at Teheran at the time when he was referring to that declaration?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, there is nothing of the kind which we know of. The statement referred to does not contain these words in the second part of the question at all.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether the Persian Government require to be guided by the advice of Great Britain and Russia in their choice of foreign advisers of whatever nationality, or only in case they desire to choose a British or Russian subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Burnley yesterday.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the terms of the last ultimatum delivered by the Russian Government to the Persian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government are supporting the Russian Government in their demands?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reply returned to the similar question by the hon. Member for Burnley yesterday covers the hon. Gentleman's enquiry.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my hon. Friend yet tell me whether His Majesty's Government advised the Persian Government to comply with this ultimatum?
  Mr. ACLAND: That does not arise, and I really would ask to be excused from making partial statements, seeing there will be an opportunity for a very full statement in this House.

  Great Britain and United States (Arbitration Treaty).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the opportunity promised for discussing the Arbitration Treaty with the United States will be given before the Treaty is signed; and can he now say whether, contrary to the statement of the Prime Minister at the

  1203
  Guildhall, the Americans have refused to allow all questions, including those of honour or territory, to go to arbitration?
  Mr. ACLAND: As was stated in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Coventry on the 6th of July last, the Treaty will be presented to Parliament before ratification takes place. It is at present under the consideration of the United States Government.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think the answer covers the points that are raised. The Treaty will be presented to Parliament before ratification takes place, and it is now under consideration in the United States Government.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, contrary to the statement of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall, the Americans have refused to allow all the questions, including those of honour or territory, to go to arbitration?
  Mr. ACLAND: How can one say that when the matter is still under the consideration of that Government.
  Mr. HUNT: Have not the American Senate already refused?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is still under their consideration, and we have not received their reply to it.
  Mr. HUNT: Has the hon. Gentleman received any reply from the American Senate?

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, if the Declaration of London is ratified, neutral vessels carrying food stuffs to Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow will not be liable to be captured or sunk when this country is at war?
  Mr. ACLAND: Under the Declaration of London, neutral vessels will not be liable to capture, in a war in which Great Britain is a belligerent, merely on the ground that they are carrying food stuffs to the particular ports named, unless these are at the time used as a base by the British forces, in which case the cargo would be presumed to be destined for those forces, unless proof to the contrary was forthcoming.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how he can expect a nation will keep
  1204
  an indefinite treaty during war when the Americans will not keep a definite treaty during peace?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. How can the hon. Gentleman be expected to answer that question?
  Mr. HUNT: He cannot answer it, I know.
  Mr. ASHLEY: But surely these three ports will be used as bases?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is a matter of opinion. It is one which will be decided when the time comes. We cannot be expected to answer the question now.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the starvation of this country to be treated merely as a question of opinion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is not a matter to be dealt with by means of question and answer.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has consulted the new Board of Admiralty as to the advisability of ratifying the Declaration of London, and, if so, what opinion they have expressed; and, if not, whether, before proceeding further with the Naval Prize Bill, and in view of its close connection with the Declaration of London, he will take steps to ascertain the views of the now Board of Admiralty as to the effect of the Declaration on our position both as belligerents and neutrals?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend the First Lord has asked me to say that, as has been repeatedly stated by his predecessor in this House, the Admiralty were represented at the International Naval Conference which led to the Declaration of London, and its provisions were submitted to and approved by the Board of Admiralty at the time. Further, as stated by the Prime Minister in June last, the Declaration has been approved by His Majesty's Government after the fullest examination.
  Mr. GRETTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that on 14th February last the late First Lord stated that the question of the Declaration of London had not been before the Board of Admiralty, but that he must assume it had been approved because the Admiralty was represented at the Conference?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What did happen was this. On 28th June, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), who asked whether the Board of Admiralty was consulted as to the Declaration of London before it was signed, the First Lord of the Admiralty (then Mr. McKenna) replied:—
  "Yes, Sir; the Board of Admiralty decided in support of the Declaration of London, and it has been stated so repeatedly."
  The hon. Member for York then asked:—
  "Was the First Sea Lord asked to give his opinion?"
  and the answer was,
  "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: has the new Board of Admiralty been consulted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that in his view no useful purpose whatever would be served by submitting (this matter to the new Board, which, as a matter of fact, was only read in this very day.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Suppose it should turn out that the new Board was entirely opposed to the Declaration of London?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.
  Mr. GRETTON: Are we to understand that the approval of the Board, which is announced as having been stated to the House on the 28th June last, was in the sense of the answer to a question on the 21st February, in which the First Lord stated that any matter submitted to him by a member of the Board, and receiving his approval, had the approval of the Board of Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is that the Board of Admiralty decided in support of the Declaration of London. This has been stated repeatedly.
  Colonel HICKMAN: Is the House to understand that the Admiralty have not consulted the new Board and have no intention of doing so?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The new Board of Admiralty was only read in this very day, and in the opinion of the First Lord no useful purpose would be served by consulting it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to consult the new Board as to the tactics of the battle of Trafalgar?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are we to understand that the Government finally decline to consult the new Board on a matter vital to our interests at sea?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already said so twice.

  Indian Police Methods.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many people have been tortured to death by the police in India or have died within a month of being tortured by the police since the 1st January, 1906; and how many members of the police force have been convicted of murder in connection with these deaths? If the hon. Gentleman cannot give me the exact information, perhaps he will give it as nearly as possible?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No doubt unintentionally the terms of this question differ in detail from those of the question put by my hon. Friend on the 31st October and the 14th of November and postponed in order that inquiry might be made of the Government of India. I am now in possession of the information then asked for, and trust that it will meet the purpose of my hon. Friend. During the last six years there have been in the whole of British India fifty-seven cases in which policemen were convicted of ill-treating prisoners or witnesses. In six cases the ill-treatment occurred while the prisoners wore remitted to police custody. In seventeen cases death ensued. The Government of India are consulting the local governments and the highest judicial authorities on the questions of the remission of prisoners to police custody and the admission as evidence of confessions made before trial.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have any of the policemen concerned been tried for murder?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think there has been any conviction for murder. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will make inquiry.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are any of these police victims Europeans or are they all natives of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps the hon. Member will also put a question down on that point.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked with I regard to the recent conviction of a policeman

  1207
  and a lamberdar by the Sessions judge of Ferozepur of torturing a prisoner called Chetu, against whom there was no evidence, so severely that he either died of the injuries or committed suicide to escape further torture, whether the compensation offered by the Court to the dependents of Chetu was a sum equivalent to about £6 9s. to his mother and about £6 6s. to his young widow, this compensation to be conditional upon the fines imposed upon the convicted torturers being realised; and whether the Indian Government proposes to pay, without delay, further compensation to the dependents of this man who was done to death by its own agents?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have telegraphed to the Government of India for the information asked for, but have not yet received their reply.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the Government, in view of the verdict, undertake to be responsible for seeing that proper compensation is paid to the dependents of the murdered man?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is difficult for me to make any statement. If the hon. Member will put down the question I will ask the Government of India, and on receipt of their answer will give him a reply.

  Convictions for Drunkenness (India).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked whether, in view of the fact that statistics as to the convictions for drunkenness are given in the Annual Excise Report for Bengal, representations will be made to the other local governments to furnish similar information in their future Excise Reports?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I find that the reports of the other provinces, with one exception, give figures showing cases of drunkenness which have come under the cognisance of the police, though the form of return differs from that used in Bengal. The attention of the Government of India will be drawn to the hon. Member's suggestion, in case they should feel justified in imposing upon the provincial governments the duty of furnishing uniform returns.

  Crown Colony Police.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Indian Government proposes to follow the example of the Colonial Office in Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements,
  1208
  and the Federated Malay States, in restricting appointments in the civil and police forces in these Colonies to candidates of pure European descent on both sides; and whether it has made any protest on behalf of the 300,000,000 British citizens whom it represents against their complete exclusion from these services?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am, of course, always willing to consider suggestions made by my hon. Friend, but there is no present intention of modifying a procedure which I have no reason to suppose is not satisfactory. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; no protest has been made, so far as I am aware, to the Secretary of State or the Government of India, and therefore it may be assumed that no grievance is felt. I may add that I must not be held to endorse my hon. Friend's description of Colonial Office practice.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman convey the information that the present system in India is working satisfactorily to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who seems so ignorant about Indian affairs?

  Dowlais Works (Indian Contracts).
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade has now reported as to the new wage arrangements at the Dowlais works; and whether he is now in a position to restore the firm in respect of those works to the list of contractors recognised by his Department?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am, I regret to say, not in a position to answer the question to-day. I would ask my hon. Friend, whose services in the matter on behalf of his constituents I would take the opportunity of acknowledging, to repeat it this day week.

  Army Air Battalion.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have come to a decision with regard to pay and allowances of officers of the Air Battalion?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The matter is not yet settled.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction among the officers of the Air Battalion owing to the delay of the Army

  1209
  Council in dealing with this question? Can he give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with on the earliest possible opportunity?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir; it will be dealt with in a very short time.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether it is intended to increase the numbers of officers permanently attached to the Air Battalion apart from officers temporarily attached to the battalion for a course of military aviation?
  Colonel SEELY: The number of officers appointed to the Air Battalion is limited to the number provided for in the Estimates for this year. The Estimates for next year are not yet settled.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in his opinion the system which he recently proposed in a speech in this House will give an aviation service in any way comparable with the French service, where the officers are permanently attached to the aviation service?
  Colonel SEELY: I think it will give a very adequate aviation service if properly carried out.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether the efficiency of the Territorial Force largely depends upon attendance at camp; and, if so, on what grounds the military authorities have reported that there has been a satisfactory improvement in the general efficiency of the force in view of the fact that attendance at camp is officially stated to have been unsatisfactory this year?
  Colonel SEELY: If those members of the force who were absent from camp had attended camp the general efficiency of the force would have benefited thereby; but the fact that these men were absent does not in any way controvert the opinion of the military authorities that the general efficiency of the force has greatly improved during the past year.
  Mr. SANDYS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to infer it is not true that the efficiency of the Territorial Army largely depends on attendance at camp?
  Colonel SEELY: I did not say the hon. Gentlemen's statement was inaccurate. But I repeat that the general efficiency of the force has greatly improved during the past year.
  Mr. SANDYS: Then can the right hon. Gentleman, answer my question, on what grounds the military authorities have reported that there is a satisfactory improvement?
  Colonel SEELY: I shall be glad to make a statement on the subject and give the House the opinions of the military authorities, but I cannot do it at the present time.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask if, after the Government's action last night, they really desire to encourage the Territorial Force?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech—I do not think the hon. Member was present at the time—thett the present Government were most anxious to encourage the Territorial Force in every possible way, but they did not think they could do it in the way then suggested.
  Mr. SANDYS: Perhaps we may be permitted to discuss this question on the Motion for Adjournment one night?
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Edward Jones, of the 4th battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who was injured whilst playing football in camp; whether he will consider the desirability of amending the regulations governing the Territorial Force, with a view to specifying more clearly in what cases an injury may be regarded as received in and through military duty; and whether, in view of the loss sustained by Private Edward Jones, special consideration can be given to this case and some compensation provided?
  Colonel SEELY: As regards the general question of amending the regulations concerned I have nothing to add to the full statements made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and myself in the Debate arising on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday, 21st November. As regards this particular case, there is no doubt that it would not come within the scope of any such regulations.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give us the decision of the Army Council with respect to injuries received in these circumstances?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope with very little I delay.

  Expeditionary Force (Reserves).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state, in the event of Reservists being recalled to the Colours to make up an expeditionary force, the Reserves, if any, that will be forthcoming for Infantry regiments serving either in India or in the Dominions oversea?
  Colonel SEELY: No Reservists will be required in the contingency contemplated in the question for Infantry regiments serving in India or in the Dominions oversea.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How will the drafts be provided then?
  Colonel SEELY: I scarcely think that arises out of the question. It is another matter altogether.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the average age of the rank and file in Infantry now serving at Home who will on mobilisation be included in the six divisions of the expeditionary force; and the average age of the French and German infantry soldiers in peace and when mobilised?
  Colonel SEELY: The average ago of the rank and file of the Foot Guards and Infantry of the Line serving at home—that is to say, who are liable for inclusion in the Six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force, exclusive of those under twenty years of age—is approximately twenty-four and a-half years. The average age of a French and German Infantry soldier in peace is approximately twenty-two; in war, that of the French active army, with its reserves, is from twenty-seven to twenty-eight; and of the German First Line Troops and reserves is from twenty-five to twenty-six.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Then soldiers under twenty are excluded from the Expeditionary Force?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir.

  Weights Carried by Infantrymen.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the total weight carried by an Infantry soldier under twenty-one years of age in full marching order; what amount of practice the young soldier has in marching carrying this weight; what distance he is expected to be able to cover in full marching order at the end of annual training; and if any allowance is made in the distances to be covered or weight of equipment borne by
  1212
  soldiers under twenty-one as compared with their more mature comrades?
  Colonel SEELY: The total weight carried by a British Infantry soldier in war is 59lb. 11oz., as against 59lb. 10oz. carried by a German and 58lb. by a French soldier. Infantry soldiers under twenty years of age are not sent on service. In peace the weight to be carried in full marching order, without ball ammunition or emergency ration, is 49lb. 1oz. The course of instruction in marching is progressive, both as to distance and weight to be carried, and lasts through the training season; at the end of the period of collective training Infantrymen are able to carry their full marching order for twenty miles and more without undue fatigue. The training of the young soldier in this important part of his duty is carefully supervised with a view to securing that the strength of no individual should be overtaxed.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I take it at the end of the training the average young soldier can carry the full weight?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.

  Indian Army.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the War Office have available any statistics indicating the percentage of sickness and invalidity among Infantry soldiers serving in India during their first two years' service in that country?
  Colonel SEELY: No statistics in the precise form asked for are available at the War Office. I am forwarding statistics bearing upon the point generally to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the nominal strength of British Infantry battalions now serving in India and their assumed marching-out strength in case of sudden emergency?
  Colonel SEELY: The peace establishment of a British Infantry battalion serving in India is 1,031, all ranks. I am not prepared to give any information as regards the rest of the question.

  Army Pay Corps (Clerical Work).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether it is the practice at the War Office and the various stations throughout the kingdom to compel non-commissioned officers attached to the Army Pay Corps to perform clerical work at home without extra

  1213
  pay after having completed their ordinary day's duty at the office to which they are attached; and, if so, to what extent this practice prevails and on what ground it is justified?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): I am not aware that any such practice exists.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will speak to my hon. Friend afterwards.

  Territorial Force (Report of Inspector-General of Forces).
  Mr. FRANCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Inspector-General of the Forces has made a Report to the War Office commenting on the increased efficiency of the Territorial Force; and whether he will lay this Report upon the Table of the House?
  Colonel SEELY: The Report referred to in the question shall be laid not later than Thursday next week.

  British Troops in China.
  Mr. FELLasked what is the present force of British troops in China, and where are they at present stationed?
  Colonel SEELY: The establishment of British troops in China on 1st November was as follows: North China, 2,030 all ranks (including 956 Indian troops); South China, 4,274 all ranks (including 1,854 Indian troops). In addition there is at present a British Infantry Battalion in North China whose establishment is 933 all ranks. The troops are quartered at Peking, Tientsin, and Hong Kong.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Does that include the Sikhs employed in the foreign settlement?
  Colonel SEELY: I could not be certain, but I think so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask me again.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the strength compares with establishment?
  Colonel SEELY: It is a well-understood rule in this House that one does not state the strength of a particular force in a disturbed area, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in point of fact, I am informed that all these forces are over strength.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    COST AND VALUE OF BENEFITS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise the details of the cost of benefits statement made in Command Paper, No. 5885, to correspond with the National Insurance scheme, as amended in Committee; and if he will add other tables to show the estimated value of the benefits to persons joining, for example, at the ages of thirty, forty, and fifty, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The hon. Member will find the information asked for in the first part of his question in the recent Report of the Actuaries (Command Paper 5983). It would be premature to publish a statement as to the value of the benefits at the various ages specified in the second part of the question, as the duty of preparing tables has been imposed on the Insurance Commissioners.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. MORTONasked the number of families in the United Kingdom in which servants are kept, and in what number of those a single servant is kept?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is estimated that 10 per cent. of all households in England and Wales, or roughly 800,000, employ servants, and that in 60 per cent., or 480,000 of these households, a single servant is kept. I do not know how far this estimate would apply to the rest of the United Kingdom.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what will be the salaries and the conditions of service of the several officials to be appointed under Clause 52 of the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The salaries for the Commissioners for England have been stated. I am not yet in a position to give further information.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many thousands of these officials will be appointed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not expect thousands.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked to whom, before what date, and in what form, should applications for appointments as officials under Clause 52 of the National Insurance Bill be made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: When the Bill has passed into law it will be for the Commissioners to consider when and in what form they desire applications to be made.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will time be allowed after it is passed into law for these applications to be made in order to get the best possible persons?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether persons to be appointed as officials under Clause 52 of the National Insurance Bill will require to be nominated; and, if so, by whom?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The appointments rest with the Commissioners; no outside nomination is needed.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to announce the names of the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make this announcement.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there any change of policy in regard to this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir.

    OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that in the Kingswood (Bristol) district some eighty manufacturers employ some 4,000 to 5,000 outworkers who work in their homes at making boots from material supplied by the manufacturers; that such materials are obtained at the beginning of the week from two, three, or more separate manufacturers; that it is impossible to know for which of such employers the outworkers work first for in any week; and whether he will explain the position of the manufacturers and outworkers under the Bill as it now stands; and (2) whether he is aware that the Kingswood and District (Bristol) Boot Manufacturers' Association employ between 4,000 and 5,000 outworkers; that they consider that Clauses 1 and 5, on page 115 of the National Insurance Bill, do not adequately deal with the position of such outworkers; and whether he will propose such Amendments as will satisfactorily meet their difficulty?
    Mr. KINGasked (1) how it will be possible to decide under the National Insurance
    1216
    Bill which employer is liable to pay the employer's contribution in the case of an outworker who, at the beginning of the week, fetches to his home work from two or more employers; and (2) whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the position of outworkers in the boot trade of the Bristol district under the National Insurance Bill; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will have power to make regulations that will meet the peculiar difficulties arising in their case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was precisely on account of the difficulty of laying down a hard and fast rule in the varied cases of outworkers that a very wide power was left to the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations.

    CHARGES ON AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately what will be the total annual charge thrown by Part I. of the National Insurance Bill upon the occupiers of agricultural land and agricultural labourers respectively in Great Britain; and, if not, whether he will have a Return made of such estimated charge in each case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to give the estimate asked for by the hon. Member, but I will see whether it can be prepared without disproportionate labour.

    CONTRIBUTIONS OF DAILY GOVERNESS.
    Major HENDERSONasked which of the employers of a daily governess will be responsible for the payment of the employer's contribution to the National Insurance fund, where such governess is employed in the morning, afternoon, and evening by different employers on the first day in the week?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: One of the questions, which the Insurance Commissioners will have to determine according to the circumstances of each case, is whether there is a contract of employment within the meaning of the Bill, and as I have previously stated they have power to deal with the matter referred to in the question.

    DOCTORS' REMUNERATION.
    Mr. AINSWORTHasked whether the local health committees in Scotland to be appointed under the National Insurance

    1217
    Bill will have the power to award additional remuneration to medical practitioners in sparsely populated districts on the basis of mileage or otherwise?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Local insurance committees may, within the resources at their disposal, make such arrangements with doctors as they think fit, and the amount available for medical benefit may be increased either by the reduction of other benefits which they administer or—where this is possible, and the authorities concerned consent—by grants chargeable to the rates and to the Treasury in equal proportions.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if this is an extra charge?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no charge upon the rates except with the consent of the local authority.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Then there is a charge upon the rates.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is only a voluntary charge if it is necessary.

  North-Eastern Sea Fisheries.
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether an application from the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee for a grant from the Development Fund has been supported by the Board; and if he can state whether this application is likely to be successful?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The application was sent to the Commissioners with an intimation that the work which the Committee desired to undertake would come within the purview of the comprehensive scheme submitted by the Board. I have every hope that the Board may shortly be in a position to assist the Committee to carry out useful work on the lines of their application.

  State Railways.
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in bringing Return No. 331 of 1907 up to date, he will arrange for an additional group to the four already classified, which will embrace all foreign countries and British possessions that have not taken any action in the way of owning or working or subsidising any part of the railways within their boundaries by means of State funds?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Board of Trade will endeavour to secure the inclusion in the Return of information regarding all important foreign countries and British possessions other than those covered by the Return No. 336 of 1906.

  Importation of Australian Mutton into France.
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that mutton from Argentina can be imported into France subject to a duty of about 1½d. per lb., whereas mutton from Australia would be liable to a duty of 2 3–16d. per lb., or 46 per cent. more; whether he is aware that this discriminatory duty on Australian mutton effectively prohibits competition with Argentina in the French market; and whether the Government will make representations to France to secure for Australian mutton the benefit of the same tariff as is granted to Argentina?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am aware that Australian mutton is subject to the general Customs tariff on importation into France, whereas Argentine mutton enjoys the benefit of the French minimum tariff. Representations have already been made to the French Government with the view to securing the benefit of the minimum tariff for frozen mutton imported into France from Australia and New Zealand.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause comes in under this?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no doubt that that is covered, and that our representations will have the desired effect.

  West Indies (Labourers' Conditions).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the discussion in the West Indies, especially in Jamaica, for and against the policy of annexation by the United States; and whether, seeing that this unrest is largely caused by the much higher rates of wages paid to West Indian labourers in Panama and elsewhere in the United States of America, he will consider the whole question of the labourers' conditions in the West Indies, especially the effect of coolie indentured labour upon the native labourers' wages and other working conditions?
  Colonel SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State has not been drawn to any discussion of the kind referred to, but labour conditions in the West Indies are constantly engaging his attention.

  Pacific Islands.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in possession of the particulars relating to the closing up and selling off of the goods and effects of the native co-operative company, named the Toga ma'a Toga Kautaha in the Tongan group, Western Pacific, and of the action arising, which was taken by the company against the Consul-General at Tonga, Mr. W. Telfer Campbell, and two other European officials; whether the action was decided against the prosecuting company with costs; whether he has any evidence to show that false evidence was given to shield the defendants; whether the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, Sir H. F. May, went down to Tonga, and, as a result of an inquiry, reversed the decision, gave permission for the Kautaha to be started again, and compelled the Consul-General, Mr. Campbell, to apologise to the Tongan King George II.; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Reports relating to the trial, and to the visit and decision of Sir H. F. May as mentioned in this question?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a report of the proceedings taken by Mr. Cameron and other members of the Kautaha against Mr. Campbell and others; the action was dismissed with costs; he is not aware of any ground for the suggestion that false evidence was given for the defendants; the High Commissioner has acquiesced in the proposal to permit the establishment of a co-operative society on the lines of the old Kautaha, on condition as to audit and control by the Tongan Government; Mr. Campbell has not been called upon to apologise to the King for any action taken by him in connection with the Kautaha, but merely for injudicious language used by him during an interview with the King. Sir H. May's confidential report on his visit to Tonga, which deals with other matters besides the question of the Kautaha is not suitable for publication, but my hon. Friend can see full reports concerning the Kautaha, printed in the Tongan Gazettes, if he will call at the Colonial Office.
  Mr. POINTER: Are we to understand from the reply that the papers have not been published because of some language he used to the King.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think we can draw that inference. There are official papers which had better be perused by my hon. Friend in private at the Colonial Office.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether the boundaries of the lands on Ocean Island, Gilbert Group, Western Pacific, which the Pacific Islands Company, now Pacific Phosphates Company, were by the terms of their lease (1900–01) permitted to occupy, have been yet clearly defined and marked out by the Government; whether the lands not in this area have been thoroughly inspected by mining and chemical experts in order to ascertain their real value; and whether the Government intend to advertise these lands and take effective measures to obtain by rent or royalty the proper value for the same; and whether the right hon. Gentleman has any official information as to the payment offered by the Pacific Phosphates Company for the right to mine these valuable phosphate lands?
  Colonel SEELY: The mining areas of the Pacific Phosphates Company on Ocean Island have not yet been definitely marked out; there will be no lands available outside this area for mining operations by other persons, since the lands in question are required by the natives, and the Pacific Phosphates Company have the sole right of removing phosphates from the island; the payment to be made by the company in connection with the proposed mining areas is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. POINTER: Am I to understand that the latter remarks refer to the proposed extension?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I could answer that off-hand. I communicated with the Colonial Office in regard to the answer I have given, and I could not definitely say whether it refers to extension, but I think so. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

  Royal Commission on Imperial Trade.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether it is intended to pay the chairman and members of the Royal Commission to inquire into the question of trade within the Empire; and, if so, what salaries will be paid?
  Colonel SEELY: No salaries will be paid to those members of the Commission who are appointed by His Majesty's Government. An allowance will be made for their subsistence and travelling expenses.

  Rural Telephone Installations.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet been able to establish any £3 telephone installation for the benefit of farmers and other rural residents; and, if not, when he expects to be able do so?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The low rate of £3 a year for rural party lines was based on the assumption that an average of three subscribers per mile of route would be obtained. A large number of localities have now been actively canvassed, and it is clear that more than two subscribers per mile cannot be hoped for except in a very few special cases. To meet this condition an increase in the charge will be necessary to cover only the direct cost of the lines and operating, without allowing anything for the general expenses of the exchanges with which the lines are connected, and I hope shortly to be able to offer a modified scheme of rates to meet the same conditions in different localities.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers dislike the idea of prices quoted to them through the telephone for their produce being made known to their neighbours, and is that a necessary condition of such an installation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The party line system is a system in which several subscribers use one telephone line. The inevitable result of that is that conversations may be overheard. If farmers or other persons want the exclusive use of a single line they must necessarily pay for it at the ordinary charges.

  Newport (Mon.) Post Office.
  Colonel Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether five postmen are constantly employed at the Newport (Mon.) Post Office as sorters, whether they work eight hours a day at that work, and whether the sorting done by them is wholly distinct from the walk-sorting usually done by postmen; and whether, seeing that the duty is more arduous and commands a higher scale of pay than that
  1222
  usually performed by postmen, it is his intention to raise their pay to that received by sorting clerks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There have been, since March, 1908, five full eight hour primary sorting duties at Newport (Mon.), performed by postmen, but as these duties are shared among ten men performing them in alternate weeks in groups of five no postman is employed constantly upon them. These duties, while distinct from walk-sorting, are not more difficult, and are such as are assigned partially or entirely to postmen at a number of offices. There would be no justification for raising the pay of these postmen to that received by sorting clerks and telegraphists, who are required to perform more complicated and responsible work. The whole question of the employment of postmen on sorting duties is at present under consideration by a Departmental Committee, whose report I am awaiting.

  Jura and Islay (Telegraphic Communication).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telegraphic communication between the islands of Jura and Islay and from the island of Tiree to the mainland is interrupted, and that in the former case more than two months has elapsed without the damage being repaired; and whether he can see his way to increasing the strength of the repairing staff available for this purpose in Scotland?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cable ship "Monarch" has been sent to repair the damage, and she is waiting in the nearest harbour (Gigha) until the weather shall afford an opportunity.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: How soon will a staff be available for repairs?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a question of a staff, but of ships. We have included in the estimates provision for an additional cable ship. I cannot say without notice when it will be ready.

  PRESS CABLEGRAMS (BRITISH EMPIRE).

    REDUCED RATES.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can yet give any information with regard to the improvement in cable communication between the Mother-country and the Dominions?
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference in favour of an improvement in cable communication between this country and the self-governing Dominions, he is in a position to announce the result of any steps he has been able to take to give effect to those resolutions.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A strong desire was expressed by the Dominion representatives at the Imperial Conference for the cheaper transmission of Press cablegrams between the various portions of the Empire. With this desire His Majesty's Government are in cordial sympathy, regarding the easy communication of information of common interest as of prime importance in strengthening the cohesion of the Empire. I have been in correspondence with the Western Union Telegraph Company of the United States in connection with the leasing by that company of the cables of the Anglo-American Telegraph Company and of the Direct United States Company. The cables of the Atlantic companies are fully employed during a few hours of the day, but less fully during the remaining hours. I am glad to be able to announce that in view of this fact, the three companies referred to have consented to accept Press messages which are not of an urgent character, and which may be postponed to the more urgent traffic, at one-half of the present rates. For the present the deferment may be less, but will not be more than nineteen hours reckoned from the clock time of acceptance in the country of origin to the clock time of delivery in the country of destination, except that, if the cables are congested, some further delay may be unavoidable. I have also obtained the consent of the Pacific Cable Board and of the Australian Government to a similar reduction in their charges for Press messages of this class. The tariff of the New Zealand Government was already very low, and a further diminution was not asked. The effect will be that the rates for these deferred Press telegrams between the United Kingdom on the one hand and Canada, as well as the United States, on the other, will be 2½d. a word instead of 5d. as now; and between the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand the rate will be 4½d. a word instead of 9d. I am in communication with the Commercial Cable Company also on this question. I regret that I have not yet been able to
    1224
    arrange for a similar reduction in cablegrams to and from India and South Africa, but the Eastern Telegraph Company has consented to carry the Australasian cablegrams at the reduced rate in the event of interruption to the Pacific cable. The service will come into full operation on the 15th instant, but the Western Union, Anglo-American, and Direct United States Companies will be prepared to accept the Press telegrams at the reduced rates at their own offices on and from to-morrow. The Western Union Company proposes also, of its own initiative, to establish at once for the use of the public a system of so-called "night letters" and "week-end letters" between this country and places in Canada and the United States. These will be plain language cablegrams carried at largely reduced rates. "Night letters" will be delivered on the morning of the second day after they are handed in. The charge per word will be rather more than quarter the usual rate, with a minimum of 6s. for twenty words or less. The "weekend letters" will be accepted on or before Saturdays for delivery on the following Tuesdays. The charge per word will be about one-fifth of the present rate, with a minimum of 6s. for thirty words or less. On and from the 15th instant the Post Office will receive these messages and co-operate in forwarding them by post or telegraph, according to rules which will be announced. For the present, Press telegrams at the reduced rates and the new letter telegrams will be sent by the cables of the Western Union Telegraph Company and the two allied companies which I have already mentioned, and, so far as North America is concerned, can only be sent to places on the Western Union Company's system. I am glad to say also that the negotiations which have been proceeding for some time with the cable companies for reducing by one-half the rates for plain language non-urgent cablegrams between the United Kingdom, India, the Dominions, the Crown Colonies, and the United States, have proved successful; and the new arrangements will take effect on the 1st of January next. I anticipate that the concurrence of certain foreign administrations will soon be obtained, and that the scheme will shortly be extended to many other parts of the world. Under the new regulations of the Telegraph Convention the use of codes has been largely extended and code telegrams can be sent cheaply. I hope that the new tariffs will be of service to the senders of Press and

    1225
    private messages in plain language, which are not of an urgent character, with respect to which the existing rates press heavily. No appreciable cost will fall upon the Treasury through these charges.

    CHEAP INLAND NIGHT TELEGRAMS.
    I would add that I propose also to introduce experimentally the system of cheap night telegrams into this country, so as to make fuller use of the telegraph system during hours when it is now idle. The public are likely to use such a facility only to distant places, as the post will naturally be preferred where it is equally serviceable. At the outset the system will be tried between London and Aberdeen and between London and Belfast. The charge will be 6d. for thirty-six words and ½d. for every three words thereafter. The telegrams will be accepted up to midnight at the head offices and will be delivered with the first morning delivery of letters. If the system is found to be of use to the public it will be extended to other places.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: During which hours will Press telegrams at reduced rates be accepted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Press telegrams at reduced rates for transmission to the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, will be accepted at any hours.
    Captain MURRAY: Do I understand that night telegrams only operate between London and Aberdeen and not between London and Edinburgh?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Only between London and Aberdeen and London and Belfast as an experiment to see what use is made of it by the public. If the circumstances justify, it will speedily be extended to other places.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the cheapening of cable rates between Great Britain and the West Indies and British Guiana also engaged the attention of the Government, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman be able later on to make a statement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The half-rate plain language telegraph system will extend to, I think, practically all the Crown Colonies.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: At what hour will the night telegrams to Belfast and Aberdeen be accepted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Up to midnight at any head office. At local offices in the different parts of London they will have to be handed in earlier. Regulations will very shortly be published on the subject. They can also be sent by telephone or by post.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does Glasgow not afford a better test than Aberdeen?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The distance to Glasgow is less.

  Benbecula Mails.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office boat at Creagory, in Benbecula, could without difficulty meet the mail steamer off Petersport and bring and take off the mails for Benbecula, he could see his way to make this arrangement in order to save twenty-four hours' delay and the injury done to parcels sent over land?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Access to Loch Lomond.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the questions which have arisen with reference to access to Loch Lomond, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in or about the year 1884 there was an arbitration between the county road trustees of Dumbartonshire and Sir James Colquhoun, of Luss, for the acquisition by the former from the latter of the ferry rights, the then existing bridge, and such rights as were necessary for the building of the present bridge at Balloch; whether, under the award which followed, the county road trustees paid to Sir James Colquhoun £6,000 or thereabouts, or any, and, if so, what, other sum for the subjects of the arbitration; what they obtained for that sum; whether the subjects which they obtained were specified in writing in any transfer, deed, or disposition; and, if so, where access can be had thereto, in order that there may be an accurate ascertainment of the rights to, and connected with, the land in question, now vested in the Dumbartonshire County Council as successors to the county road trustees?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to this question will be circulated with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Egypt (British and German Trade).
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for the average value of British and German imports into Egypt during the periods 1895 to 1900, 1900 to 1905, and 1905 to 1910, and the percentage comparison of British and German imports into Egypt during those years?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: For the periods of five years ended 1900,1905, and 1910, the average annual values of the imports into Egypt from the United Kingdom have been £4,125,000, £6,338,000, and £7,935,000 respectively, being 35, 35, and 32 per cent. of the Egyptian imports during each period. The corresponding figures of imports from Germany have been £356,000, £784,000, and £1,274,000, being 3, 4, and 5 per cent. respectively of the Egyptian imports.
  Mr. CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the necessity of appointing further Trade Commissioners or agents in Egypt, bearing in mind that there is a large increase in German trade as compared with British trade?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The increase in imports from Great Britain in the last five years is considerably greater than the total amount of the German increase.

  King Edward Memorial.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the desire of the King Edward Memorial Committee to recommend to the Government a site in Green Park for the memorial, he is able to state the date on which the House will be given the opportunity of expressing its views in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister?
  Captain MURRAYasked whether, at the recent meeting of the King Edward Memorial Committee, any decision was arrived at as to a site for the proposed King Edward Memorial?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The proposal is to erect the memorial at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk in the Green Park—the spot indicated in the various answers given in this House on the 19th July last.
  Captain MURRAY: May I ask whether the Government has actually given its assent to this site?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, Sir.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it the case that the Government is with holding its assent until the matter has been discussed in this House?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The answer given by the Prime Minister was that the Government saw no objection to this site, but, of course, before the site is finally approved, the matter has to receive, first of all, the assent of the Memorial Committee, then of the First Commissioner of Works, and then before anything can be finally settled, the plans will have to be exhibited in this House. That was the promise made by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Surely the Prime Minister said that this House should have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, Sir.
  Captain MURRAY: May we take it that before the assent is finally given the House will have not only an opportunity of discussing the matter, but of giving its verdict upon it?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I understand so.

  Income Tax Collection.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a bailiff from Brigg County Court called at Mill Road, Ashby, near Doncaster, the house of W. H. Millett, a blacksmith's striker, and left a plain piece of paper asking for Income Tax 11s. 8d. and bailiffs' fees 5s. 6d.; whether he is aware that this person called again on 18th September and insulted Mrs. Millett, and demanded £2 12s. 2d. with threats; whether he is aware that the blacksmith's striker hurried from work to find a crowd around his house, and was successful by peaceful persuasion in ridding his home of this official on payment of 11s. 8d. Income Tax in exchange for a receipt; and whether any compensation will be given for the annoyance thus caused in collecting taxes owing by a former landlord of the house?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that an action for damages for trespass has been commenced by Mr. W. H. Millett against the collector of taxes for the parish of Ashby. As the matter is sub judice I cannot properly make any observations upon it.

  Care of Feeble-minded.
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce legislation dealing with the care of the feeble-minded?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Yes, Sir, next Session.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an offer has yet been made to Lord Clanricarde for the purchase of his estate; and, if not, considering the unrest that now exists in the district in consequence, of the delay and also the fact that the tenants were led to believe that an offer would have been made last Sepetember, can he now fix a day by which an offer will be made?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The matter will be again before the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting on the 12th instant, when I have good reason to hope that they may be in a position to issue their offer.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an inspector of the Estates Commissioners recently visited some lands situate at Gravelstown, near Carlanstown, Kells, on the estate of Lord Howth; and whether he will state if the lands have been offered for sale to the Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot identify these lands as being the subject of any proceedings before them for sale under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the untenanted land on the estate of the Misses Barlow, situate at Drumrone otherwise known as Possenstown, in the parish of Nobber, county Meath, has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether a distribution scheme will be prepared this year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owners have accepted the formal offer of the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of these lands, and a scheme for their distribution will be prepared; but the Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when they will be able to take over the lands.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners are now in a position to provide an equivalent holding for Francis Hopkins, evicted from the estate of Colonel Lyster Smyth, Nobber, county Meath?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Francis Hopkins for reinstatement in a
  1230
  holding formerly occupied by him on the estate referred to, and his name was provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land. On further inquiry and consideration the Commissioners decided to take no action in the matter.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Lord Ardilaun has yet offered to sell the Connemara portion of his estate to the Connemara tenants; whether there is any immediate prospect of this estate being purchased by the Congested Districts Board; whether the estate of the Provost of Trinity College, in the district of Carrick East and West has been offered for sale, and, if so, when the sale is likely to be effected; whether the O'Kelly estate in the Clonbur, county Galway, district is yet acquired by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estates of Lord Ardilaun, and of the Provost of Trinity College, have not been offered to the Congested Districts Board for sale. The estate of Mr. J. A. O'Kelly, county Galway, has been offered for sale, and a decision will be arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have sent a gentleman named Mr. Booth to act as their inspector over the Sandesford, Castlecomer, property, as to the security of the farms for the purchase moneys agreed on by the tenants and the landlord, or rather the purchase moneys signed by the tenants on the understanding that there would be a review by the Commissioners as to the fairness of the prices; whether he is aware that this Mr. Booth acted as a Court valuer for the same property for the appeal cases on this property when some cases were before the Land Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Booth was the valuer in the appeal case of James Meally, Noneenroe, on this property, and that his valuation of the farm was about £7 9s. 6d. more than its value was fixed by the Sub-Commission, and that the tenant at the time considered the Sub-Commission value too high and was the appellant; whether he is aware that the present occupier of the farm in question, Mr. Fintan Lalor, son-in-law to James Meally, refused to sign any purchase agreement on the terms mentioned by the landlord owing to the prices asked

  1231
  being, in his opinion, too high; and whether the Estates Commissioners will see that his case will be fairly considered by them when the estate is finally before them for purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale under the Irish Land Act, 1903, direct by the owner to the tenants. The inspector who visited the estate, which comprises over seven hundred holdings, acted in 1903 as one of the valuers to the Court of the Land Commission in connection with proceedings for fixing judicial rents in two or three of these holdings. In the case of Fintan Lalor, who has not signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding, the inspector was directed to inquire and report why no agreement had been lodged. He reported that when he visited the holding the tenant drew his attention to the fact that he had acted some eight years ago as one of he Court valuers in connection with the fixing of the judicial rent. The inspector at once withdrew, and asked for instructions, when the Commissioners decided to send another inspector to visit Lalor's holding.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, have the Estates Commissioners yet sanctioned the sale, arranged in the year 1908, of Lord Lansdowne's estate, situate in the parishes of Bonane and Kenmare, county Kerry; if not, when it is expected that the sale will be sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; and if he can state the probable date of the vesting of their farms in the tenant-purchasers of the parishes of Bonane and Kenmare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the advances were made and the holdings vested in the majority of the purchasing tenants on the estates of Lord Lansdowne referred to in the question on the 1st instant. The outstanding holdings will be vested as soon as certain rulings of the Commissioners in reference to them have been complied with.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the probable date of the taking over of the Palmer estate, near Kenmare, county Kerry, by the Congested Districts Board, seeing that the occupier of the grazing farm at Ash-grove, on the estate, has now acceded to the request of the Congested Districts Board to hand over the holding for distribution among the tenants on the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate has not yet been accepted. Possession of the property cannot be taken by the Board unless terms of purchase are agreed upon.

  Cahirciveen Petty Sessions Clerk.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of the recent election for a petty sessions clerk at Cahirciveen, he is aware that all the magistrates who voted, including Colonel Ross, received notices that they were entitled to vote; and whether, in view of the fact that the records show that when the vacancy occurred Colonel Ross had made the necessary attendances, the mere postponement of election on several occasions, due to equality in voting for two candidates, disqualifies a magistrate who was admittedly qualified when the vacancy occurred and has received notice on every subsequent occasion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The notices issued simply informed the magistrates of the date of the election. Colonel Ross did not vote at any previous election, so the question of the validity of his vote did not arise; but, as a matter of fact, his attendances were not at any time such as to give him the qualification required by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, to which I have referred in my previous answer.

  Shops Bill.
  Mr. GRETTON: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, can he state when the White Papers dealing with the portion of the Shops Bill and the Amendments which the Government propose to proceed with will be in the hands of Members?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member knows that this Bill is not in my charge. I have not had an opportunity since I received notice of the question to inquire when the Papers would be ready. I will tell the hon. Member privately afterwards what time we will circulate the Papers.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Wednesday the Papers were promised at an early date?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not exactly aware of all the circumstances of the case, but I will endeavour to see that the Papers are circulated as early as possible.

  Crew of "Medina" (Revaccination).
  Mr. POINTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the crew of His Majesty's ship "Medina" were revaccinated before leaving England; and whether he has any official information showing that everyone on board the "Medina" had been vaccinated?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No report on this subject has been received.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
  "To extend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, 1882 to 1900," presented by Mr. NOEL BUXTON; supported by Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Essex, Mr. White-house, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. John Lyttelton, Sir Hildred Carlile, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DOMINION NAVAL FORCES) BILL.
  "To declare the effect of the Naval Discipline Acts when applied by the legislatures of self-governing Dominions to the Naval Forces raised by such Dominions," presented by Dr. MACNAMARA; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [24th November] on further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Which Amendment was to leave out Clause 91.—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]

Part VI.
  Employment of Boys, Girls, and Women.
  EMPLOYMENT.

    CLAUSE 91.—(Prohibition against Employment of Boys, Girls, and Women Below Ground.)
    No boy under the age of fourteen years, and no girl or woman of any age, shall be employed in or allowed to be for the purpose of employment in any mine below ground. Nothing in this Section shall apply to any boy who has been lawfully employed in any mine below ground before the passing of this Act.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to:

    CLAUSE 92.—(Employment of Boys, Girls, and Women Above Ground.)
    With respect to boys, girls, and women employed above ground, in connection with any mine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (1) No boy or girl under the age of thirteen years shall be so employed, unless lawfully so employed before the passing of this Act:

    (2) No boy or girl of or above the age of thirteen years and no woman shall be so employed for more than fifty-four hours in any one week or more than ten hours in any one day:

    (3) No boy, girl, or woman shall be so employed between the hours of nine at night and five on the following morning, nor on Sunday, nor after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon:

    (4) There shall be allowed an interval of not less than twelve hours between the termination of employment on one day, and the commencement of the next employment:

    (5) A week shall be deemed to begin at midnight on Saturday night and to end at midnight on the succeeding Saturday night:

    (6) No boy, girl, or woman shall be employed continuously for more than five hours, without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal, nor for more than eight hours on any one day, without an interval or intervals for meals amounting altogether to not less than one hour and a-half:

    (7) No boy, girl, or woman shall be employed in moving railway wagons:

    (8) No girl or woman other than those employed on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eleven, shall be permitted to be employed above ground on any mine: Provided always that this Section shall not apply to any woman who is engaged in the cleaning of colliery offices or for any other like purpose.

    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to propose, in paragraph (1), to leave out the word "passing," and to insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman examines this Amendment he will see that it belongs to a class which he was good enough to withdraw under this Bill rather than to the class which we have accepted. There is no reason why, if we think the higher age is suitable, more children should be taken on at the lower age after the passing of the Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: At end of paragraph (7) add the words "or in lifting, carrying, or moving anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to the boy, girl, or woman."—[Mr. Masterman.]
    Viscount WOLMER: I rise to oppose this Amendment, with the object of ascertaining why it is proposed to insert it. It is an important matter, and we have not got a word of explanation about it. As the Amendment reads on the Paper no objection could be taken to it, but we want to know what is involved in those words. Of course, no one wants boys, girls, or women to do any work which is going to injure them, but we cannot help feeling that the object of the Amendment is to put an end to the work known as tub-shoving, which is carried on by pit-brow girls.
    Mr. MASTERMANindicated dissent.
    Viscount WOLMER: If we can have an assurance on this point we shall be satisfied. What we want to be assured about is that this work, which women have done for fifty years past, shall not be interfered with. As long as this work, which they do without injury to themselves, is not interfered with we have no objection to additional safeguards which may be put in, but the wording proposed to be inserted is extremely vague. If there is any class of work done by women which is injurious to their health, what is it? If there is not, then what is the use of this Amendment? What class of work is it intended to put an end to? We have got absolute proof here in the testimony of doctors that tub-shoving is not injurious to women's health. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like to point out to this House that part of the work carried on by pit-brow girls in nearly
    1236
    every case includes tub-shoving, and if we get the testimony of the doctors that the work carried on by pit-brow girls is in no way injurious to health that includes the statement that the work of tub-shoving is in no way injurious to health. Dr. T. A. Angior, of Wigan, who has a large colliery workpeople practice extending over twenty-five years, says:—
    "I have been surgeon to four separate collieries for over twenty-five years, and I do not remember even being called upon to treat a pit-brow woman for strain, or any internal complication or complaint peculiar to women, the outcome of their work."
    Dr. Cooke, of Aspull, with over thirty years' experience in a purely colliery district, says:—
    "With reference to the employment of women at the pit-brow, I may say I. have had an experience amongst them of over thirty years, and consequently have had every opportunity of becoming acquainted not only with their work, and the conditions appertaining thereto, but also with their home life and surroundings. Physically they are above the average. Their children are strong and healthy, much more so than those of women who have spent their young days in factory or mill. It is light work, with little or no lifting, or any movement likely to be injurious to them. Some few of them push tubs, but as these are on small iron plates, and the muscular effort required is by the shoulders and arms, there is little or no risk of internal strain: in fact, looking back, all the years I have been amongst them I cannot remember any such case."
    We have many testimonies of that nature and I ask the Under-Secretary what class of work this Amendment is going to put an end to—what particular type of work is it designed to stop? If he will be kind enough to explain that to the House, then perhaps we will have an opportunity of seeing whether it is desirable that the work should be put an end to. I think practically all disinterested authorities who have had an opportunity of examining women who are engaged in tub-shoving are unanimously of opinion that it is not deleterious to their health. Therefore we shall be extremely obliged to the Under-Secretary if he will give us an undertaking that there is no intention to do away with this work which women have been doing for the last fifty years, without any injury to their health, and which has been of very great assistance to them in earning their livelihood.
    Mr. SWIFT: I join with my Noble Friend in asking the Under-Secretary of State for some explanation of the meaning of the Amendment he has just moved. This Bill is a safety Bill, and Members on this side of the House, along with hon. Members below the Gangway, have striven from the beginning to incorporate into the Clauses safety in the mines, and certainly we are not one whit less anxious to protect the limbs of women and children than

    1237
    we are to protect the limbs of men. If I thought this Amendment was one which made for the safety of those who are engaged in working at the pit-brow, I would cheerfully vote for it; but I am very much afraid that while this Amendment is ostensibly framed to meet some danger, it is in reality a restriction upon the employment of women, and is framed with the object of lessening that employment, although it may not really be harmful to them. It is not unimportant to remember how this Amendment came on to the Paper before the House. It was suggested in the original Bill; it was not suggested in Grand Committee.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It was suggested in Grand Committee, and referred to by the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. SWIFT: I apologise if I am wrong, but I searched and found no reference to it in Committee, but if the hon. Gentleman tells me that it was mentioned in Committee, I accept his statement. At any rate, in Committee a Clause was inserted in the Bill prohibiting altogether the employment of women at the pit-brow. What followed? Instantly there was a strenuous agitation started in those parts of the country where these women are employed. Many of them came from Lancashire to interview the then Home Secretary, with the Under-Secretary, on the matter, When they were before him, he naturally and properly gave way and undertook for the Government that the Clause should be taken out of the Bill. Directly that undertaking had been given, those who were agitating on the other side came to see the Home Secretary, and then there was an undertaking given that this Amendment should be put into the Bill. What does this Amendment mean? The Amendment is couched in language which of itself nobody can object to, but the position of this Amendment is this: that whilst it is couched in language which nobody can object to, it is an Amendment put forward for the purpose of meeting a danger which is not a real danger, which is a purely imaginary danger, invented and discussed by those who object to women working at all at the pit-brow. The real defect of this Amendment, if it is carried by this House, will be greatly to restrict the employment of women at the pit-brow. As my Noble Friend has stated, the employment of women at the pit-brow is of a two-fold character. There is that part of it which consists of working the coal screens, and there is that part of it in which a smaller
    1238
    number of women are engaged in work which consists in manipulating the tubs. Now, it is quite clear on the testimony of medical men, and of ladies who have been engaged in hospital work for many years past, that the manipulating of tubs is not a danger likely to cause physical injury to women engaged in that work. My Noble Friend has read to the House two statements by medical men. I have also a statement made by the matron of a hospital in Wigan to the same effect, that during twenty-five years she has never known a case of internal strain arising from work of this character.
    4.0 P.M.
    I challenge hon. Members below the Gangway, who are very familiar with this class of work, and many of whom have worked at the mines where women are employed, to say that there is real danger to the women engaged at those mines of injury from the work which is known as tub-shoving. As we know, there have been many reasons against the employment of women at all at the pit-brow. Danger to the women is one of the reasons which have been urged, and which I think is not true, in face of the evidence now before the House. It has been suggested that it is unsuitable work for women, because it keeps them engaged amongst coal, which is dirty; and it has also been said that it is unsuitable for women because it introduces them into an atmosphere where they meet with immoral surroundings, or hear bad language. As regards the question of healthiness, I think the work at the pit-brow is as healthy as working in the factory or laundry. So far as regards the question of morality, the testimony of everybody who works among these women and knows anything of them is that they are quite as decent and as moral a lot of women as are to be found in any other walk of life. As to the question of bad language which they may hear, I would remind the House that that is the fault of the men who use the bad language, and not the fault of the women who hear it. I would remind the House that these women who work at the pit-brow are working with their own husbands, brothers, sweethearts, and fathers, who are the men with whom they mix in their daily life, and it does seem to me the poorest reason in the world to suggest that they should not be allowed to earn their bread at the pit-brow because they might hear bad language there. Before the Royal Commission on Mines a question was put to Mr. Smillie—who has always taken a very great interest in

    1239
    opposing the women in this matter—by one of His Majesty's inspectors. It was pointed out by the inspector that if the women did hear filthy language as was suggested that that was the fault of the men and not the fault of the women.
    There is one other objection which has been made to the employment of women at the pit-brow, and it is the objection, I think, which finds the most support from hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite. It is said that their labour is cheap labour. I dispute that proposition. It is not cheap labour when you compare it with the class who would do the work if the women and girls were not doing it. It is not cheap labour, as you put it in antagonism to the boy labour which would take its place if you were to abolish the women and girls. It does not seem to me that it is any good reason for taking away women work to say, that it is cheap labour if the work is otherwise suitable for her. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in the organisations which they control, and which are so powerful should have found a better way than that. If it is cheap labour, I suggest, increase the rate of wages, rather than abolish the occupation of the women. This Amendment, which I believe is introduced for the purpose of getting rid of the employment of women at the pit-brow, is too vague in its character to do anything at all, except to frighten everybody from employing women. The words of the Amendment are, that no woman, or boy, or girl shall be employed in carrying anything which is likely to cause them any injury. When is it to be determined that the likelihood of causing injury has arisen? If it is to be determined beforehand, the only result of the determination must be to stop women being employed at all. If it is to be determined afterwards, is the mere fact that an injury has happened to show that it was likely to happen, and is the manager who has employed women in a business which has been going on for years, and in which nobody anticipated that injury was likely to happen, to be punished because an accident has unfortunately been realised. I do submit, on the testimony which is now before the House, and I invite hon. Memoers opposite who worked at mines where women were employed to give their own experiences on the point, I do submit that this work of women at the pit-brow is not dangerous, and is not unsuitable for them, and that it is not an occupation
    1240
    which, in these days, this House ought to stop. I am old-fashioned enough to believe with some people that women ought not to work at all. I think that the proper sphere of woman's activity is her home. I think that her highest destiny in life is to keep house and be a joyful mother of children; but although I hold those views I recognise that in the present state of society you cannot live up to that ideal. I realise that over six million women every day of the week have got to go out to earn their daily bread, and whilst that state of affairs exists, I do suggest that this House has no right whatever to take away from them the opportunity of what is an honest, honourable, and healthy employment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has worked off an eloquent speech somewhat prematurely, and I very much hope my hon. Friends below the Gangway will not be drawn by his appeal at this stage into giving what he calls their experiences with regard to women who are working at the pit-brow. In its proper time and place on the next Amendment which stands in my name I shall be very pleased to explain the Government attitude in the matter. The only thing I say now is this, that however excellent the arguments of the hon. Gentleman may be, his history is somewhat at fault, because, so far from pressure being brought on the Government to move this or the next Amendment, the Government attitude has not altered in the slightest degree from the attitude as it was stated by me in Grand Committee. The Amendment which forbade the future employment of women at the pit-brow was opposed by me in the name of the Government, and with the promise to the Committee that if they refused it there should be some attempt to give women some safeguard against injury to health through the using of too heavy work. That was stated in the Committee, and it has been stated to the representatives on both sides. The Government has made no kind of alteration during all these six months, as those who know and as the Members of the Committee will agree. The reason why I did not explain this Amendment when I moved it was, because I never dreamt there was anything controversial in it. I thought it would be accepted by every sane man in this House who recognised that this was a health Bill as well as a safety Bill. The question whether women shall be employed

    1241
    at the pit-brow is a much larger and quite separate question. There, I agree, there are strong differences of opinion, and I think the sooner we get to that controversy the better.
    The hon. Gentleman seems to think we are proposing something new in legislation in this Amendment, and he asks how it would work and how it would be carried out. Is he aware that these words are taken straight and bodily from existing law, the Employment of Children Act of 1903, and that Act applied to the children who are working in the pit-brow as well as to the women, and that it has worked for eight years without any complaint, except certain complaints which have been voiced by the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord Henry Bentinck), that the Clause is not drastic enough in dealing with injuries through the lifting of weights. We are merely applying the same provisions and terms and the same safeguards as are in the Employment of Children Act to-day. There is no question of whether tubs may be lifted, or whether tubs may be moved, or of whether tubs may be deflected. It is not laid down as a decision by Home Office regulation, it is laid down as a decision in a Court of Law, and the only decision a Court of Law has to give is on a point of fact, namely, as to whether this particular work, if it is challenged in a Court of Law, is likely to cause the woman injury. I have not the slightest doubt, whatever may be said as to the general practice in Lancashire, to which I am going to refer on the real Amendment, that there have been cases in the past, and there might be cases in the future, where in the various parts of the country in which women are engaged in work, and in fact such cases have been brought before us, women are engaged in doing work which they ought not to do from the point of view of health. This Amendment is in order to give a safeguard to women which we have already given to children, and it is one which cannot be used arbitrarily or capriciously, because every single case has to be decided by a Court of Law. We propose a mild and moderate measure of protection, and one which I thought would command the unanimous support of the House.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I have talked with the members of the Miners' Association of Great Britain as to this Amendment, and I can assure the House, and especially hon. Members on this side, where there
    1242
    appears to be some idea of opposing it, that the members of the association are entirely in favour of it. They consider that such provisions as this, which have been proposed by the Under-Secretary, are very necessary and quite proper. I would also draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that the Under-Secretary proposes to withdraw in the next Amendment the obnoxious Sub-section to which we all object. I think if we confine ourselves to supporting the Under-Secretary on this particular Amendment, and then supporting him on the next Amendment that we shall be carrying out all that the mining industry want.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The restriction was introduced into the Bill by an Amendment which I moved in Committee. I do not wish now to enter into a discussion of the much wider question of the employment of women, but to deal with one particular point, namely, that of tub-shoving. It is all very well to say that the shoving of tubs is not an injurious occupation, but if the Noble Lord were in South Wales, where the tubs are 25 cwt., and where it takes two women to move them, by putting the lower part of their backs against them, would he say that is a proper occupation for women?
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Baronet give any figures as to accidents?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not in a position to say as to the strain, but I would like to lay it down as a general principle that the moving of tubs by women is an unsuitable occupation. The Amendment which is now moved is a flabby, useless sort of Amendment, which means nothing. What does the Amendment mean? It says likely to cause injury to the boy or girl or woman. That means that you cannot, lay down any general rule, but that it is to be in accordance with the individual capacity of each boy and girl and woman. Thus it serves no useful purpose and has no legislative effect whatever. In order that there should be no doubt, I propose to move as an Amendment, after the word "thing," to insert the words "or tub." There is no other point raised by this Amendment except the moving of tubs. When this question was discussed in Lancashire it was said that this is a restrictive Amendment which would prevent women moving tubs. I say that the moving of tubs is unsuitable, and therefore I propose to insert after the word "thing" the words "or tubs."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly accept that Amendment, as a tub is a thing.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then I will propose to insert the words "any tub or thing."
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would limit the meaning of the word "thing." It would mean something in the nature of a tub, and it would exclude everything else except tubs or things in the nature of tubs.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "any," to insert the words "tub or."
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY(who was very indistinctly heard): I beg to second the Amendment. I do not know whether the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) is acquainted with pit life, or whether he has gone on to the pit-brow. He asks whether there have been any accidents. I know men who have met with accidents and strain in doing this work. Let hon. Members think for one moment of women handling tubs in South Wales, where they run from one to two tons in weight; and then think if they would like any of their female relations to do this kind of work. My hon. Friend says that he could not move the tubs himself. It is well that we should bring the matter down to practical knowledge. There have been false representations made. It has been said that we want to remove the woman who at present work on the pit-brow, and that we are going to throw out of work immediately three or four thousand women. Nothing of the kind. What we are saying is that from a certain date no more women shall be engaged to work on the pit-brow, but that the women who are now there shall work out their term. The real reason for the retention of women on the pit-bank is cheap labour, pure and simple. In Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, and the North of England, where similar work is being done, it is done without women at all. If that is not a proof that the reason for their retention is cheap labour, let me give the Noble Lord another fact. What are these women paid on the pit-bank? They get 1s. 9d. or 2s. a day for work which is paid for in other counties at the rate of from 3s. 6d. to 5s. a day. The Lancashire coal-owners want to keep the girls so that they may have this cheap labour. We say that the time has come when, at any rate, if they are to be kept on the pit-bank, they shall not be compelled to shove these tubs or to work at this calling, because we believe it is detrimental to them at their time of
    1244
    life, and becomes more detrimental later on. I hope that the House will protect these women from this laborious work.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Once more I would ask the House to keep, if possible, to the Amendment, and not go into the discussion of the general question of the employment of women on the pit-brow. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet is a retrograde proposal which, so far from doing what he desires, would very greatly limit the operation of my Amendment. It is not only the question of tubs that we want to deal with; there is also the question of lifting heavy weights, which, perhaps, applies more to children than to women—such work, for instance, as the loading of railway wagons. If the hon. Baronet's Amendment were carried, the interpretation of the Clause in a Court of Law would probably be that suggested by Mr. Speaker, namely, that the word "thing" would mean something corresponding to a tub. We do not want it limited in that way, and I would ask the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment. It is not true to say that a general rule cannot be laid down on this subject. The Clause would involve a general prohibition of heavy weights being used by women and children, and it is the violation of that provision that would have to be challenged in a Court of Law.
    Mr. BRACE: I would appeal to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment. I think the interpretation given from the Chair is correct, and that if the proposed words were incorporated they would be limiting words. However valueless the present words may be, the new words would make them less valuable than they are. If the hon. Baronet goes to a Division I shall vote against him, because I believe the words to be unwarrantable, unnecessary, weakening, and limiting.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the Under-Secretary must be satisfied by now that his Amendment will, at any rate, cause very great danger to the employment of women on the pit-brow. It is perfectly evident from the violent prejudice which exists on this question that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will press this Amendment for all it is worth, so as to exclude women from employment on the pit-brow altogether. As they put it, it is cheap labour. It is the

    1245
    right of these women to support themselves that they are really against. The whole of this agitation against the pit-brow women moves me to indignation in a way that very few public questions do. It is an act of the most complete class selfishness, and absolutely nothing else. It is made infinitely worse by the thin, I had almost said the hypocritical, veneer of care for the women's interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] The evidence is overwhelming that the work these women do in no way interferes with their health. The doctors are unanimous on that point. Not a, single case has been brought forward to show that any woman has ever been injured by this work, and yet hon. Members tell the House that they are anxious for the interests of women. Nothing of the kind. They care for the interests of their class. I remember hearing the hon. Member for Derbyshire make very much the same sort of speech on the Third Reading of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, when he finished with an appeal in reference to the health of miners, absolutely disregarding the whole of the evidence and the findings of the Royal Commission on that head. Since that speech my appreciation of his testimony on health matters in connection with this industry has very much lessened.
    I recognise that the Under-Secretary does not wish to stop the legitimate work of women on the pit-brow, but if after all this agitation he inserts in an Act of Parliament a proposal such as this, is it not perfectly certain that it will be made use of by those who desire to stop women doing this work? And will not mine managers be exposed to this consideration: they will say, "If we employ women on the pit-brow to do work which we from experience know to be perfectly healthy, but which hon. Members opposite wish to stop them from doing, we shall be exposed to prosecution; if we employ men we shall not be so exposed." The result will be that they will certainly say that as between these two kinds of labour they will give the preference to men's labour. Therefore, though the words may be as meaningless and as unimportant as the hon. Baronet thinks them, their effect must be to interfere with women's labour. Before a Clause of this character is put into an Act of Parliament surely the House of Commons ought to be satisfied that there is a primâ facie case for it, and that there is an amount of evidence which ought to be considered showing that the work on the pit-brow has injured women
    1246
    in the past and is likely to injure them in the future. We have not had a single tittle of evidence brought forward. I do not know what took place in Grand Committee, but I am told by those who were present that no such evidence was adduced there. Under these circumstances, I earnestly appeal to the Government not to press this Amendment. I can understand that from a Parliamentary point of view it may be desirable to throw some bait to appease the hungry wolves below the Gangway, but except for that purpose I cannot see any advantage in this Amendment. If the Government press it, I hope my hon. Friends will divide against it. I shall certainly support them.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: The Under-Secretary is surprised at the opposition to his Amendment, but from his own speech we find that he wishes to bring the occupation of these women into a Court of Law. What we wish to know is, where are the great evils arising from the occupation now being carried on which necessitate his making provision to bring that occupation before the Courts? He tells us that this is not merely a safety Act; it is also a health Act. But that is no reason why we should not take care to prevent its provisions being misused. It certainly seems possible that this Clause may be twisted or misused so as to restrict work which is not unhealthy. If it were the case that this labour is such a great evil, we should see some evidence of it. Those who live in Lancashire would see the twisted bodies and the cases of weakness arising from it. I am old enough to remember when child labour in Lancashire factories produced men with twisted and crippled limbs. There was the evidence before our eyes, and necessary legislation was passed to deal with the case. Where are the cases before our eyes to induce us to interfere with this class of labour? As to the sorting on screens, I asked a women's deputation what happened if there were very large pieces of stone, and I was told that if one woman could not lift them, two would do so, or the pieces would be worked to the side. The tubs, too, go on runners. I am speaking about Lancashire. In Wales the case may be different. I have never heard of any case of strain or injury arising from this work amongst women. Who is to interpret these words? There is no alternative to the harassing of the employment. If the women are not properly paid it would not be difficult for the unions to see that the

    1247
    payment was brought up to a proper standard. If that is the only objection, surely the men and women, by joining together could bring about a proper basis of payment. It has been said that the employers are only taking the thing up because it means cheap labour. Well, you have the means of dealing with the employer. I believe you would have public opinion upon your side. As to the unhealthiness of this work, I know of one case where a woman was very unhealthy indeed working in a factory. She went to this pit work, and she is now a stout, ruddy, and evidently healthy mother of four children. What is more she is able to feed them herself; and unfortunately it is not every female factory operative who is able to do that. I really do hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the necessity of adding the words proposed to this Clause.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I should have thought every one in the House would have been willing to accept the Amendment of the Government. First of all, in respect of those friends of mine who believe with me that no case has been made out for such substantial interference with the work of women. I am one of those included among the general body of wolves below the Gangway. On this occasion, however, I am standing apart; I am not running with the pack. The words have been very clearly read out by the Under-Secretary. They simply ask that assurance shall be made doubly sure, and that no woman, boy, or girl, shall be employed in lifting, carrying, or moving anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to that boy, girl, or woman. Our case, which I think is a tremendously strong one, is that the history of the last quarter of a century furnishes hardly any case at all of strain or injury, or of very serious injury. If we have, as I believe, an overwhelming case, what possible reason is there to object to these women's work? None of us have ever said that the conditions were ideal. If people went about pits and saw as we do see—those of us who are miners' agents, and who even when this House is sitting have to do a good deal of work about the pits—a good deal of lifting of weights that might very well be left to stronger people, I think they would agree upon the necessity of an Amendment such as this. I do not think there is any reason at all for the fears that have been stated by the hon. Members opposite.
    1248
    After all, the first responsibility will rest upon the managers of the mine. Speaking broadly, I know many hundreds of managers, and I believe colliery managers to be as decent and humane a body of men as the country contains. When they have a definite injunction to see to it that no boy, girl, or woman is employed in moving these weights or in lifting any of those heavy things, or shall do what is likely to cause injury to themselves, I feel absolutely convinced that the managers will err on the right side, and will see to it that stronger people are employed upon that particular class of labour. Even if they fall short of their duty, which is not impossible, then the inspectors will see what is going on. Armed with the authority of an Act of Parliament they will take means to secure that the women, girls, or boys are not injured in their health. Personally, it seems to me that these words strongly favour our desire that women and girls' labour shall be continued, and yet that this labour shall be continued under the very best possible conditions. I certainly do hope my Friends who desire to continue this labour will come to the assistance of the Government.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. On the face of it I do not think that there is interference in the words of this Amendment. It is their innocence that makes me rather suspicious. Why, if these words are innocent, is the word "man" not included after the word "women"? It appears to me that this Amendment of the Under-Secretary is a plain dodge to encourage the course of discriminating between women's labour and men's labour. It is a protecting Amendment in the interests of a class. Why, if health is concerned, should men not be included as well as women? Nobody wants to do anything or to move anything so heavy as to cause injury to men. I think the Home Secretary has made that point perfectly clear. We must regard this Amendment as a dodge to discriminate between man's labour and women's labour. We are not satisfied.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I should not have risen had it not been for what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) in suggesting that this Clause was drawn in the interests of the employers. I would like to assure him at once that the employers are thoroughly in favour of the Amendment now suggested by the Under-Secretary.

    1249
    The whole reason for our objecting to Clause 8 is because we do not object to this Amendment. We are thoroughly agreed that women should be included, but only on the ground that they carry on their business in a safe way, and one that is not injurious to the health. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield talked about carrying and lifting. I do not know whether he would suggest that women lift and carry tubs—rather heavy things for women to carry?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They may move them.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: If you go down to a colliery, at the outside you will not see 1 per cent. of women touching the tubs. If they do touch them the tubs are on an incline, going downhill. That is my experience. I happened to be at one of the collieries that I am interested in last week, and I took the trouble to look, and I did not see a single woman moving a tub. As a mater of fact, we welcome this Clause. We quite consider that there are big pieces of coal which we ought to be very glad to see lifted by men, and not by women or by girls. I should not like to lift some of these large pieces of coal myself, however stalwart I might happen to be. We desire the protection of women working at the pit-brow. We welcome it, and every one of the colliery proprietors that I know in the House will go into the Lobby with the Under-Secretary and vote in favour of this Clause, which is absolutely necessary for the protection of women.
    Mr. FENWICK: It seems to me there ought to be very little difficulty in coming to a decision upon this point after what has already been stated. Both the coal-owners' representatives and the workmen's representatives are agreed. The House is agreed too. Under these circumstances it seems to me we ought to have no difficulty in coming to an immediate judgment. When we come to the next Amendment I am not sure that there will be the same agreement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has spoken of this Amendment as a dodge, that there is no dodge. I do not know whether the term "dodge" is a Parliamentary expression, or not; at all events we are perfectly clear and perfectly honest in supporting the Amendment which stands in the name of the Government. We shall have to resist their influence and their labours on the next Amendment. Both sides are agreed.
    1250
    This Bill is mostly an agreed Bill from beginning to end between the coal-owners on the one hand, and the workmen's representatives on the other. That being the case, I certainly appeal to the House to come to an immediate judgment, so that we may not fritter away the time that we want to discuss more important questions.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: As one who was present at the Grand Committee and took a considerable interest in what was done there on this question, I should like to say a few words. I do not quite agree with the statement of the Under-Secretary as to what took place. There was no Amendment such as this so far as I remember on the Paper in the Committee. What took place was that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield, moved an Amendment depriving women of their occupation at the pit-brow. There was a considerable discussion on it. It was very evident that the Division would be close, and as a matter of fact the hon. Baronet's Amendment was carried by one or two votes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Two.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Under-Secretary opposed the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He got up and said, that if the Amendment was carried he would be obliged on the Report stage to move a deleting Amendment. In making that statement, so far as I remember, he appealed to his own side of the House for support. He said he would have to put in words of this kind. This was the sop that was thrown to the wolves below the Gangway in order, if possible, to buy off their opposition. The hon. Gentleman did not buy off the opposition, because we divided in the Committee. The Under-Secretary no doubt was bound to put in these words, because he had stated in the Committee that he was going to do so. But the idea of this Amendment is quite new. Apprehensions were not expressed for the safety of women. My hon. Friend beside me never brought forward an Amendment of this sort, nor was any brought forward by the men's representatives.
    All these things have occurred at the last moment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds made an eloquent speech at the Committee. He said that no work was lighter than the work which these women were doing. If that is so, what is the necessity for this Amendment? Either the words have a meaning or they

    1251
    have not. What I believe would be the result of this is that an inspector will go down to a mine and say to the manager, "You are employing women to push tubs." Why it should be more dangerous for one woman to push a tub than two women I cannot conceive, but the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield seems to consider it so. The inspector will say: "The work is too heavy for these women; if you continue to employ them I shall bring an action against you in a Court of Law." Every one in this House knows the dread that every Englishman has of appearing in a Court of Law. He has to employ gentlemen learned in the law—solicitors—he is mulcted in costs, and then he is very doubtful, after all his trouble, as to what the decision will be. What will a mine manager, being a human being, do? He will say to himself: "I can avoid this by paying a little more and employing men. I will get rid of the women and employ men." That is really the object of this Amendment; that is really what is at the bottom of it. That was stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Derby. The woman gets 1s. 9d. a day, and the men 3s. 6d.; therefore, some desire to do away with the women in order to employ the men. One has only got to read the evidence of the clergy and doctors in the district to see that there is no work more healthy and less likely to do injury to women than this particular work. I do not blame the Under-Secretary. He was in a very difficult position. He had hoped to get the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield to withdraw; not a very easy task to perform, and therefore he made this proposal. The hon. Member at once withdrew, and, therefore, the Under - Secretary is absolved from his undertaking. I ask him if he is desirous of giving these women a chance of continuing their lawful and healthy occupation? If he is, let him withdraw this Amendment, and let us proceed to the next. This Amendment was not mooted by anyone in the Committee, or anyone else until the idea occurred to the hon. Member for Mansfield. The only meaning of this Amendment is that men are to make it difficult for these women to be employed.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I think there is not the slightest doubt but that the object of this Amendment is to cut out women from the work they do at the pit-brow. It is extremely hard that these
    1252
    women should be knocked out of their employment by a move of this kind. If I remember rightly the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had an Amendment on the Paper to cut out Sub-section (8) of the Clause, but that appears to have been withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If I am allowed to do so I shall move it after this Amendment is disposed of. It is the next Amendment.
    Mr. HUNT: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the mistake. But if this Amendment is passed the inspectors will be able to come round and practically prevent the pit-brow women from working. The hon. Member for East Denbighshire said this occupation was very dangerous to women, but that he would allow the healthy women now employed to continue their occupation. Surely if this occupation is dangerous to women it ought to be stopped at once. I think that the real thing at the bottom of all this is trade union tyranny. The men want to prevent the women from working because they want to keep this particular class of work for the older men who cannot do a full day's work down in the pits. That was-perfectly clearly stated by Mr. Smillie, the president of the Miners' Federation, at Southport. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite to pretend that is not what is intended, but when you have the president of the Miners' Federation definitely making this statement it shows what is the real object. He said, "We are not ashamed to say that we want to keep women off the pit bank from this laborious and unhealthy employment in order that many of their elderly men might find employment when they were no longer able to do their full work underground." That was the view of the Miners Federation, and that is the real reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite want to prevent these women from working at the pit-brow. That is at the bottom of the whole of it. There is plenty of evidence from doctors and other women (laughter). Well, there are women doctors as well as men doctors, and there is plenty of evidence to show that this is a more healthy occupation than certain work in shops and factories. In some cases doctors have absolutely told women to go and work at the pit-brow because it is so much healthier than work in a factory or a shop. When hon. Gentlemen try to show that women should not be employed at the work

    1253
    of tub-shoving they know perfectly well that it is only tub-shoving in a technical sense, and that the tub moves on wheels, and that all the woman has got to do is to give it a jerk to start it. The Under-Secretary said that what women have got to do was to influence Members of Parliament, but I think they have not succeeded here. If this Amendment was passed it would put an end to the powers of the inspectors to prevent these pit-brow women from working altogether, and the men who are at present the only people that have the right to vote are depriving women of being employed at what is admitted to be a healthy occupation. And are they justified in preventing these women from continuing at this work simply because they have got no vote, and have no power to influence the Government of the country. That seems to be an argument tremendously in favour of giving votes to women——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise, and the hon. Member is only repeating argument already used.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (8).
    I hope, after the somewhat prolonged discussion we have had it will be found that we have already covered a good deal of this ground. The question cannot be carried, I know, without people expressing their opinions, but I hope that may be done in as speedy a manner as possible, considering that most of the arguments have already been used and that we have some very important provisions still before us. In moving to omit this Subsection I should like to dissociate myself from the attitude and temper of mind displayed by the Noble Lord, which were strangely remote from the method by which this Bill was conducted with agreement on both sides. The question of whether it is the duty of the State to prevent any definite employment of women in any definite class of work has nothing whatever to do with the question whether trade unions want the places for men. More than that, in all these months in which this matter was before the House I made it my business to see a large number of deputations and to find out not only the sentiments of the miners' leaders in this House, but the sentiments of the miners themselves, and to go into the history of this industrial question, and all the inquiries I have made show me beyond the
    1254
    shadow of a doubt that this is not only a trade union question, but that among great masses of the community in the mining district there is a repugnance against the employment of women in any capacity in the mine, or on the top of the mine. The sentiment expressed by an hon. Gentleman upon the other side of the House is a very important sentiment when dealing with the mining villages, although perhaps an unfashionable sentiment at this time of day, that the true place of a woman is in the home. That is not only shown by statements such as I have just said, but it is actually shown by the whole history of woman labour in this connection. Woman labour has vanished from the great majority of the mining districts of this country and vanished without the prohibition that is extended by Statute against woman labour underground. And it has vanished not because of any illegal pressure on the part of the trade unions—I do not know what the pressure may have been in the home—but because the general sentiments of the mining district is against it. There are something over 6,000 women at present employed at the pit-heads of the mine. Of these 2,700 are employed in Scotland, 2,500 in South Lancashire, while in the whole of the rest of England there are less than 1,000. There are none in Northumberland and Durham, none in Yorkshire, and very few in Wales. I have not the slightest doubt that the conditions under which women worked in the past have had a great deal to do with this almost universal prohibition, not by law, but by public opinion.
    In spite of all that, I am appealing to the House against the decision of the Committee, and I think I can make out a case. It is a very different thing to say on the one hand that public sentiment is against that occupation, and that whatever pressure public sentiment can place upon those engaged in that occupation should act against the employment of women, and on the other hand to command all the forces of the State in an Act of Parliament to stamp out a women's industry. If we once begin to stamp out women industry by the State, because we do not like that industry, or because those engaged in it were against it, then Parliament would be embarking upon an operation that my right hon. Friend and myself would be very loathe to carry forward. If a woman's industry is to be stamped out you would have to prove one of three contentions or all of them. First, either that the industry is so conducive of immorality

    1255
    as to become a scandal to public morals, and that that immorality and scandal cannot be rectified by any kind of regulations; or, secondly, that that industry and the effect of that industry upon the women engaged in it produces such a flagrantly bad result upon the public health that no regulation can change, and that, therefore it must be wiped out; or thirdly, although health and immorality in themselves might not be flagrant, yet the degradation of the workers was such, and the slow evil effect on the women was such, that it was condemned by the whole of public opinion in that district, and especially that the women would be only too glad to see it destroyed. It was the combination of those three elements in an intensified degree that led Parliament to prohibit the work of women underground, and I do not think any hon. Member of this House will ever rise to recommend the removal of that regulation unless the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) does it because he thinks factory legislation is a matter which does not apply equally to men and women. I submit to the House that in the conditions in which women's labour has survived at the pit-head, and in view of the continuing ameliorating conditions which have been introduced, it would be impossible to make good any one of those three conditions, and if that is so, I think we are right in asking Parliament not to stamp out this industry.
    5.0 P.M.
    As to the question of morals, fortunately there is no need for me to say more than a sentence. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) and those who voted with him made it clear from the very beginning of their speeches that they brought no kind of charge of any worse standard of morality amongst pit girls and pit women than any other classes of the community. That is borne out by other testimonies in South Lancashire, not only from mine owners' and miners' representatives, but from ministers of religion in the district, who go so far as to say that the nature of the occupation, being mostly healthy open-air work, is in many respects better and the standard of morals is higher than in factory work. The only charge which can be brought against the work of pit-brow girls is that of injury in connection with the moving of heavy weights. If the House had refused to accept the Amendment which has just been passed, which was supported by the
    1256
    representatives of the owners as well as the representatives of the men, I think there might have been a case for the continuance of Sub-section (8). All the evidence advanced in Committee or in private letters to the newspapers as to women and girls being injured, show that there is much more danger in connection with young girls through the moving of heavy tubs or the lifting of heavy weights. That has now been forbidden by the Amendment we have adopted, and all the testimony we have been able to obtain is that this is a healthy and not an unhealthy occupation. Not only is it a healthy occupation for women, judging by the statistics, but in many respects it is healthier than the only alternatives offered to the women in those particular districts. In many cases weak and anæmic girls have been definitely sent by the doctors to the pit-brow to work in the open air instead of working in the factory where they might sustain injury to their health. I desire to thank the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Stephen Walsh) for the speech he has made on this subject, because he knows more about this question than any other hon. Member.
    The next question I would ask is, whether the work is so degrading in character and so lowering to the general vital functions, as to make it necessary that the House should prohibit it. We have testimony to the contrary of all those familiar with the districts where these women work. We are not suggesting this course because we have been cajoled or persuaded by certain selected healthy pit-brow girls, nicely dressed up in white, who have presented an artificial case before the susceptible minds of my right hon. Friend and myself. Long before this question was raised I had occasion, on Home Office business, to visit this particular district in Lancashire, and without any knowledge that this question was going to be raised, I made an investigation into the life of the pit-brow girls. It was simply a chance investigation, but what I ascertained bears out the almost universal testimony of those who live and move in those districts. It is true that the miners of Northumberland and Durham are against the women working on the pit-brow, but it is not true that the miners in South Lancashire are against it. Where this work has survived, and where under the influence of public opinion there has been an ever-increasing amelioration of it which I hope will be further increased by this Bill, there the

    1257
    public sentiment is practically solid in favour of its continuance. It is not only solid, but Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent these Lancashire districts are so impatient to get their speeches out to please their constitutents, who are at present only men, that they even bring them in on premature Amendments. I think, under these circumstances, we are only doing our duty in asking the House to reverse the decision of the Committee. It was a decision taken in a small Committee, and it was carried by only two votes, and although I am very reluctant to go against that decision, because, on the whole, I have loyally carried out the decisions of the Committee, in a case which opens a big question of principle and in which we are asked to establish prohibition in regard to a class unrepresented in this House, until the happy time that that representation takes place, I will not say in the House but in the election of Members to the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—I think we ought to follow the almost unanimous request of those living in the districts concerned who are most familiar with the conditions, and refuse to lay this prohibition on the pit-brow girls.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I very much regret that the Government have decided to override the decision of the Committee. It is true that it was a small Committee and it was a small majority, but at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield it was very fully considered, and we voted according to our judgment. We are now asked under different conditions to vote according to the judgment of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. On the Committee we were mainly a body of experts, but here at least the majority of those present are not experts, and do not understand this question. In the year 1887 I moved an Amendment having precisely the same object as the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, and the whole of the Liberal party, under the guidance of the Members of the Opposition who sat on the Front Bench, supported my Amendment, and I do not think there was a single Member of the Liberal party who voted against it. And now for the first time, after a lapse of nearly twenty years, the Home Office, represented by the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, choose to give the go-by, not merely to the action of the Committee upstairs, which carefully considered
    1258
    this question without the pressure of party Whips, but also to the deliberate action of the responsible Leaders of the Liberal party in 1887. I think that is little short of a scandal. I can assure the House that I am not actuated by any class consideration. I have carefully studied this question, and I am absolutely convinced that not only my action, but the action of my hon. Friends who sit around me is entirely influenced by humanitarian motives. It is too ridiculous to talk about trade union motives, because there are something like 1,000,000 men employed in and about mines, whereas the total number of women employed on pit-brows does not amount to more than 6,000. I think we may dismiss any such contention as that by simply stating that fact.
    The Under-Secretary made the amazing assertion, which I should rather have looked for from some official representative of women's suffrage organisation, that this is a man-elected Parliament, and therefore we have no business whatever to deal with these matters, and we must wait until women have some control in the House of Commons. I do not yield even to the Under-Secretary in my desire to see women enjoy the franchise, but we have always proceeded in our legislation in the direction of keeping women out of employment in coal mines, and under certain conditions in factories, because we felt that so long as we are a man-elected Parliament we have to look after the interests of women as well as of men. So long as that state of things exist it is something astounding to hear members of the Government say that we are not competent to deal with this question. I look upon the Amendment which has just been passed by the House as absolutely fatuous and futile. It is a kind of doctor's prescription, saying it is a bad thing to do so and so, and we advise you not to do it. Nevertheless no effective means can be taken by the inspectors or by any persons employed in mines for checking the pushing of heavy waggons and the over-straining of women in that work. I quite agree that the most formidable argument is the strain upon women's health, bat that is not all.
    The Under-Secretary gave away his case when he commenced an exordium which would have been more pertinent to moving the rejection of his own Amendment for the continuance of this class of work, because he told us that throughout the length and breadth of England, in the

    1259
    county of Durham, which I am proud to represent in this respect, and in the county of Northumberland, the whole of Yorkshire, and in a considerable portion of South Wales, public opinion regarded this work as degrading, and in those places it had been abolished. It is only in two dark and forgotten corners of the earth, Scotland and Lancashire, that this state of things survives, and there it is endemic and difficult to get rid of. We appeal to legislation to do that in Scotland and Lancashire which public opinion has done everywhere else. If the Under-Secretary admits that public opinion is against this state of things in other parts of the country, surely that is the strongest justification for legislation to complete the work in those two districts which public opinion has done elsewhere. I took the opportunity more than twenty years ago, and again recently, of inquiring into the condition of things; and it is not true to say this is not laborious work. I have seen women pushing tubs 13 cwts., and more than 13 cwts.—in fact, loaded tubs—up inclines. I will not venture to say how much they held, but I have seen, not only single women, but two women working together pushing these tubs; and, although no doctor would probably come forward and say that is injurious to that individual woman, still no rational man, no man of common sense, would contend it has not a tendency to impair women in the performance of their most sacred duties.
    The same arguments used by the Under-Secretary to-day were used more than sixty years ago in the House of Commons by the coal-owners. I do not cast any aspersion upon the coal-owners to-day. I cordially agree that, not only the managers, but the coal-owners themselves are actuated by the highest motives, as the management of their mines testify; but at the same time in those days when it was sought to abolish women labour in the mines the coal-owners came forward and said, "They like it." When we tried to abolish boy labour in the mines, one of the most distinguished representatives of the Conservatives in the county of Durham said these little boys, who never saw the daylight during a large portion of the year except on Sundays, were like little lambs gambolling when they came out, so much did they enjoy, these boys of eight and six years of age, spending sixteen hours per day in the mines. My humanitarian feelings, although I am a lawyer, are
    1260
    moved, and profoundly moved, by the action of the Home Office in this matter. Even if the Amendment proved effective in protecting women from serious danger to health by the pushing of tubs, the labour is degrading. In former years field labour for women was a common thing. Public opinion has extinguished it. Many would say that is a healthy occupation, but it was regarded by public opinion as degrading. I admit it exists in some isolated districts, but female outdoor labour has now largely disappeared.
    The Under-Secretary says he has been on an inspection, and seen what is going on. I speak of these women with the highest respect. I cast no reflection, nor can I cast any reflection, upon their morality, but I do say that to me, who has some surviving traces of chivalry in respect of women—the Under-Secretary may laugh, but, to my mind, it is not a matter to laugh at—it is to see these women come out from the pit-head with sordid garments, their hands and faces begrimed, and go back to their homes to administer to their children, a degradation to humanity at large, and for that reason, if I am the only person who records his vote against my hon. Friend's Amendment, I shall gladly record it. I feel a sense of very deep humiliation that the Liberal party, who twenty years ago, under not undistinguished men, when they sat on that bench and not on this, were led into the Lobby for the purpose of abolishing a labour which was denounced by every Liberal as being unseemly and unwarranted, and a blot on the civilisation of the country, should now be asked to vote in favour of its continuance. I do hope, even at this late period, my hon. Friend will reconsider the decision at which he has arrived. Let hon. Members remember this. We are not discharging these women. We are not robbing them of their living. All we say is that henceforth, from 1st January, 1911—I would be quite glad if he would substitute 1st January, 1912—when this Act comes into law, no woman shall be employed at the pit-brow. Some hon. Members may think we are doing women out of their employment. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are only endeavouring to carry to its logical issue that which public opinion has already declared throughout the great mining districts of this country, that it is repulsive to the high standard of civilisation which we hope obtains in this country that that class of women labour should any longer prevail.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I wish to support what the Under-Secretary says as regards the men in those districts where women labour prevails at the pit-brow not being anxious to stop such labour. In order to test the matter in South Staffordshire, I had a meeting of miners in a large room. Nearly every collier in that particular district was represented, and the women were also there. I put it to them about this particular Bill, and how women would be affected if this particular Clause was left in the Bill, and I asked whether the men, as would appear from some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, were against the women workers. I can assure you the votes of the men at that meeting were that women should be allowed to work still. A speech was made which showed the reason the men wanted the women to work there was that there was no other work for the women to do, and the number of men in that particular part of the world, when it came to marrying, did not go round. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary, in order to keep the home and help to keep these girls they should do some work and earn something for their living. For that reason, the men desire to keep the women working at the pit-brow. I hope the House will back up this Amendment and allow the women to carry on the honourable work which keeps them in good health and helps to keep their families.
    Mr. BRACE: It is only necessary for me to say two or three sentences after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones). The main consideration which moves the miners in opposing the employment of women at the pit-brow is not, as has been suggested, a desire to clear them off the collieries so as to improve the wages of the men. The whole dominating thought which influenced the miners when they came to the conclusion to ask Parliament to abolish the employment of women in the collieries was the dominating thought which moved my hon. Friend to make his speech this afternoon. The sense of public opinion has largely settled this matter other than in the few places mentioned, and it would be a mistake to attempt to tell these women, if this Bill passes as it is at present constituted, and comes into operation in January, 1912, they will all have to leave their work. The Clause has been most carefully drafted by the Grand Committee to give no cause for grievance, and if hon. Members will turn to it they will see,
    1262
    "No girl or woman other than those employed on or before 1st January, 1911, shall be permitted to be employed above ground on any mine."
    It therefore leaves all the women now employed at the mines to be so employed. All the Clause does is to make the proviso that no additional women shall be engaged on the surface of the mines of this country. I do not want to put it higher than it is. I want the House to try and appreciate that the miners are the fathers and brothers of the vast majority of these women. After all, the miners are a great brotherhood. It is not so much a question of blood relationship as of the social or industrial connection which the Miners' Federation gives to us, whether we live in England or in Wales, and the decision of the majority was that it was not an economic necessity to have these women employed on the surface of the mines of this country. The fact that it is not an economic necessity is settled by their having left the vast majority of the coalfields of the Kingdom. I am not going to argue the question of morality. It is an insult to the girls and women to talk about it at all. They are a high moral body of people. What we say is, it is not the kind of work we would like our wives and sisters to do, and, inasmuch as we do not think it helps to ennoble the race, we think Parliament ought to make it a condition that, when all the women who are now employed on the surface of the mines of this country have finished, no women or girls shall be so employed. That is the sense in which the Miners' Federation approached this matter and carried a resolution asking Parliament to carry Clause (8) as it stands in the Bill.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I hardly think the two hon. Gentlemen who have opposed the Under-Secretary have made out any case whatsoever, and I think they are rather inclined to confuse public opinion with the views of the Miners' Federation. The hon. Member certainly repeated what we know well, that the system has disappeared in Durham, and I by no means suggest I should like to reinstate it there, but the two hon. Gentlemen who have opposed the Amendment have, I think, in their speeches in this House, supported local option, and here we find a district in Lancashire, a highly respectable district, containing individuals who are perfectly well capable of looking after their own interests, who are good judges as to morality, as to

    1263
    questions of health, and as to public opinion in that district, supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) in favour of continuing this labour, and all I can say, when the Miners' Federation comes forward and says, because partly through their influence they have removed this labour from other parts of the country, their tyranny is to be increased, and in the few districts where this labour still exists it is to be removed, is that I sincerely hope the House will support the Under-Secretary in the Amendment which he proposes. The Under-Secretary said he was very unwilling to override the decision of the Committee. That is a point which should not be lost sight of under any circumstances whatever, because after all, if a Committee means anything its decision should be regarded, but on this occasion it was a very small Committee, and there was only a majority of two. It was unfortunate that in a great many of our discussions a certain number of Members of this House who are not as interested in the mining industry as a great many are did not attend that Committee with the regularity we might desire, and consequently in a small Committee this Amendment was passed. I do hope the House will consider this Amendment on its merits. It is a very important one, and I think all those arguments which have been put forward about the degrading character of the work and the injury to the health of the women employed must absolutely fall to the ground. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Derbyshire put his finger on the crux of the situation when he pointed out that the real question was that these women were drawing wages that ought to be given to trade unionists. I think that is the real kernel of the whole situation. All the evidence goes to show that this industry is in no way injurious to the health of the women, and I hope the House will, in this matter, support the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House by prolonging the discussion of this Clause, but I would venture to appeal to the Home Secretary not to put on the Government Whips should a Division take place. I ask him to bear in mind that this Clause, be it good or bad, was carried in Committee exclusively by the votes of hon. Members who usually support the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."]
    1264
    Well, almost certainly it was so carried, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to have, at least, this consideration for our feelings and not force us to vote against the Government Whips, especially as, after the speeches we heard in the early part of the afternoon from the other side of the House, he may rely in perfect security on the votes of the Noble Lords and hon. Members opposite to carry his Amendment. We do not oppose this Amendment on the ground of public morality, neither do we say that this kind of labour of women at the pit-brow is physically injurious to health. We know how, in the North-East of England enlightened public opinion long ago ceased to tolerate the employment of women at the pit-brow. We know also that women folk in the mining districts where women are not employed at the pit-brow are in the bulk better off and not worse off than women is those districts where this employment is open to them. I repeat my appeal to the Under-Secretary not, on this occasion, to let the Government Whips tell against us.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: My first words will be the expression of my sincere regret that I find myself opposed to colleagues with whom I have acted—in some cases for a quarter of a century, and in others for from ten to twenty years. Let me say at once to these colleagues of mine that there is not the slightest disagreement as to their motives. I am convinced that their motives are of the very highest, and that they do indeed desire what they conceive to be a raising of the social standard in the districts which this Bill especially concerns. But I think that they are mistaken in their views. I know the women in South-West Lancashire. I have known a good deal of them, because I was born and bred there, and have been connected with the mines for thirty-seven years, having worked in them for seventeen years, and having been on the pit-bank for thirteen years, and seen the work going on daily in scores of collieries. I think hon. Members are quite mistaken as to the effect of this work on the social status of the women themselves.
    When they compare the economic conditions of the county to which I have referred they will see that those conditions are totally dissimilar to the conditions that obtain in South Wales and South-West Lancashire where this labour is mainly carried on. My hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) stated

    1265
    that there were no economic necessities in Lancashire or in the other counties that did not exist in the various other mining districts. As a matter of fact, I do not think he has gone into the case at all. Let us see whether he is right or wrong. I have some figures here with which I shall have to trouble the House, although not at any length. The mining district of Glamorgan contains, roughly speaking, a population of 900 to the square mile. The mining districts of South-East and South-West Lancashire, where this work is carried on, contain a population of over 7,000 to the square mile. I have gone into the figures very closely. The mining districts in Derbyshire, Durham, and Northumberland have populations ranging from 500 to 900 to the square mile. The population of South-West Lancashire, in the lowest case is as 14 to 1 and in the highest case as 7½ to 1 compared with these other districts. If Members will direct their attention to the fact that in the portions of South-East and South-West Lancashire where this industry is carried on there is a population more congested than probably in any part of the world, with the exception of the thickly congested parts of New York, they will see that the economic necessities of Lancashire cannot be spoken of in the same way with those of other districts with which they have been compared.
    The Under-Secretary has already put the three main points upon which opposition to this class of labour would be well grounded. If it could be proved that the work was so socially degrading, if it could be proved that it was physically injurious, if it could be proved that there was danger to morals, then on any one or indeed on all of those grounds this House would have a real claim to say that the work should be put an end to. It is all very well to appeal to sentiment like the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley Jones) did, and talk about women going home with begrimed hands. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a legal way of whittling down the meaning of a term. What is the meaning of that phrase? I take it it means that the women are carrying a condition of dirt or grime into their homes which must of necessity begrime everything with which they come into contact. Surely he knows very little of the condition of the home life of these women. I do not think he has ever seen them come away from the pit-banks of Lancashire. He says he has, but the hon. Gentleman and I have been together
    1266
    once or twice in Lancashire very near the pit-banks, but I do not think we saw any of the girls coming away from the pit-head. Suffice it to say from my close knowledge of these women, having seen them day after day for twenty years, going into their homes, knowing them in the home in their social life, I say there is no class of women who can compete with them, for general cleanliness, in the country.
    I say also that their offspring as regards decency of manners—and if the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman meant anything it meant that the children would be lowered by reason of their contact with mothers or sisters who are engaged in this work—I say their offspring compare well with the children of women who do not engage in the work. The whole thing is a vague and empty appeal if it does not mean what I have suggested. I speak of what I know, and I say that no statistics and no records can be brought to this House which will not bear out exactly what I am asserting. If the industry were physically injurious the House would have a right to interfere and put a stop to it. But what is the case? I myself have been actively engaged in the administration of the Compensation Act since 1898. Every day of my life for fourteen years I have been engaged in the administration of that Act, and I say that in not one case out of 10,000 do accidents occur to these girls. When accidents do occur they involve the slightest possible injuries—small, trivial injuries, which really do not incapacitate them for more than one day, and these generally occur during the chipping of dross from the coal. My figures showing how infinitesimal is the ratio of accidents to the girls can be substantiated by the figures of the Northern Employers' Indemnity Relief Society, which, so far as the Compensation Act is concerned, covers probably from 40,000 to 50,000 people. Their inspectors state distinctly that the accidents are infinitesimal, and it is notorious that there are no fatal accidents.
    But, putting aside the question of accidents, how does the work affect their general health? I do not think the young people in the south-east or south-west of Lancashire compare for vigour or hardihood unfavourably with those in other mining districts. I say, without the slightest hesitation, that the mothers who-work at the nit-bank in Lancashire make as good mothers as are to be found in the Kingdom. Heal physical strain is

    1267
    practically unknown. I myself know the doctors who have been referred to in the course of this Debate. I know well the doctors for one of the largest colliery companies in the Kingdom—the Wigan Coal and Iron Company—and I am sure he is stating what is the fact when he says that no case of strain or injury has ever come before him. Every one of those to whom information is sent is agreed that the work is practically without strain or injury, and is in no sense injurious to the women themselves. During the last few months I have made it my business to go among the girls themselves on the pit-hill and it has been curious to find how many cases there were of girls to whom I spoke at haphazard and who said, "Why, Mr. Walsh, I came out of the factory because my health was so injured that I was breaking down. My sister, too, was in the same factory. We were both of us sent to the pit-hill, and we have never had a day's illness since." These are actual cases, and, believe me, I would not place them before the House if they were not the words of sober truth. Girls suffering from anæmia, girls whose relatives were despairing of them, have been sent to the pit-hill and, although I would consider the pit bank to be about the worst possible sanatorium, it is perfectly true that girls whose health is in serious danger in the factories have, when sent to the pit-bank, improved day after day and recovered.
    What is the nature of that employment? It is true that twenty-five years ago there was serious cause for Parliament to interfere. I know that at that time girls were employed in lowering heavy wagons of from eight to ten tons and doing work, not, only extremely dangerous, but requiring a great amount of physical strength. That has been stopped. Of course, it never ought to have been permitted. The Under-Secretary spoke of the gradual amelioration of the conditions of the labour of these women. It is perfectly true that tub-pushing is a diminishing quantity. I am certain that not one girl in fifty is now engaged in pushing boxes. The automatic machinery does that work very largely now, and what forty-five out of every fifty girls are engaged in doing to-day is simply chipping the dross off the coal at the side of a movable table. That is almost the lightest kind of work that one can imagine, indeed, so light is it, that when a man who has been badly injured in the mine, has attained to a position of partial capacity to work, we often invite
    1268
    him to take that work near the picking-belt where he often easily regains his health. I can imagine nothing so easy as this work in itself. There is another point I should like to submit to the House. In many other occupations in which women are engaged there is a great danger of disease. I need not enumerate them now. The possibility of painful and insidious disease must be present to the mind of many Members of this House in connection with industries in which women are engaged. There is no possibility of insidious disease in this work. If there is anything which moves the hearts of men it is when those who undergo the great duties which have been referred to become the lingering, sorrowing victims of painful and incurable disease. In this particular occupation there is no such thing known. In that sense it offers an opening to women's labour which I should be sorry to see reduced. As to the danger to their morals, even the opponents of this class of labour have been gentlemanly enough to say, that so far as moral comparison is concerned the women stand at least on a level with those engaged in any other industry. Therefore we can put that question aside altogether.
    It is said that the work is unsuitable. It may be. There is not a single person in this House or outside of it who would not be glad to see women given other and better opportunities of labour and employment. But it is not sufficient to say, "that is not a nice thing for women to do." You must show that if you stop this labour you can give women something better to do. It is not sufficient to say, "we will give them something equal to it," because that would be having your labour for nothing. You must show to this House and to the women themselves that the alternative offered is a higher alternative. Has there been the slightest attempt made to meet that condition? Has a single person who has spoken against this labour said, "We can give them something else"? I have already given the figures for South-East and South-West Lancashire with regard to the population to the square mile. It may be said, "Let them go to domestic service." In the mining villages wages are never so high that the people can afford to pay domestic servants. Whatever small fortunes are made—and even in this day small fortunes are made in the coal mining industry—the people who make them do not live in our midst. It is said that the women might take field work.

    1269
    I regret to say that the fundamental conditions of mining life make field work almost impossible. You do not live very near to fields. They are far away. Then it is said the women may go to a factory. The part of South-West Lancashire, to which I particularly refer, possesses hardly any factories. The great mining towns, which are almost one town, make it very difficult indeed to establish factory conditions. I say that there has been a great amelioration of, and improvement in, the conditions since 1887. I myself have been charged with being reactionary. I am not sure that there is not something in it. I did not see in 1887—I want to be consistent—any reason why the work should be prevented. I did see then, as I see now, many reasons why it ought to be improved.
    That is the reason why I supported the Under-Secretary's Amendment to-day. We have never put forward the contention that the work has been ideal, or the conditions as being ideal, but all the heavy laborious part of it has practically disappeared during the past twenty-five years, and I say we ought to pause and consider seriously whether, when the opportunities for women's labour are so limited, when they are pressed" so severely in the labour market, when it is more and more difficult for even men to find a living, and certainly more difficult for women, and when the opportunities for labour are so few, we should do away with this work. After all it is poverty that is the driving force which compels these women to leave their homes in the morning and return late in the afternoon; it is poverty and not choice. They do not like it; they would gladly rise to the ideal which has been mentioned in this House of never soiling their hands and of doing the beautiful domestic work of the home, but, as with the apothecary, their poverty, and not their will, consents. The children in the home need maintaining, the father's wages are insufficient, and so the girls go to work, not because they like it, not from choice, but because it is necessary to earn the money to enable the household to be carried on. I say with sincere conviction that this House has no right to interfere unless you can establish some of the conditions which the Under-Secretary laid down at the very beginning, and which I have briefly endeavoured to re-enforce. I sincerely hope the Government's Amendment will be carried, and I promise them my assistance should a Division be challenged.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not know when the hon. Member (Mr. S. Walsh) last changed his views on this subject. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the National Anti-Sweating League. The pamphlet contains a paper by Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P., on the "Present Steps Towards a Minimum Wage." That was published in 1906. I should like the House to know what the hon. Member said in 1906 about the employment of women labour in Lancashire. He said,
    "Girl labour on the surface has existed for more than thirty years, and Lancashire especially suffers from it."
    The hon. Member has been telling us today how much Lancashire benefits from what he said in 1906 it then suffered from.
    Mr. S. WALSH: May I explain that the whole object of that pamphlet was to get rid of low wages. I have always admitted that the wages were low. That was an anti-sweating movement and it did not have for its object the putting an end to this labour.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The pamphlet goes on to say,
    "A few pits in the south-west district and a large number in Scotland also employ girl labour. … The chances are that a woman will now earn from 1s. 3d. to 2s., 1s. 8d. being about the average. As the working hours are about nine and a-half per day, the wage comes out very little better than 2d. an hour. … Cleaning the dross is not heavy work, and pushing the wagons has been done away "with."
    The hon. Member has to-day been saying that, although he approved of the Amendment of the Government, he is not saying that the pushing of wagons has been done away with.
    Mr. WALSH: It is done away with at the present time.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is not done away with. The Under-Secretary said definitely when the question was asked from the other side of the House that, so far as he could say, the pushing of tubs is not done away with.
    Mr. WALSH: That pamphlet refers to wagons.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member knows that in mining districts wagons are called tubs. At least they are in South Wales. All that I can say is this, that in South Wales these tubs weigh over two tons. You may call them wagons or boxes, but they weigh two tons. The hon. Member says that they have been done away with.
    Mr. WALSH: I did not say anything of the kind. I said the pushing of wagons had been done away with. I referred to a wagon within the meaning of the 1887 Act.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That has been done away with under Statute.
    Mr. WALSH: That is what I said.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: You were referring here to girl labour. The pamphlet says,
    "But many of the women are exposed to the inclemency of the weather. The fact remains, too, that these girls are earning less than they did thirty years ago, and have to depend partly for a living upon the earnings of fathers and brothers in the mine."
    That was the view of the hon. Member in 1887.
    Mr. S. WALSH: It was in 1906.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to say with regard to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), that he has a kind of Jesuitical mind, in which he attrbutes all kinds of evils to people who do not agree with him politically. He called the Miners' Federation a pack of wolves, and said that they were the instigators of this Clause. As a matter of fact the Miners' Federation had nothing to do with the Clause at all. They took no part whatever in framing this Clause, although they gave me hearty support when we were in Committee. These hungry wolves, as the Noble Lord terms the people who do not agree with him, had no idea in their own minds, at all events, of suggesting this Clause. I will now deal with this question from the wages point of view. The reason why employers want this labour is simply because it is cheap labour. I have never said during the discussion in Committee, nor do I say now, that the work is unhealthy. In the majority of cases it is not likely to be a dangerous occupation, but I do say that, if we want to attain to the highest civilisation, you must do away with the work of these women. I know of no such foul, dirty occupation as that of screening coal, especially where the mine is a dry one. The women get more filthy and dirty than anyone working in a mine. Where mines are dusty the whole atmosphere is filled with clouds of dust, and although dust in itself I do not believe has been proved to be unhealthy, nevertheless the fact remains that the conditions under which the women work on these pit-banks are very dirty. I have seen them coming home night after night. They have been working in the open air, the tubs they have been
    1272
    moving about are covered with grease, and you see these women with all their dresses or all the trousers they have worn smothered in oil and filth, and their faces are begrimed with fine dust. That is the kind of civilisation of the twentieth century we are endeavouring to attain to.
    Mr. S. WALSH: Not in Lancashire.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is all very well for Lancashire. After all, there are 6,000 girls employed in this industry, of whom Lancashire employs 2,300. In other districts where coal is tipped out of a tipper on to a flat screen, clouds of dust come out with the coal, and in South Wales particularly the women stand right underneath, where all the fine dust is thrown on them. Can it truly be said, where women are working under these conditions, that that is going to make for better life and higher civilisation? My contention has always been that the people who are earning their living in this industry ought to be paid a rate of wages which would enable the women to remain at home. If the men were paid higher wages women would not be engaged in this occupation. The feeling on this question has not been a labour question at all. It has not been a question of the Miners' Federation or their unions seeking to put an end to this labour on account of its cheapness. It has been brought about by the coal-owners and the people themselves in these different districts. The work is degrading, and among the majority of the coal-owners, I am glad to say, throughout the whole of the coalfields, with the exception of parts of Scotland and of Lancashire, it has been the feeling for a long period that this is a kind of work in which women ought not to be engaged. The Under-Secretary stated that this is a work which is repugnant to people who know what the work is.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Under-Secretary said just the converse.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I took the word down. He said it was repugnant to the feeling in the mining districts.
    Lord R. CECIL: He said most specifically in the districts where the women do this work public opinion is strongly in favour of it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That was only in the coalfields of Lancashire.
    Lord R. CECIL: No, no.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: When the Noble Lords gets the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that what the Under-Secretary said was that in many mining districts the work was repugnant to the public feeling.
    Mr. McKENNA: I said that.
    Lord R. CECIL: Not where the women were working.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In the districts where they are employed wages are low. In the Scotch coalfields there are 2,700, in Lancashire 2,500, and in South Wales 225. So far as South Wales goes there has been a constantly diminishing number. Employers of labour have not put on additional women, though they have allowed the existing women who are working at the mines to work as long as they choose. Last year, I am sorry to say, there was an increase of nearly 300 women employed in the mines, most of them in the Lancashire district. When you have a proposition supported, as it appears to be, by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie), the Mayor of Wigan, and the parson of a parish, this is a combination which I think the House should carefully examine. In the first place, the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie), I suppose, supports the working of women on the pit-banks on the ground that the State, when they take over the mines, will be able to work them cheaper with women labour than with men labour. At all events, he has advocated the national taking over of all mines by not paying a farthing for any of the mining royalties.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If that applies to me, it is not true.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I will refer the hon. Member to the evidence he gave before the Commission on Mining Royalties where he stated he would take over the whole of the land and the whole of the mining royalties and pay not a ½d. for them, because they belonged to the people and had been wrongly appropriated. When he says that it is not true he had better refresh his memory. The hon. Member, this great supporter of women's labour, is the Gentleman who told the House that safety lamps were a danger in a mine and were much better out of a mine, and the House will not pay much regard to his opinion, either as regards safety or as regards the health of the people who are working on the pit-bank. The hon Member (Mr. S. Walsh) seemed to think that the pit-bank was fit for a sanatorium.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I said nothing of the kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member said it was easy work. He said he could imagine nothing so easy as work on the pit-banks, and people when they were ill merely had to go from the factories to the pit-bank to recover their health. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to provide sanatoria about the country. I suppose in Lancashire the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) will suggest to him that, instead of sending them to sanatoria, he should take these women on to the pit-bank, because the conditions are so extraordinarily healthy. The hon. Member says the work of women has been prohibited, but women top coal into wagons. A man was killed only two days ago doing this work. It is the most disagreeable of any work in a colliery. As the coal comes over the screens into the wagon it has to be topped up, and as it falls down the person stands in the wagon and ranges the coal as far as he possibly can, and you have women straddled over lumps of coal on the top of wagons doing this beastly, filthy kind of work. That may be an occupation which the hon. Member says is not degrading; but so far from this question being one of wages, as the Noble Lord says, it is not at all.
    Lord R. CECIL: I did not say so.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord did say so. He said we were hungry wolves who brought forward this question from the federation point of view.
    Lord R. CECIL: I never thought you were a wolf.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I suppose the Noble Lord has an idea that I am a lamb. He is always willing to create prejudice. He loves to do that, and the statement he made to the House on this question was wholly incorrect, and was not founded on fact. In the districts that I know anything of there is no agitation and no consideration whatever on the question of cheap labour.
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Harvey) said so himself.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord misrepresented what the hon. Member said in the speech in which he referred to the evidence of a Royal Commission. In the first place, there was no Royal Commission ever appointed. What was the Royal Commission?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Commission that reported that the work of miners underground was extremely healthy.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What Royal Commission is the Noble Lord referring to?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Royal Commission which so reported.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord knows that is no answer at all. I asked him what Royal Commission he was referring to.
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot remember the names of the Commissioners. It was the Royal Commission appointed by Mr. Secretary Gladstone, when he was dealing with the Eight Hours' question. It is perfectly well known to every Member of the House.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: When the Eight Hours Bill was introduced there was no Royal Commission, but there was a Departmental Committee. The Noble Lord should take the trouble before he makes accusations against the hon. Member to find out exactly what these Commissioners did say, and what they said is entirely contrary to what the Noble Lord says they said. This is not a labour question. We who are associated with mining districts want to see better civilisation. The Noble Lord is quite willing and anxious that people should always remain in the same station of life in which they are born. That is the ideal of his order. We may be beaten, and shall be beaten, because the Government are going to put on the party Whips, but I hope hon. Members on this side will not take any notice of the Whips. I cannot understand why the Government, when they put on the Whips, expect Members to ask them if they may vote this way or the other way. We are not sent here to vote in accordance with what the Under-Secretary or a Secretary of State or some great personage may say to the Chief Whip. We are supposed, on this side of the House, at any rate, to have some ideals, and I ask hon. Members to take no notice of this Whip, but to vote according to what they think is right. To make an appeal to the Under-Secretary not to put the party Whips on is perfectly degrading. I have never taken any notice of these Whips, and I shall always vote according to what I think is the wish of my Constituents, and I think the Government will best promote the safe passage of the Bill by leaving the House to vote as it
    1276
    thinks right. At all events, if I can get anyone to tell with me, I will certainly go to a Division.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have taken no part in this discussion, and I do not propose to do so now. I rise to remind the House that this topic has been before us some considerable time, and that it was a sort of understanding—I do not put it higher—that we should be allowed to conclude the discussion on this Bill in something like half-a-day. In view of the long time we have spent upon it, I hope the House will allow us to take a Division on the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member opposite to pass unchallenged. I think we have a right to indignantly refute the imputations he has made. We have listened in vain the whole evening for some adequate reasons why pit-brow girls should be deprived of their livelihood, and we have only heard two arguments adduced so far. It is said in the first place that in general practice in the mining world pit-brow girls have been abolished. All that argument means is that if you leave the status quo as at present, then those districts which desire to have women working at the pit-mouth can do so, while those who do not desire it can have their way, so that both parties would be satisfied. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) said that the work done by the girls is degrading. I wish to know what part of the work he finds degrading. The only thing he seemed to find degrading was that they get their faces and hands dirty. I can tell him that Lancashire girls wash when they get home. If he were to go to Lancashire and tell these women that they are a degraded set of women I should be sorry for him in view of what would happen to him during the next quarter of an hour. The hon. Member said there is a general feeling throughout the mining world among the men that this work is undesirable for women. The feeling in Lancashire is absolutely different. Only to-day I got a huge petition from miners signed by about 700 engaged at two pits there. They petition against any interference with women's work by Parliament as at present constituted.
    It is a perfect scandal that Members elected by men only should try to do a set of women out of their livelihood when

    1277
    these women have no adequate means of making representations on their own behalf. The women of Lancashire have done their best to petition and to raise an agitation against this proposal, but they are not organised. They have not got a powerful trade union, and therefore they have not been able to make their voices heard in the way they otherwise might have done. I am sure they will all be very grateful to the hon. Member for the Ince Division for having dissociated himself from his colleagues in this organised attack upon women's labour. The hon. Member made a most moving appeal on their behalf this afternoon, and also in the Grand Committee and at a great public meeting, but I think it was rather unfortunate that he did not vote in their favour when the matter came on in the Grand Committee. What pressure the Miners' Federation has brought to bear on hon. Members in order to get women done out of their work, I cannot say. Although the hon. Member for the Ince Division defended the women with his mouth, he did not vote in their favour when it came to a critical Division in the Grand Committee. I wish to correct a statement which was made in the Debate. An hon. Member denied that those who wish to do away with women's labour at the pit-mouth have any idea of taking that course in connection with the subject of wages. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, in an exceedingly offensive speech, accused all those who wish to defend pit-brow workers of taking that attitude because they wish to maintain cheap labour. I suppose he includes the hon. Member for the Ince Division among them as a well-known advocate of cheap labour in mining operations. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire is going to use that argument against us, we are perfectly entitled to use the same argument against him and to say that the Federation has simply taken up their attitude because they are a purely male body and desire to keep out women's competition on every possible occasion. Therefore, they have joined forces with the hon. Member for Mansfield, who desires to see every mine modelled on his own mines. They have joined forces against a set of women who are doing no harm, and who only ask to be left alone to earn their livelihood.
    Sir W. MENZIES: I happen to have been a member of the Coal Mines Committee. I attended the sittings regularly, but on the occasion of the Division on
    1278
    this question I was absent. I wish to say on behalf of my Constituents that this Sub-section should remain. I hope every Scottish Member will take the same view. The whole trend of legislation in this country has been to lessen this kind of labour so far as women are concerned. I do not say it is either immoral or unhealthy, but it is degrading and repugnant to the manhood of this country that these women should be working at the top of mines in the way they are doing. I intended to appeal to the Government to take their Whips off, but whether they do so or not, I shall vote for retaining this Sub-section.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I desire, as representing a constituency with a larger number of miners than any other constituency in the United Kingdom, to add my voice to the appeal that the Government should not persist in this Amendment. The suggestion that this prohibition of women's labour at the pit's-brow emanates from the Miners' Federation is entirely untrue. Speaking for the whole mining community of East Glamorgan, I say that the feeling is practically unanimous in favour of this prohibition. I did not quite follow the hon. Member for the Ince Division when he suggested that what he called the economic necessity requiring the employment of women depended upon the relative population and congestion in the different districts. How the economic necessity of women's labour can be argued by the fact that in one case you have 5,000 people to the square mile, whereas in another case you have 900 people to the square mile, without regard to the social character of the district, I do not know. But even so, he must have taken for the purpose of getting at this wonderful comparison a very arbitrary line indeed. Take such a district in South Wales as the Rhondda. There the hon. Member will find the congestion of population as great as in any district in South-East Lancashire.
    One thing strikes me as extraordinary, and it shows that history rather repeats itself. First of all, it was stated that work of women at the pit-bank is a healthy occupation, and, secondly, the hon. Member asked whether the people of South-East Lancashire were not as strong, robust, and healthy as in other districts. My answer is that the industrial leaders of Lancashire from time immemorial have come to this House on other aspects of industrial reform with precisely the same kind of argument. I think the hon. Member

    1279
    for Bolton will bear me out when I say that time after time when there have been proposals made in the House for raising the age at which children should be allowed to work in factories, the industrial leaders of Lancashire have come and said that the humid atmosphere of the cotton mills is peculiarly healthy. A late colleague of the hon. Member actually invented the term, "A cotton mill is as good as a sanatorium." As to the people of South-East Lancashire, let me tell the hon. Member for the Ince Division that the lads there, as compared with the average of the country, are an inch and three-quarters shorter at twelve years of age and eleven pounds lighter. These figures I have obtained in respect of 20,000 measurements, and in another connection I will quote them to the House. You have also in regard to South-East Lancashire the statement that the sentiment of the whole of the industrial districts is this, that, and the other. As a matter of fact, the whole sentiment of industrial Lancashire is demoralised in regard to this employment question. You find precisely the same vicious circle of argument used for prolonging the employment of women at pit-brows as for the perpetuation of that terrible system of half-time which is so deleterious to the people of Lancashire. It is a remarkable fact that in proportion to population where you have the largest number of women employed at the pitbrows
    there you have the largest number of half-timers employed. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not so."] I shall be quite prepared to give the figures in proof of my statement. Speaking for a great constituency in South Wales, I say that we do not desire women's labour on the pit-brow. We are practically free from women's industry in the whole of the South Wales coalfield, and we desire to be entirely free from this particular kind of occupation, which the mining community regard as very objectionable and as particularly repugnant to their sense of the nobility of women.
    Mr. NEVILLE: I will not follow the last speaker, who gave the long and the short of the Lancashire boy and girl, but I would draw attention to one most important point which seems to have been lost sight of in this Debate. The statement has been made that this work is degrading. It is known to be honest work, distinctly honest, and it is healthy work. What I would ask of hon. Members who are opposed to the view put forward by the Under-Secretary is this: What work do you propose to put as an alternative in their way? If you are going to shut one of the avenues of honest work for these women, do you leave the streets open?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 297.

    CLAUSE 93.—(Notice Fixing Hours of Employment.)
    (1) The manager of every mine shall fix within the limits allowed by the foregoing Section, and shall specify in a notice in the prescribed form, which must be affixed at the mine—

    (a) the period of employment; and

    (b) the times allowed for meals;

    and no boy, girl, or woman shall be employed in connection with any mine except during the period so fixed, but different times may be fixed for different persons and for different days.
    (2) A change in the said period or times shall not be made oftener than once a quarter unless for special cause allowed in writing by an inspector.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move the omission of Clause 93.
    The point which I have in view in moving this Amendment has been met to some extent by the Amendment which the Under-Secretary has put down. I would appeal to him to make it a little wider, because these alterations of time will have to take place more frequently than is possible under the proposal which has been put down. Accidents happen constantly in collieries which render it absolutely impossible that meal times can be uniform, and regulations such as are imposed by the Amendment will not permit of that variation which is requisite in order to provide for these eventualities. I quite recognise that the Under-Secretary has attempted to meet the difficulty, but I think that if he looks into it he will see that it does not put in what is required, and I would ask him to reconsider it.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendment on the Paper he will certainly see that it meets the particular case in regard to which he has appealed to me. These general regulations do not of necessity mean that they will fix
    1284
    the conditions, for these can be subject to variation. I think what the hon. Gentleman wants to know is that under the general regulation there will be full power of criticism and of arbitration where necessary. I think that the case of small accidents and delays underground will be met by the suggestion I have made.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's reply quite meets the point made by my hon. Friend. This special provision is really made under the Factory Acts, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no analogy between the working of a factory and the working of a mine. He appears to imagine that these words which are on the Paper meet the case, but it is impossible in a mine to lay down an actual time limit. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is really a matter of very great importance.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) has asked me to submit to the House an Amendment (with several consequential Amendments) which appears on the Paper. His object is to insert in Sub-section (1) words which will fix "the period of employment" within the limits allowed by the previous Clause, and would omit paragraph (b) as to the times allowed for meals. He points out that there is already provisions for the meals of women and children. As far as grown men are concerned, they would be left to arrange among themselves when meals were to be taken. In cases of timbering or using explosives, it would be quite impossible to leave off those different works in order to sit down and have a meal. In the case of emergency, work has to be continuous and carried on until it is finished, so that it would be quite impossible to stop in order to obtain a meal in the times set out by the regulations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary

    1285
    will give me an assurance that the Amendment which he has on the Paper will meet the object of my hon. Friend, and if he does that I do not think I shall press the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I may inform the hon. Baronet that the proposal does not interfere with the men's meal times at all; only with those of women and children.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In the circumstances I will not proceed with the Amendments.
    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2), insert the words,
    Provided that provision may be made by general regulations for allowing a different time to be substituted in case of any special emergency for the time for any meal fixed under this Section.—[Mr. Masterman.]

    CLAUSE 96.—(Prohibition of Payment of Wages in Licensed Premises, etc.)
    (1) No wages shall be paid to any person employed in or about any mine at or within any licensed premises as defined by the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, or other house of entertainment, or any office, garden, or place belonging or contiguous thereto, or occupied therewith.
    (2) The wages of all persons employed in or about any mine shall be paid weekly, if a majority of such persons so desire, and there shall be delivered to each such person a statement containing detailed particulars of how the amount paid to him is arrived at.
    (3) Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with or permits any person to contravene or fail to comply with this Section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and in the event of any such contravention or noncompliance by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager of the mine shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing, and to the best of his power enforcing the provisions of this Section to prevent the contravention or non-compliance.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY(who was indistinctly heard): I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I would point out that the Sub-section was inserted in the Bill in Committee in opposition to the advice of the Government, and was carried only by a narrow majority. I believe in Committee the
    1286
    Under-Secretary undertook to oppose the retention of this Sub-section on the Report stage, and that the Solicitor-General at the time voted against it. The Mining Association of Great Britain agreed to the Second Reading on the ground that this is a safety Bill, and the association used their influence to get the coal-owners to agree not to oppose it. The Home Secretary considered that if it were opposed it would be very difficult to get the Bill through, and I know the Under-Secretary has said frequently that there has been no attempt all through the progress of this Bill to obstruct or hinder its passage. Therefore, I say, that we have a claim on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as we have not opposed or needlessly obstructed the Bill in any way. But I do not think there would have been an easy and smooth passage of the Bill if we had believed that there was to be inserted in it a provision which has nothing whatever to do with safety. It is questionable whether this Sub-section is in order at all, in a safety Bill. The Clause prohibits men from being paid their wages in public-houses, and but for that provision I think it would have been impossible to have tacked on this Sub-section to the Bill at all. Another strong reason why the Subsection should be deleted is that it interferes with contracts that have been made in different parts of the country between employers and employed. Surely it is not the intention of the Bill that there should be any Clause which would enable either of the parties to a contract to evade their bargain.
    Parliament is desirous always that both sides should agree, but if they are to be discouraged in this way there is little hope of agreement being come to in future. This is supposed to be a safely Bill, but I contend that if this provision is retained it would be the very reverse, and instead of promoting safety it would jeopardise the safety of the mines to a certain extent. We know that the practice in regard to the payment of wages differs in Northumberland, Durham, and in South Wales. As far as South Wales is concerned, the colliers are paid on a different system from that which obtains in other parts of the country. In other parts of the country colliers are confined to hewing the coal, and are paid by the ton, and a large portion of the work in other parts of the country is paid for by day wage. In South Wales there is a very intricate system of paying colliers. There is not only the number of tons for which we pay

    1287
    the collier, but there are twenty different items in the pay-sheet, and it takes a long time to measure up the work. All this has to be gone into by the manager or over-man, and the consequence is that a very considerable amount of labour and time are involved—something like one to three days. These officials have to look out for the safety of the mine, and if their time is taken up in measuring work they will not have time to carry out the safety Clauses—a duty which is highly desirable. Already their time is taken up by the fortnightly payments, and it would be almost impossible for them to look after the safety of the mines if there were weekly payments. In South Wales the retention of such a provision would involve serious and considerable strife and difficulty with the men. We know now that on each pay day, especially in certain districts, there is generally a loss of one day—the Monday after the Saturday's pay. I am afraid there will be a greater loss of time if there be weekly payments instead of fortnightly. My hon. Friend in Grand Committee promised that he would oppose this Sub-section on the Report stage, and I trust that he will keep to that undertaking, otherwise it will be impossible to say that this is a safety Bill.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: Although I was not a Member of the Committee when this Bill was under discussion, I am bound to remind the House of what took place there. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rigidly adheres to the undertaking he gave that this Bill would be introduced as a safety Bill. When this particular Clause came before the Committee by a very large majority, a majority of very nearly two to one, this particular Sub-section was inserted. My hon. Friend, true to the pledge which he had given, voted against the inclusion of the Sub-section, and there voted with him against the inclusion the Solicitor-General for Scotland. But, except for the two representatives of the Government, no Liberal, no Labour, and no Irish representative could be found to vote against the Sub-section. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was himself in favour of the Sub-section, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland was also in favour of the Sub-section, yet, in spite of their personal conviction, in order to act up to the spirit and the letter of the pledge
    1288
    they had given, they both voted against its inclusion in the Bill. But now when the Bill comes down to the House there is an entirely different set of circumstances. The fact that the Amendment was allowed to be moved at all shows that it was germane to the Bill. The Amendment, being in order, is a sufficient guarantee that the Committee have not gone outside the general scope or purposes of the Bill. Therefore, we come down to consider the question in the House with our hands completely free.
    The House has to decide now upon the merits of the case, this Amendment having been declared to be relevant to the purposes of the Bill, whether it ought or ought not to remain part of the measure. The House understands and knows already that this question is not merely a miners' question. Even for the short while I have been at the Home Office I have received representations on this subject, not merely from persons speaking on behalf of the miners, but from local authorities, boards of guardians, from tradesmen, from associations of traders, from chambers of commerce, and from ministers of religion, all with one accord pressing this Sub-section upon the Government, and looking upon it, not as a question for the convenience and satisfaction of the miners, but looking upon it as a social question upon which, in their judgment, a great deal of the well-being, and some of them even go so far as to say the morality, and certainly the financial comfort, of the district will very likely hang. What is the fact now? In the districts, happily they are not many, but in the few districts where the system of fortnightly pay still exists, every miner, or nearly every miner, has to run up credit at the tradesman's shop. That is bad for the tradesman and bad for the miner. They also, at the moment when they receive their wages, get a very much larger amount than is necessary for the immediate purposes of life, and it is said, and I am not competent to judge with how much truth, that fortnightly pay does lead, and is an inducement, to intemperance. I am told, with very great confidence by people who ought to know, that the fact of weekly pay will, undoubtedly, secure greater regularity amongst the workmen.
    It is beyond question, beyond all question, that the prevalence of this system in certain districts does lead to miners and their families getting into debt, and into debt from which they are never free. Once a man or his wife gets into the habit

    1289
    of running into credit it is difficult to break from it. When you find this developing in some districts into a social evil of great magnitude, ought we not to hesitate, now that the Sub-section has been included by the Committee, to take upon ourselves the responsibility of striking it out? I was much impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend (Sir C. Cory) as to the existence of a contract between the colliery owner and the workmen. I will go so far with him as to say that if this were merely a miner's question his arguments ought to have very great weight with the House. If it was merely a question of breaking arrangements made between two contracting parties we ought to hesitate about upsetting the contract, at least until the expiration of the period had run. But this is not a mere miner's question. It is a social question, and the hands of society cannot be bound because the owners and the workmen have entered into a private contract. There is also another point with regard to this contract, so far at any rate as South Wales is concerned. I believe that the Member for Glamorgan in the Committee stated that when he entered into the contract on behalf of the men he did it with the lair intention of getting Parliament to set aside the condition of fortnightly pay if he was able to do so. It is certainly true that those who entered into that contract on behalf of the men did at that time publicly declare their intention of getting fortnightly pay set aside by Parliament if they were able to do so.
    Sir C. CORY: May I ask where he said that?
    Mr. McKENNA: In the Committee up stairs. Therefore, though the point of the contract is a very strong point, still I do not think under the circumstances——
    Sir C. CORY: He entered into the agreement previous to that.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think under the circumstances of the case that the contract ought to be binding on the House. The other point my hon. Friend took was that it will give rise to inconvenience. He cannot put it higher than inconvenience. In some cases it will, but it is an inconvenience which can be got over by a slight additional cost. I believe that the cost of working this is estimated to reach the total of £1 sterling per 6,000 tons of coal output, which is a slight figure having regard to the immense total. Those are the
    1290
    circumstances. You have the social evil on the one side, which is very much felt, and which has given rise to enormous discontent, and which might very possibly hereafter find vent in a strike. Is it wise for so slight an additional cost for this House to object to this Sub-section. I hope the House will keep the Bill in its present form.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I think the majority of the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has made a most astonishing speech. It is true he was not a Member of the Committee, and his information on this subject has come from experts. In his remarks I think, if I may use the expression, he has played to the gallery. His remarks have been made because of some political pressure brought to bear on him. He has not evidenced the difficulties which will be entailed by this alteration which he is bringing about. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has given a few of the difficulties. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? One of his leading arguments was that if the miner is paid once a fortnight, that owing to his intemperate habits he cannot be trusted.
    Mr. McKENNA: I never charged the miners with habits of intemperance.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise. He said that this was not a miners' question, that this was a social question, where pressure has been brought to bear on the Government, and that it was incumbent on the Government to see that the miners should be paid once a week instead of fortnightly. He hinted that for their morals it would be better that they should be paid once per week rather than fortnightly, and he is a Member of the Government which is going to grant manhood suffrage to miners who are not trusted to be paid once a fortnight. The Sub-section, as the hon. Gentleman who has moved has told us, was introduced on the Committee stage, and if it had not been tacked on to a Clause providing that the payment is not to be made in public-houses, I believe he is accurate in saying it would be out of order. Let me say another word about what the Under-Secretary said in a previous speech. He said that this Bill was a question of safety and a question of health. I do not think that this question of paying weekly instead of fortnightly comes under either of those headings. On the question of safety there

    1291
    has been a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. We have all worked together, the hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway opposite, and those on this side, in the hope of perfecting this measure so as to ensure safety in mines. We knew perfectly well that the mine-owners, with whom I am connected, are going to be put to a certain amount of expense in connection with safety, but I do not think there is one in the country who grudges the extra expense. What they do object to is that when a Bill is brought in under the guise of a safety measure that these extra measures, which are bound to increase the cost of production, are included.
    There are hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway opposite who are opposed to the private ownership of mines in any shape or form. Their object to a very large extent is to increase the cost of production so as to hamper those individuals and make it impossible for them to carry on the mines. They have not met us in the way in which they should have met us. We have done what we possibly could to support their views and to assist them in everything they have done, and now they come up with all these gratuitous propositions simply for the purpose of hampering those individuals who own mines in this country. The question of contract is a very important one. But since the Government have been in power the violation of contracts has become the common order of the day. By making this alteration the Government will be going behind the back of one of the contracting parties, and giving absolute power to the other contracting party to carry out what they desire. In regard to the difficulties arising from the suggested alterations, many Members have not gone into the question; they have not had an opportunity of doing so. On the face of it, it seems a very simple matter. We have to bear in mind, however, the wide diversity of items on which payment is made—such, for instance, as the thickness of the seam, the width of the working place, the amount of foreign matter in or above the seam, work other than that of coal-getting, and numerous other items. The work of measuring is a very important process, which it is necessary and most important should be very accurately carried out. One of the most important reasons is to avoid friction with the men. If the time of those who carry out the measuring is taken up
    1292
    twice instead of once a fortnight with this work, instead of attending to those duties for which they are primarily engaged, their time will be taken up in doing extra work.
    Many Members have no idea of how the system of payment is carried out. The work of the preceding fortnight is paid for on the following Friday. The time of the clerks and officials is taken up from Saturday afternoon, all through Sunday and Monday, and a portion of Tuesday. On Wednesday the bills are submitted to the manager; on Thursday the cashier comes in, and everything is paid for on Friday. The management are now to be called upon to do this twice instead of once in a fortnight. Hon. Members must realise that it will mean an enormous increase of their duties, and unless a very clear case is put forward the House ought to consider very carefully what they are doing. I speak from experience of what is within the knowledge of anyone connected with the mining industry. On the Monday after the Friday on which payment is made there is a decreased attendance. How the Government can say that if the men are paid twice a fortnight there will be an increased attendance I cannot understand. The Government are carrying out this alteration simply because of political pressure from below the Gangway, and not because of the intrinsic merits of the proposal. I always look with suspicion on any legislative interference with a highly organised trade like the coal trade. I made the same remark in the debate on the Eight Hours Bill, and every remark then made on this side about interference with the coal industry has been justified by experience. Miners are supposed by many hon. Members to be a helpless body of men, unable to protect themselves. In reality they are the most highly organised body of workers in the country, and they are well able to protect themselves, both as to hours of labour and as to rates of wages.
    The right hon. Gentleman has not realised the difficulties. He is new to his office, and appears to think that everything I am saying is a great joke. We who are connected with the industry think very seriously of these matters, and if the right hon. Gentleman will only take the trouble to go amongst the miners of the north he will realise that there is great dissatisfaction with the working of the Eight Hours Act. There is in that measure no popularity for the Government, which

    1293
    seems to be the only object they have in view. At this stage when there are differences in regard to which a settlement cannot be arrived at at present, and a general coal strike is possible, the Government should act very carefully in coming between the mine-owners and the men in the North of England. Up to now there have been in existence conciliation boards, of which we would all speak with admiration and approbation. They have carried on their work in a highly efficient manner, and the right hon. Gentleman should consider very carefully before he interferes further with this highly organised industry.
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: I hope the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. We have no desire, as a body of representatives, to evade any agreement that we have made with the employers. We are prepared to carry out all the engagements into which we have entered. We have no desire whatever, as the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) seems to suggest, to evade the contract between ourselves and the South Wales employers. The hon. Baronet knows very well that I made private arrangements with him, and those arrangements have never been violated.
    Sir C. CORYmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. J. WILLIAMS: We have no desire to do so. In the matter of changing the fortnightly into a weekly system we have no desire to violate any agreement. What we desire is to change a system which we believe to be absolutely detrimental to the interests of the workers at large. The hon. Baronet has forgotten that, notwithstanding agreements which would extend for many years legislation changed the whole aspect of affairs, and we got the Eight Hours Act. The agreements made in times past have always been subject to legislative or mutual changes, and perhaps we have not exhausted ourselves in that direction. The time, however, has arrived, and an opportunity has arisen when we can reasonably raise this matter on the floor of the House. I would point out to the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) that with us it is not a matter of cost; it is a matter of equity and justice. Payment is made for dead work items. The system is very intricate. Many items have to be considered when the calculations are being made. For several days out of the twelve a workman will be dealing with dead
    1294
    work, and owing to the nature of the seam the dead work performed in the bulk of those days will be absolutely lost to sight at the end of the fortnight. What account can be taken of that dead work? If it were measured weekly, an account could be taken of the dead work performed in the first three days of the fortnight; but as it allowed to be spread over ten or fourteen days, half the dead work has disappeared before the manager has been able to measure it.
    As a representative of a very large association, and having myself worked underground, I know from experience what it means to be paid fortnightly. Weekly payment will undoubtedly abolish the credit system to a great degree. I do not say entirely, but it would be a great incentive in that direction. Many a grocer and draper is paying to the miner, by giving him credit, that which the employer should have paid in wages. If the weekly system were adopted, I do not believe the cost in cash would be anything like what the hon. Baronet has stated. It would mean only an extra day in the fortnight for the clerk to perform the work. If the dead work is to be measured and the prices specifically stated in the price list are to be paid for those items of dead work, it would be to the advantage of the working men of the country to have weekly measurements. If a settlement of the abnormal place question is to be arrived at, I believe that weekly payments will be a step in the right direction. Moreover, the working men of the country desire a change from the present system. I remember the time when the five weeks' payment—the long month—was in vogue. I remember when the monthly payment was in vogue. I remember the advantages and benefits that had accrued from the change from the five weeks to the month, and then to the fortnight. I anticipate that the same benefits will result from the change from the fortnightly to the weekly pay.
    Mr. FENWICK: The Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) a few moments ago referred to the North of England. I think I may claim, at any rate, to know the opinion of the workmen in the North of England in reference to this subject, and I would only say this: that at our council meeting held about three weeks ago a unanimous vote was taken amongst the delegates in favour of weekly pays. At a meeting of the Federation held at Newcastle two years ago a similar resolution was adopted

    1295
    unanimously. The opinion amongst workpeople in the North of England is strongly in favour of a change to the weekly pay. I have long advocated that principle. I am a believer in the old adage that short reckonings have a tendency to make long friends. For more than twenty years now I have advocated the principle of weekly pays. When the late Mr. Bradlaugh introduced his Truck Bill into this House in 1887 we had a very long and interesting Debate on the question of weekly pay. At that time the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) now Lord Llandaff, and the present Lord Chief Justice of England Lord Alverstone, then Sir Richard Webster, both spoke on an Amendment which was moved by Mr. Sexton, the then Member for West Belfast.
    Mr. Sexton brought forward a new Clause to the Truck Bill. Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney-General, opposed it, and so did the Home Secretary. But not on principle. They did so simply because they said they did not think it was a proper thing to draft an Amendment in respect of weekly pays on to the Bill. They both went so far as to assure the House that if this question was raised in a proper way it would have the favourable consideration of the Government. In the following year the then Member for East Belfast introduced a Bill dealing with this very subject. The Bill was backed by Mr. George Howell and myself. It was defeated, but Ave carried in the Truck Act a new Clause providing for weekly payments, so far as Ireland was concerned. The Bill was sent to the House of Lords, and the Clause dealing with the question of wages was struck out. The Bill came back to the Commons, and we reinserted the Clause, which went back once more to the House of Lords, who again struck it out. Ultimately, as the Session was getting near an end, and in order that we might get the Bill through, that Clause dealing with wages was dropped altogether. But a very long and interesting Debate took place on that occasion. Several large employers of labour took part in it. I can assure the Noble Lord, and the House, that the opinions given by the large employers of labour at that time and in the subsequent agitation which took place in the country was against the idea of an enormous cost being incurred by the employers in consequence of the change. The bill clerks would not have double the amount of work to do.
    1296
    The one thing, however, I do want to emphasis is this. In the course of that agitation the then manager of Palmer's shipbuilding works at Jarrow-on-Tyne, which employed into thousands of workpeople, the late Mr. John Price declared in a public speech that they had had experience as a firm of both sides. They had paid fortnightly, and they had changed to weekly pays, and the result of the change was that their workpeople attended more regularly at their work; there was less drunkenness, and there was no necessity for the workmen seeking "subs." After all, that is a strong point in the case for the workmen. This is a great social question. Where you have payments made at considerable intervals, what happens? One or two things which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary mentioned. You have the workmen going and seeking a "sub" before pay-day comes round—a thing I hate to see, and that I want to see discouraged so far as possible. I want to discourage this seeking of a "sub" from the employer by the workman in order to tide him over. This "subbing" adds to the difficulties of the book-keeping.
    The late Mr. John Ellis, till recently a Member of this House, had a similar experience to Mr. Price. Mr. Ellis told us that at one time his workmen were paid fortnightly. He changed the system to weekly pays. The additional cost, he said, was a mere bagatelle. He added that by the workmen having the whole of their pay at the end of the week, on Friday, their wives were enabled to go to market on the Saturday morning, and he calculated that the change from fortnightly to weekly pays was equivalent to an advantage of 5 per cent. in the purchasing powers of the wages. It is because I want, so far as ever possible, to discourage the workman from getting "subs" between pay and pay, of having to get credit from their grocer, or from the co-operative stores—because some co-operative stores, I am sorry to say, do not demand cash down—it is because I want to discourage these two practices that I would like to see the principle of weekly pays established. You do it in nearly every factory and workshop in the country, in the shipbuilding yards, and in the boilershops, you pay your dockyard labourers on the principle of weekly payment. The new system would, I believe, establish a better relationship between the labourer and the employer, and I am glad on that account to find that the

    1297
    Government are anxious, or determined, as far as they can, to retain this Subsection in their Bill. I assure them of my hearty support in so doing.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: May I briefly appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press this Amendment to a Division. We have had a very full discussion, not only here but in Committee. As to the question of motive—one of the contentions put forward by the Noble, Lord opposite—I must say that I am not concerned with the Bill from the point of view of the miners' organisations. The whole pressure, so far as I am concerned, is from the tradesmen, Chambers of Commerce, and Chambers of Trade. It is true that the miners' organisations have been asking for this for many years. The Home Secretary said just now in his speech that the representations that have been made to him were from Chambers of Commerce. If he had looked in the "Grocers' Journal," the "Meat Trades' Journal," and other trade journals, he would know that there have been references to the desirability of this change in certain parts of the country. So much for the question of motives. But this is a great social question. Let the Noble Lord think of our mining villages. In my Constituency, and in the surrounding constituencies, there are practically nobody but miners to purchase from the trades-people. There are always three weeks—not a fortnight's—wages in hand. The Noble Lord will then understand the reason why those trades-people are asking the House to do a very simple thing that will have very great remedial effect. Let me now answer the hon. Baronet with regard to his contention about the difficulty. The majority of the districts of this country pay weekly. I will give figures obtained officially for me by the kindness of one of His Majesty's inspectors. Cumberland pays weekly; so does Yorkshire, the North Midlands, the Liverpool district, and North Wales. There are seventy-eight collieries in Scotland where weekly pays are made. There are seventy-one collieries in South Wales. So that it is only a question of bringing in a few outstanding places; one in particular, South Wales. If all these difficulties have been overcome in the other districts that is evidence that they can easily be overcome in South Wales. I do not think that at this stage there will be any real pressure against it, and I hope we may now come to a decision, and that this Clause may remain in the Bill. I appeal
    1298
    to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment, and let us get along.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I do not think we ought to pass this without some protest against the action of the Government. It is quite true that it does affect the whole of this country. For instance, in Lancashire we pay weekly. It does affect a large portion of the colliery districts in all parts. But this Bill, we understood most clearly, was brought in as a Bill to ensure safety. Now we are led to believe that in any Bill brought in by the present Government, if someone raises the cry of a great social evil, that a new Clause will be put into the Bill that quite alters the purpose for which the Bill was brought in. I have reason for saying this, because when we were in Committee the Government took up the same stand. It was to be a Bill for safety; it was not a Bill for the purpose of altering contracts. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Williams) turned round to the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) and informed him that by Act of Parliament we were going to commit breaches of contract. Contracts are not to be safe so long as Acts of Parliament are here to change them. The Government bring in a Bill for the safety of the miner, but are diverted on to questions of social evils. We are doing our best to make the safety which the Bill provides a success, and now efforts are being made to bring about breaches of contract between ourselves and the miners.

THIRD SCHEDULE.
1. No horse shall be taken underground until it is four years old and until it has
1336
been tested by a competent person with the prescribed test and certified to be free from glanders.
2. All horses underground shall, when not at work, be housed in properly-constructed stables, and in stalls of adequate size.
3. All stables in use shall be separated from any road used for travelling or haulage of minerals, and shall be continuously and thoroughly ventilated with intake air, and cleaned daily and kept in a sanitary condition, and all roofs, walls, and partitions of any stables shall, unless painted or made of slate, tiles, glazed brick or iron, be limewashed at least once in every three months.
4. Competent persons, hereinafter referred to as "horse-keepers," shall be appointed in writing by the manager to have the care of the horses used underground while in the stables, and of the stables, in the proportion of at least one horse-keeper to every twenty horses.
5. A sufficient supply of wholesome food and pure water shall be provided daily for every horse while in the stable and while at work.
6. A sufficient supply of suitable medicines, ointments, and dressings, and a suitable appliance or appliances for the destruction of horses requiring to be destroyed, shall be provided and kept readily available for use.
7. No horse shall be worked, or allowed by the horse-keeper to go out to work, in an unfit condition, or improperly shod, or otherwise than with harness properly fitting and in good condition, including a guard for the eyes.
8. The driver having charge of any horse shall at once report to the official under whose direction he works any injury to or overworking of the horse or any insufficiency in the supply of food or water, and any case in which the horse or harness rubs against the roof or sides, or in which the harness is defective.
9. The horse-keeper shall, as soon as practicable after the return of any horse to the stable, examine the horse and its harness, attend to any injury to the horse, and clean and groom it.
10. Every official under whose direction the driver of any horse works and every horse-keeper shall at once report to the manager or under-manager any case of sickness in or injury to or any marks of ill-treatment on or any overworking of any

1337
horse coming to his notice, and any defect in the harness likely to cause pain or injury to the horse, and no horse with respect to which any such report is made shall be allowed to go out to work until authority in that behalf is given by the manager or under-manager.
11. Every horse-keeper shall keep a record in a book to be kept at the mine of all horses under his care, and shall make a daily report therein as to the condition of each horse, the driver in whose charge it has been, the time at which it was taken from the stables, and the time at which it was returned thereto.
12. Every book kept by a horse-keeper under the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall be preserved for at least six months from the date of the last entry therein and shall be open to inspection by any inspector of the mine or any special inspector.
13. The owner, agent, or manager shall, as part of the return required to be made annually to the inspector of the division, furnish a statement showing the number of horses used in the mine, the number which have died during the year from injury by accident or from disease, or which required to be destroyed in consequence of injury or disease, and the number of other cases of injury or ill-treatment reported to the manager under the provisions of this Schedule.
14. In this Schedule the expression "horse" includes pony, mule, and donkey.
Captain JESSEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "competent person" and to insert instead thereof the words "duly qualified veterinary surgeon."
Mr. MASTERMAN: This has nothing to do with the inspection, and as it is on the medical test, I am free to accept it.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I object to this Amendment and to veterinary surgeons or medical men being the persons to constitute themselves as competent. Duly qualified veterinary surgeons have been log rolling to get Members to put forward this Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Baronet does not fully appreciate that this deals with glanders.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I had a letter from Professor Lupton, who was a Member of
1338
this House, stating that it was a great hardship to have this pus inserted. The point I want to bring before the House is the case we have had of the Medical Council boycotting a highly qualified man because certain members of the council disagree with the methods he has adopted. Therefore to give any privileges to veterinary surgeons is merely giving privileges which are quite unnecessary.
Mr. MASTERMAN: On this particular point I have consulted the Board of Agriculture, who tell me that undoubtedly it would not be safe to act except on the report of a duly qualified veterinary surgeon. Therefore, I think we have no alternative but to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "with the prescribed test," and insert instead thereof the words "in the prescribed manner."—[Mr. Masterman.]
Captain JESSEL(who had given notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of paragraph (1) the words: "The prescribed test shall be the Mallim test"): I should like to ask if the Government would accept this Amendment.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already explained that there may be other tests which are better. We do not want to tie ourselves up with a statutory obligation.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move in paragraph (4), after the word "horsekeeper," to insert the words "each shift." The point is that the horsekeeper, like every one else has a shift of eight hours, so that unless there is a horsekeeper for each shift we might have the absurd result that for sixteen out of twenty-four hours there would be nobody to look after the horses. Under the Amendment there would be a horsekeeper during each shift, and that appears to be absolutely necessary.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is under the impression that the horse-keepers come under the Eight Hours Act. That is not the case. It is, therefore, unnecessary to insert the Amendment.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There may be three shifts of horses, and only one horsekeeper for the three shifts. The object of

1339
the Amendment is to ensure that where two or three shifts are being worked, there shall be a horsekeeper for each shift.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Will that apply if all the horses are out? If the wretched cab horses in the City of London were looked after as well as the ponies in the pits there would be little cause for complaint. Generally speaking, the ponies are well fed and well looked after, and it is unfair to cast this reflection on the men concerned. Not one workman in a hundred would take a horse out of the stable unless it was fit for its work. Under this Amendment we should have to keep a man even if there were no horses there at all.
Mr. McKENNA: I understood the Amendment to be based on the idea that the horsekeepers work eight-hour shifts under the Eight Hours Act. They do not. The paragraph lays it down that competent persons shall be appointed to have the care of the horses used underground whilst in the stables, and the proposed words would have no meaning in this connection.
Sir H. DALZIEL: The House discussed this question earlier in the evening, and very wisely came to the conclusion that it would have compulsory inspection.
Sir A. MARKHAM: We are all agreed upon that.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Then I do not see why the point should have been raised again. The hon. Baronet objects to the reflections which have been cast. If he will read page 32 of the Report he will see a whole series of charges by His Majesty's inspector with regard to the treatment of the horses in mines.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise on the Amendment.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I only wished to show that every statement made to-night was based on the authority of the Home Office inspector. I understand that the hon. Member (Mr. Butcher) is apprehensive that one horsekeeper may have to look after twenty horses during a series of shifts. If the Bill is interpreted literally, we may have three different shifts of eight hours, and a horsekeeper would have to look after twenty horses during the whole of the time. I hope there will be a modification of that. I suggest that the Amendment is a reasonable one.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I do not think the Government quite appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend. It is necessary, so far as I understand the Amendment——
Mr. McKENNA: When the hon. Member says "shift," which "shift" does he refer to—the "shift" of the horses, or the "shift" of the men?
Mr. LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that I do not follow, but I am perfectly well aware of the difference.
Mr. McKENNA: I only asked for information.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I referred both to the shift of the men and to the shift of the horses.
Mr. McKENNA: They are not the same.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I am quite well aware of that, but all I want to make sure of is that the horses are properly looked after. There should be some person responsible for the proper care of the horses. That, I am sure, is the universal wish, of all in this House. If you look at paragraph 9, 10, and 11 of this Schedule and see what the duties are which are put upon the horsekeeper, it is perfectly obvious that it is necessary, both for the men and the horses, that someone should be responsible to see that those duties are carried out. Unless you make it clear, you cannot make it certain that the duties laid down in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 will be efficiently carried out.
Sir C. CORY: I think that the Clause that provides for special inspection by the Government is enough, and that this further provision is unnecessary. It is only putting unnecessary duties and responsibilities on colliery proprietors.
Sir F. BANBURY: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the words he will see that the paragraph does exactly what he desires. It says that: "Competent persons, hereinafter referred to as horsekeepers, shall be appointed in writing by the manager to have the care of the horses used underground while in the stables…." That, I venture to submit, covers the point of my hon. and learned Friend.
Amendment negatived.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), to leave out the word

1341
"twenty" ["to every twenty horses"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
Everybody will admit that one man cannot look after twenty horses. I proposed to put in twelve; I now propose fifteen. On the Great Northern Railway Company, with which I am connected, we have eleven horses under charge of one man. Therefore I am giving the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. The ordinary number of horses looked after in the Great Northern stables is 2,800. They are looked after commercially, and also in a humane manner. Some companies, I believe the great omnibus companies, have one man to every twelve horses. I believe twelve to be it-he right number, but, as I am always ready to meet the Government When they are reasonable, and, as I understand, the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary is prepared to accept this Amendment, and in order to save discussion, I will move the insertion of fifteen instead of twelve.
Colonel BURN: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I protest against this. The hon. Baronet in giving twelve horses did not mention their average height. Probably 16 hands or 16.2 hands?
Sir F. BANBURY: Fifteen to sixteen.
Sir A. MARKHAM: And the pit ponies are 12 and 13 hands. Surely the hon. Baronet will not say that it takes the same amount of labour to clip a pony 12 hands high as a horse 16. The Amendment is merely putting restrictions that are wholly unnecessary.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry that I had not time to consult the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield on the subject; but I understood that among the coal-owners there was pretty general agreement that they would accept fifteen. Under these circumstances I tell the hon. Baronet that I would be glad to accept his Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (5), after the word "for" ["provided daily for every horse"], to insert the words "and shall be given to."
This is rather a matter that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will object to. It is no good providing food for the horses unless that food is given to them. If the right hon. Gentleman does draw a
1342
distinction between providing food for the horses and giving it to them, then I think it is essential that my Amendment should be inserted. We want to be quite clear, not merely that the food is provided, but given. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should say 'offered and taken.'"]
Mr. W. PEEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: I think I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when we say in a paragraph "provided for," that the words really do cover "given to." Nobody would provide food for a horse and not give it to the horse.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg (to move, in paragraph (6), after the word "appliances" ["suitable appliance or appliances"], to insert the words "approved by the inspector of the division." The paragraph will then read,
"A sufficient supply of suitable medicines, ointments, and dressings, and a suitable appliance or appliances approved by the inspector of the division for the destruction of horses requiring to be destroyed, shall be provided and kept readily available for use."
My reason for doing that is because I find from the evidence of the Royal Commission, that there are very different ideas as to what are suitable appliances for destroying horses. I find that one gentleman in his evidence says—and it is a horrible thing to think of—that he was in the habit of destroying horses with an ordinary miner's pick. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where was that?"] On page 120 of the evidence in this Blue Book (Vol. 5). It ought not to be left to individual persons, either horsekeepers or anyone else, to destroy horses by means of a miner's pick. It seems to me essential, if you are going to take precautions, that horses should be speedily and humanely destroyed, and if you are going to provide—as you do provide in this Bill—that the appliances should be suitable, that you should have some guarantee that they are really suitable, and suitable, not according to the ideas of somebody or another, but according to the inspector of the division. It seems only reasonable that they should be approved by him. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way

1343
to accept this Amendment. It is not a mere matter of words, but one of substance and of humanity.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: The provision as it stands covers "suitable appliances," and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied with that.
Mr. BUTCHER: Who is to be the judge?
Mr. McKENNA: The inspector.
Mr. BUTCHER: That is what I propose.
Mr. McKENNA: Is it wise in an Act of Parliament to put in all these precautions in the case of horses which you would not attempt to put in in the case of men? The appliances must be suitable, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should not press this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, at end of paragraph (6), to insert the words "by the horsekeepers or other competent persons."
The object of this Amendment is to secure that the horses shall be destroyed in a proper manner, and that as they cannot be destroyed by firearms, they shall be destroyed by competent persons. I want to prevent the use of the ordinary miner's pick, which I do not like. If they are to be destroyed, let them be destroyed by the horsekeepers.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: I do not think we could accept these words as they stand. A horse may be badly injured, and may be in agony, and, the horsekeeper or other competent person not being present, it would be impossible, if these words were accepted, for any unauthorised person to shoot the horse——
Mr. G. GREENWOOD: He cannot be shot in the mine.
Mr. McKENNA: Or to destroy it in any way, and you may have to wait a considerable time before the competent person arrived.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at end of paragraph (6), to insert the words "and
1344
every horse that has to be destroyed shall be destroyed by the approved appliance, and with the least possible delay."
Mr. SPEAKER: The House has negatived the expression "approved appliance." The hon. Member can move the words "suitable appliance."
Mr. BUTCHER: Then I shall move the Amendment by substituting the word "suitable" instead of "approved." There is a certain amount of evidence of cases where horses slightly injured by broken legs or otherwise were not destroyed immediately, and therefore I think it is desirable that this intimation should be given by this House that in case where a horse is to be destroyed it should be destroyed at once.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: Let the House understand what it is that is proposed to be done under the Bill. The Bill provides that "suitable appliance or appliances for the destruction of horses requiring to be destroyed shall be provided and kept readily available for use." That is the Bill as it stands, and is it reasonable to ask us to go beyond that? I have already explained that there are occasions when it would be far more humane to kill a horse at once rather than leave it in its agony. We have provided in the Bill everything we can reasonably be called on to provide.
Mr. MALCOLM: I quite understand what the Home Secretary says, but surely he might accept the last lines of the Amendment, which says, "with the least possible delay."
Mr. McKENNA: We cannot accept that. We would have to accept the Amendment as a whole. The lines suggested by the hon. Member would not read.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I be allowed, with the leave of the House, to move the Amendment in this form, "and every horse that has to be destroyed shall be destroyed by suitable appliance with the least possible delay."
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw his first Amendment and substitute the other. The question is, "Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
Question put, "That those words be there inserted.
The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 195.

Division No. 427.]

AYES.

[6.35 p.m.

Adamson, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Pointer, Joseph

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Rendall, Athelstan

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Richards, Thomas

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Hayward, Evan

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Barnes, George N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robinson, Sidney

Black, Arthur W.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hodge, John

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Brace, William

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Sutton, John E.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hudson, Walter

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

John, Edward Thomas

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Crean, Eugene

Johnson, W.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Wadsworth, J.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Jowett, Frederick William

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lansbury, George

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Webb, H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Furness, Stephen

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Glanville, Harold James

Menzies, Sir Walter

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Goldstone, Frank

O'Grady, James

Guiney, P.

Parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. H. J. Craig.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Hancock, John George

Pirie, Duncan V.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Acland, Francis Dyke

Alden, Percy

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Astor, Waldorf

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Martin, Joseph

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Forster, Henry William

Masterman, C. F. G.

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Philip Staveley

Meagher, Michael

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Molloy, M.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gill, A. H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barton, A. W.

Gilmour, Captain John

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Mooney, John J.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Goldsmith, Frank

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Munro, Robert

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Grant, J. A.

Needham, Christopher T.

Bentham, George J.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Neilson, Francis

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Newman, John R. P.

Bigland, Alfred

Gretton, John

Nolan, Joseph

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Norman, Sir Henry

Boland, John Pius

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Nuttall, Harry

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hackett, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

O'Doherty, Philip

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Ogden, Fred

Bryce, John Annan

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Malley, William

Burn, Col. C. R.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Butcher, J. G.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Cameron, Robert

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Campion, W. R.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Carr Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Perkins, Walter F.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Peto, Basil Edward

Cassel, Felix

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Higham, John Sharp

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hills, J. W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hinds, John

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pringle, William M. R.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Chancellor, H. G.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Quilter, William Eley C.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Radford, G. H.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Clough, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Clynes, J. R.

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, M.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Craig Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kemp, Sir George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Crumley, Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Dawes, J. A.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Delany, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Rolleston, Sir John

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, James

Dillon, John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Donelan, Captain A.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Doris, William

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lundon, T.

Sanders, Robert A.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sanderson, Lancelot

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lynch, A. A.

Scanlan, Thomas

Essex, Richard Walter

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. J. T.

Sheehy, David

Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Sherwell, Arthur James

Falle, Bertram Godfray

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Farrell, James Patrick

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

Fell, Arthur

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Snowden, P.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

1282

1283

Stewart, Gershom

Toulmin, Sir George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Summers, James Woolley

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wiles, Thomas

Swift, Rigby

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Winfrey, Richard

Tennant, Harold John

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wolmer, Viscount

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

Wardie, G. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Waring, Walter

Worthington-Evans, L.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Question, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 428.]

AYES.

[10.5 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fell, Arthur

Peto, Basil Edward

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Forster, Henry William

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Ashley, W. W.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Pollard, Sir George H.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gardner, Ernest

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Balcarres, Lord

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gilmour, Captain John

Quitter, William Eley C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Grant, James Augustus

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gretton, John

Rolleston, Sir John

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Royds, Edmund

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bigland, Alfred

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hills, John Waller

Starkey, John Ralph

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hohler, G. F.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Bryce, John Annan

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hunt, Rowland

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Talbot, Lord E.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cassel, Felix

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Touche, George Alexander

Cave, George

Larmor, Sir J.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Macmaster, Donald

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Croft, Henry Page

Mount, William Arthur

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Yate, Col. C. E.

Duke, Henry Edward

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Yerburgh, Robert

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Malcolm.

Falle, B. G.

Perkins, Walter F.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glanville, Harold James

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Adamson, William

Crumley, Patrick

Goldstone, Frank

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Agnew, Sir George William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gwynn Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hackett, John

Alden, Percy

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

De Forest, Baron

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Delany, William

Hancock, John George

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Devlin, Joseph

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Dillon, John

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Barnes, George N.

Doris, W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Barton, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Bentham, George Jackson

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Brace, William

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Hayden, John Patrick

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hayward, Evan

Brunner, J. F. L.

Essex, Richard Walter

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Farrell, James Patrick

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Ferens, T. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Hinds, John

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Hodge, John

Chancellor, H. G.

Furness, Stephen

Holt, Richard Durning

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Clough, William

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Clynes, J. R.

Gill, A. H.

Hudson, Walter

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

John, Edward Thomas

1346

1347

Johnson, W.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nuttall, Harry

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scanlan, Thomas

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Doherty, Philip

Sheehy, David

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ogden, Fred

Sherwell, Arthur James

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Grady, James

Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheree)

Kemp, Sir George

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Summers, James Woolley

Lansbury, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sutton, John E.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Tennant, Harold John

Lundon, T.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pointer Joseph

Toulmin, Sir George

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wadsworth, John

Macpherson, James Ian

Radford, G. H.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

M'Callum, John M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Reddy, M.

Wardle, George J.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Richards, Thomas

Webb, H.

Martin, J.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Molloy, M.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wiles, Thomas

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wilkie, Alexander

Morrell, Philip

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Munro, R.

Robinson, Sidney

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Needham, Christopher T.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Neilson, Francis

Rose, Sir Charles Day

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Nolan, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Amendment made: After paragraph 7 add,
8. The driver having charge of any horse shall remain in charge of the horse during the whole time that it is at work in his shift, and, unless otherwise ordered, shall at the end of the shift return the horse to the horsekeeper at the stable.—[Mr. Masterman.]
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at end of paragraph (8), to add,
(9) No blind horse shall be worked in a mine.
Many witnesses expressed the opinion that there is serious cruelty in working a blind horse at all unless it is led, and almost every one of the witnesses agreed that if a blind horse had to be worked it should only be used in light work. As it is extremely dangerous to lead the ponies, the only way is to prohibit blind ponies altogether. Take the evidence of Mr. J. H. Cooper, a working collier, who had worked for some considerable time in mines. On page 89 of the published evidence given before the Royal Commission on Mines, Dr. Haldane asked Mr. Cooper:—
"Do you think when a horse is blind it is fit to do work in a pit?—I think it ought to be sent out of the pit. I think it is a downright disgrace when they are in places where the roof is bad and have to go over sleepers, which cause many an accident with the horse stumbling on the road."
Mr. Bowen says much the same thing. In reply to a question by the chairman,
"How about blind ponies?"
1348
Mr. Bowen says:—
"I think they ought to be taken out of every colliery.
"Why cannot they do colliery work?—On account of turning round in narrow roads. Along straight roads I have seen them knock their heads.
"Instead of turning they will go straight on?—Where they ought to turn, in many cases they go too far and knock their heads against the side.
"They do not turn when they ought to through the ponies being blind?—Yes."
Then there is Mr. Pearson, a miner at the Whitburn Colliery, who gives this evidence:—
"Have you seen blind ponies at work?—Yes, I think it is cruelty to keep them in the mine, especially in bye, because very often a boy loses a pony, It has to go into the tub, and he is putting the tub in a siding or shunting out, so that he can get the full one out, and the pony comes into contact with timber because it cannot see."
There is not only the evidence of these miners. Mr. Telfer, a mining engineer and the assistant manager at a large colliery, is asked:—
"Do you think it is desirable that they should be allowed to work them if they are totally blind?—That all depends upon where they are working. If a pony was totally blind and there was a boy leading it on a level road, I do not think there would be anything wrong in that.
"Why would it be necessary for the boy to lead the pony?—I do not know if the pony would find its way so well without.
"Do you think the working of blind ponies should be prohibited?—Yes, I think it should be.
"You would stop it altogether?—Yes."
He is not the only person connected with colliery management to give evidence. There is Mr. Turton, manager for the

1349
Butterley Colliery Company, Ltd. He is asked by one of the Commissioners:—
"What I should like to ask you is, whether you think, as a manager, it is a desirable thing that blind horses should be worked?—I do not think it is desirable they should be worked.
"You think it is better they should not be worked?—Yes, I certainly think it is better they should not."
Then there is a considerable amount of evidence to show, if they are worked at all, they should be led, because, otherwise, when they come to corners, they go on and knock their heads. There is the evidence upon that of Mr. Turton and of Mr. Rose, another mining engineer and colliery manager. It is pointed out in the course of the evidence it is almost impossible to lead them without danger. Upon that there is the evidence of Mr. Carnes, a mining engineer and manager, and his evidence is of great importance, because he does not agree they ought to be stopped altogether. His evidence comes to this. If they are led they are liable to knock their heads, and so on. If this were a question of much cost to the colliery owners there might be something to be said against it, but, as a matter of fact, it is relatively a very small matter. The evidence is that on the average the number of blind ponies in a mine is about 1 per cent. All the inspectors are agreed that these animals do somewhat unimportant work. They only work about two days a fortnight, and they are only fit for very light work. On this point we have the views of the Commission. They do not agree with total prohibition, but they say:—
"For these reasons we think blind horses should still be allowed to work in mines, but only when led and treated with special kindness and in circumstances in which the work is light and suitable for them."
If hon. Gentlemen with their great experience will tell me it is possible to lead these ponies without injury to the boys I shall be quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment that
"No blind horse shall be worked in a mine except when led and under circumstances in which the work is light and suitable to him. No blind horse shall be worked in any place where he cannot be led."
I gather it is extremely difficult, if indeed it is possible in these cases. It is not possible in all these cases without danger to the boys who lead them, and therefore the House should prevent it altogether. The Commission says they ought not to be worked. I put this as a really urgent matter. I should prefer that horses should not be used in mines at all. But I recognise
1350
that that is impossible in the existing state of things. Recognising, however, that horses must be used, I say it is the duty of this House to see that they are treated fairly, and if they cannot be treated with humanity then there ought to be a prohibition against them being used at all.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope my hon. Friend will insist on his Amendment prohibiting the use of blind horses. There are now far too many used in the mines, and I should like to draw attention to the evidence of Mr. C. Turton, in which he says that not merely for the sake of the horses themselves, but for the sake of the proprietors, blind horses should not be used. The evidence runs:
"They want special care?—Yes.
"And in the absence of that care they might do mischief?—That is so."
You must remember that a blind horse if it runs its head against a wall running round a corner, or in case it is frightened, it may do mischief. Therefore I hope my hon. Friend will stand by his original Amendment, and will not fall back on the alternative. I feel confident that the House will support the prohibition of the further employment of blind ponies and mules in the mines.
Mr. MASTERMAN: This matter was fully discussed in Committee, and on the appeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who has taken a leading part in all humane proposals in connection with these ponies, a similar Amendment, was withdrawn, and the Committee came to the conclusion that so far from there being any need for this prohibition it would make rather for the lack of welfare of these particular horses than otherwise. The only alternative, if they are prohibited from working in the mines, is that they will be destroyed. The Royal Commission does not contemplate that with the same enthusiasm as the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). They used words deprecating such a proposal. The Royal Commission did not suggest that there was cruelty to these blind ponies, or that they should be prohibited in the mines. The Chief Inspector of Mines tells me that in many respects they have great advantages over ponies that have eyes [laughter]. Those Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who laugh so contemptuously are not aware of the conditions under which they work. Many of them are working in darkness.

1351
The chief inspector informs me that a considerable number of accidents take place through the horses being frightened by a sudden blaze of light. No kind of evidence has been brought forward before the Royal Commission or before the Committee upstairs to show that there is any cruelty in connection with the use of blind ponies in mines. They know the work they are doing. The fact that the mine is in a state of dimness means that they are just as capable of doing their work as efficiently as ponies with sight. One would think from the speeches of hon. Members that we were suggesting the blinding of ponies before they went down. In this matter we are following the suggestion of the Royal Commission, endorsed by the Committee upstairs.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I have listened to many able speeches from the Under-Secretary, but I have never listened to a more unconvincing speech than the one he has just delivered. He first of all tells us that if the use of these horses were restricted they would have to be detroyed. There is no person who has taken any part in helping to prevent cruelty to animals who does not defend the immediate destruction rather than the inhumane treatment of dumb creatures. There is nothing those who support the Amendment would like to see more than the destruction of animals who cannot look after themselves when they are working underground. The Under-Secretary has also suggested that these animals, owing to their inability to differentiate between light and darkness, may be more happily situated than those who have eyes. The argument brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) goes to show that it is not a question of whether they can differentiate between light and darkness, but whether they are in a position to avoid those mishaps which unfortunately occur to those horses which have eyes, and must necessarily occur to those who have not. I refer to their knocking themselves from time to time against the timbering of a mine, or otherwise injuring themselves owing to undue precautions being taken in leading them along underground passages. This proposal is the corollary to what the House has already decided upon, namely, that all the horses working in the mine should have proper guards to their eyes. The object of that is to prevent them from meeting with accidents which would result in their
1352
losing their eyesight. It is a natural corollary to that that you should be able to prevent those horses which are working in mines from meeting with the accidents I have described. Further, we have decided in Clause 45 that roads on which horses are used underground shall be of sufficient dimensions to allow a horse to pass without rubbing itself against the roof or the sides, or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides. It follows from that that you do not intend to allow horses to remain underground which are not able to prevent the possibility of their suffering these accidents. I was sought to be ridiculed by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) because I suggested that provision ought to be made that it should not be possible for horses to strike their heads against the roof of mines either by the roof being made sufficiently high or horses which are too tall being removed altogether from the mine. I was told that horses, if they were sensible, would lower their heads, but a horse which has no eyes is unable to lower its head. It cannot see an obstruction in front of it. Therefore if it is right to put a provision in the Act to so construct the timber of your mine as to prevent a horse with eyesight damaging itself, it necessarily follows that you should prevent a blind horse being used. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that we are improving the condition of those who work underground and on the surface and that women are employed to a much less extent on the surface than in the past, because public opinion is in favour of doing away with such labour. Is there no public opinion in favour of these dumb animals? They have not got their trade unions. They cannot organise for their own protection, and surely it is for us who have some sense of humanity to see that they are fairly treated.
Mr. G. GREENWOOD: The Under-Secretary has referred to the fact that I moved an Amendment on the subject in Committee. It was not the Amendment which is now moved, but it was an Amendment in the words of the Report of the Commission, that a blind pony should only be worked if carefully led and on light and suitable work. I withdrew it because I did not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, seeing that the majority were against it. Since that time, however, I have studied carefully the evidence given before the Commission, and I am very much surprised

1353
to hear the Under-Secretary say there is no evidence of cruelty, because on almost every page the witnesses speak of the fact that there is great cruelty in their opinion. There is a passage from the evidence of the miner Cooper, who has been referred to:—
"If a horse goes blind and cannot work in the pit that horse would have to be shot?—There is plenty of work on the top.
"For a blind horse?—Yes, it is more comfortable than down the pit. With a blind pony on the top in a cart or dray the driver has a pair of reins and can drive the horse straight. … There is a great deal of difference between working on the top and down the pit. It is a downright shame for ponies to work in the mine when they are blind. They cause injury both to the lads and to themselves. They damage themselves and also the boys. Scores of boys get lamed through having to lead blind horses."
Another witness from among the miners, when asked if he had seen blind ponies at work, replied that he had, and that he thought it was cruelty to keep them in the mines, because very often the pony came in contact with the timber because it could not see. Considering that we have all this evidence on page after page of the Report as to the working of blind ponies in the mines, and also that we have a definite recommendation by the Commission that, if they were not abolished, they should be confined to specially light work, I really think we should not be fulfilling our duty with regard to humanity if we left things exactly as they are, and therefore I support the Amendment.
Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: I support the Amendment. I sat for many days hearing the evidence which was given before the Commission, and I could have wished that the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary, who have given so much attention to this matter, could have seen his way to accept the Amendment. I rise for the purpose of asking him to accept it. I am sure that anyone who knows about the working of mines shudders at the thought that there are so many of these animals kept there, exposed to all the dangers attendant upon loss of vision. I am sure it would be in accordance with the humane sentiment of this Bill if the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment. I cannot believe that the coal-owners desire to perpetuate what is obviously so cruel. I appeal to my hon. Friends around me to mark their sympathy by voting for the Amendment, unless it is accepted by the Government.
Mr. MALCOLM: I desire to associate myself with hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Amendment. I
1354
was amazed at the cold-blooded way in which it was received by the Under-Secretary, who is regarded as one of the most humane men in the House of Commons. I regret to find that he has not only not accepted the Amendment, but has not taken the trouble to read the Report of the Commission. It is rather a reflection on the intelligence of the House of Commons to suppose that we have not read the evidence. Evidence has been read by my hon. and learned Friend showing the nature of the cruelty which has been suffered by blind ponies in the past. The hon. Gentleman has discreetly gone away. In their third Report the Commissioners say it sometimes happens that blind ponies go straight on and dash themselves against the opposite wall or hit themselves against the roof. Does the Under-Secretary consider that no cruelty, a cruelty that would be very unlikely to be suffered by a pony that was not blind? If it were forbidden to employ blind ponies in mines they would have to be sent to work on the surface or else shot. I see no reason why blind ponies should not be shot. It is far more cruel to keep them working in those intolerable conditions. What is the amount of cruelty, if shooting be cruelty, that we are asked to put on these blind pit ponies to the extent of 1 per cent. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) and other colliery proprietors would admit that they could afford to buy a pit pony with two eyes rather than keep a blind pit pony exposed to a cruelty that is almost unnameable. I feel sure that every humane Member of this House, quite independently of parties, will wish to see blind ponies done away with altogether in the mines, and that we shall certainly not have the charge put upon us that we have, with our eyes open, allowed blind pit ponies to suffer these unmentionable disgraces which in any humane country ought not to be allowed.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I really must protest against the language of hon. Members against those who conduct a great industry. I am just as humane as any of the hon. Members opposite who have never been down a pit, and——
Mr. MALCOLM: Is the hon. Member referring to me?
Sir A. MARKHAM: No.
Mr. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Member referring to me?
Sir A. MARKHAM: I refuse to give way to the hon. Member because of the ignorance he has shown. The statements of the hon. Member as to the state of the horses working in mines can only arise from the fact that he knows nothing at all about them.
Mr. BUTCHER: I have been down many mines.
Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member has a great number of these Amendments. He will have an opportunity of discussing the subject. His endeavour is to prolong the discussion.
Mr. BUTCHER: No.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I do say this. Having been associated with this industry for many years, as are many Members on the other side also, I have never yet seen in the whole course of my experience, though I am constantly going down mines, any injury that has been occasioned to blind horses. The number of blind horses of mine is very small. Personally, I do not object to the Amendment. The Government would do no harm in accepting it; but at the same time to say that these untold horrors go on in mines in connection with blind horses is quite untrue. I know myself blind horses which have been down mines for twenty years and have not a mark on them. If the hon. Member comes to me I will show him horses that have been in mines for twenty years, stone blind, without a mark of any description on them. When we have these charges constantly made as to horses employed in mines working under such conditions as have been described, I say that these statements are not true.
Mr. McKENNA: It must be remembered that the cost will have to be borne by the colliery owners, but as far as we are concerned, we have not the least objection on the merits of the Amendment to accept the proposal put forward by the hon. and learned Member. It will be remembered that there was an agreement in Committee.
Sir A. MARKHAM: It does not bind the House.
Mr. McKENNA: I am not suggesting that it binds the House. Some of the hon. Members of the Committee who were parties to the agreement are not present, and only one colliery owner has spoken in the course of the Debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A.
1356
Markham), who has no objection to bearing his part of the cost. If that agreement had been adhered to I should have done my best to see the purport of it carried through, but as the supporters of the agreement on one side have just taken the opportunity to throw it over, and nobody gets up to defend it, I shall certainly accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add,
10. Inspectors under this Act shall have power, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to make special rules for a mine, specifying the number of horses that should be employed in the mine and the prescribed periods of rest that should be given to horses employed in that mine.
The effect of the Amendment would be that the horses would be worked eight hours a day for six days, making forty-eight hours, and as there would be every week other twelve hours, there would be sixty hours in all. I am sorry the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has gone, because I wanted to refer in the most distinct possible way to the charge he made about my bringing forward Amendments in this House without my ever having been down any mine. I have investigated these matters to the best of my ability, and the hon. Gentleman makes an entirely false charge. Let me give some of the evidence which I find in this book. [The hon. and learned Member quoted from evidence as to the employment of horses.] The only explanation, or perhaps I should say apology for those outrageously long hours of work, is that they said that in all cases the horses were not working all the sixteen hours. That may be perfectly true, but we have cases in which they were sixteen or eighteen hours out of the stable, and I say that to do that is an act of inhumanity which I do not believe this House will sanction. In many cases I quite admit that those horses out of the stable were given food and very properly, but in some cases there was evidence that they were not. Therefore, I think, on the grounds first of all of long hours, and secondly, that they cannot be fed during those sixteen hours, that it is only reasonable that the House should lay down a scale of eight hours which should be extended in certain cases to twelve. The Amendment is founded on the treatment of horses in a mine which I visited and

1357
where the horses are well treated. It does not impose any undue or improper cost on the mine-owners. Therefore I would ask the House to lay down that what is done in a well-managed colliery should be made compulsory.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment. I find it almost necessary to apologise to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), because I frankly admit I have never been down a mine. I prefer the overwhelming evidence which we have in the report to the unconsciously no doubt biassed evidence of the hon. Baronet. I am able to bring a free and unprejudiced mind to the consideration of this subject. In accepting that overwhelming evidence produced by the hon. Member who moved, I am convinced that the Amendment will appeal to the House as did his previous Amendment. At the same time I venture to express the hope that the Under-Secretary will not use the argument he used in respect of the blind pony when he tried to persuade the House that it was a good thing for a pony to be blind, and say that it may also be a good thing for a pony to be overworked. I suggest it is a case of the blind attempting to lead the blind. I trust the Government will give way at an earlier stage on this Amendment, in order that we may proceed to the further Amendments on the Paper.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) bases his support of the Amendment on the report which he has in his hand. What are the words of the report?
"We do not think it practicable to give the ponies an eight hours day, partly owing to the impossibility of administering such a provision, and partly owing to the fact that the number of hours during which a horse is out of the stable is not always a criterion of the time it is being worked."
That is the report which the hon. Member quotes as providing overwhelming evidence in support of this Amendment! No doubt on the last occasion the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) had a strong foundation when he based himself on the report, but on the present occasion the report is absolutely against him. I hope therefore, he will not press the Amendment.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If this Amendment is withdrawn will the Government accept the next Amendment of my hon. Friend, namely, to insert the words,
Inspectors under this Act shall have power, subject to the approval of the
1358
Secretary of State, to make special rules for a mine, specifying the number of horses that should be employed in the mine and the prescribed periods of rest that should be given to horses employed in that mine.
Mr. McKENNA: That is already in the Bill—Clause 87.
Mr. HARMOOD - BANNER: This Amendment conveys such a grave accusation against everybody connected with collieries, that it can hardy be seriously intended. These suggestions of cruelty come from hunting men, many of whom think nothing of taking their horses out for eight hours at a time, and bringing them back in a condition of lather. I have done it myself. That these gentlemen should try to create a prejudice against those concerned in colliery ponies is a very serious matter, and I should not like the Debate to conclude without protesting against the accusation. I would just like to emphasise this: that whilst we owners and workmen have, I hope, been striving to make this measure a complete measure, we are very much indebted to the officials of the Government for their help. Yet I cannot help being reminded of this fact that when we looked at the newspapers following the last Debate we found that the discussion on the ponies took up a far larger space of time than the discussion about men. That is the same now. I quite sympathise with any care that can be taken to see that the ponies are well looked after; and, so far as I am concerned, and so far I am quite certain, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield is concerned, every care is taken of our ponies. We do not mind what regulations, what inspection is given to our ponies, or who comes down to look at the ponies. But I do think that it is not treating the House seriously when we are asked to adopt an Amendment like this.
Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman suggested just now that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield was the only person in the House who was a mine-owner, or who as such had addressed the House on these matters. I am sorry to say that I am a mine-owner, the chairman of a colliery company, but it is not the sort of colliery that the hon. Baronet has to deal with. It is one of those small collieries where the unfortunate horses, at any rate, are unable to receive the same consideration that they

1359
do in the somewhat larger mines. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend had confined his Amendment to the suggestion that the horses should not be worked for more than sixty hours per week. I could then have heartily supported it. I honestly think that we shall be in danger of being considered mere faddists in our endeavours to promote the humane treatment of the horses if we suggest that, like men, have an eight hours' shift only. It is pointed out very properly by the Commissioners that the horses are not "continuously at work during the time they are out of the stables, whilst the men as a rule are continuously at work. That seems to me to be a convincing reason why we should not give them the eight-hours shift which the men enjoy. I think the hours of the horses ought to be limited by the week, and not by the day, or any portion of the day. If you limit the hours of the horses by the day you will be doing an injustice to the mine-owners, and no real service to the horses.
Mr. BUTCHER: After what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BUTCHER: If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary can assure me that the further powers I propose to give in my next Amendment in relation to horses are already given, I shall not move that Amendment. If the inspectors have power under Clause 87 to make the suggested recommendations I shall not move.
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, they are.
Amendment made: In paragraph (9), at end, insert the words "himself or cause it to be cleaned or groomed."—[Mr. Masterman.]
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (10), after the word "notice" ["or any overworking of any horse coming to his notice"], to insert the words "and any insufficiency in the supply of food and water."
I move this Amendment in order to follow out the words of paragraph (8), and also the words of the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on page 7, where it says, "and to report to the management all cases of sickness or injury or overwork or of insufficiency of food, drink, or harness."
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: I really think the hon. Member might be satisfied with what is provided in paragraph (8). It is provided there that "any insufficiency in the supply of food or water" shall be at once reported.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (11), to insert the words "and in case of the death of or injuries to any horse the cause of the death or injuries."
I do not think this Amendment is covered by the Schedule; it is following out the recommendations of the Report.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: Who is to determine on the death of the horse? Is it the officials or the horsekeepers. It is quite obvious a great many of them would not be competent to do so. You would have to have a post mortem examination in every case.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: After paragraph 12, add,
13. The manager shall, by himself or by some competent person appointed by him for the purpose, exercise such personal supervision over all horsekeepers, drivers, and other persons employed in connection with the horses used in the mine as is necessary to secure that the provisions of this Act relating to the care and treatment of horses in mines are observed in the mine.—[Mr. Masterman.]
Mr. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph 13, after the word "number" ["the number of other cases of injury"], to insert the words "and nature."
Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: This Amendment is asking for more in the case of the horses than in the case of the men, and I do not think these words are necessary.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir A. MARKHAM: I would just like to say a word before this Bill passes. I am

1361
not going to refer to the Bill at all, but I think the House will fully appreciate the work that has been done by the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman). He has shown the greatest courtesy and kindness to everyone in the Committee. He had to study a most difficult and complicated industry, and he has displayed great energy, industry, and ability. I do not think this ought to pass without some words of appreciation being said of the work the Under-Secretary has achieved in this matter. I think I may say on behalf of hon. Members on this side that we do appreciate his great kindness and consideration. This industry of mining is the largest in this country, larger even than the industry of agriculture. The total number employed in agriculture is 1,181,000, but that total includes 92,000 women. In the mines there are 1,163,000 employed. Those figures I give from the Census returns, and from them it appears that mining is now the largest industry in the country. In regard to this large industry I am sure this Bill will be the means of saving life, and the House will give to the Under-Secretary what I feel we ought to give him, our hearty thanks for the way he has piloted this measure through.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Might I be allowed to endorse the words which have fallen from the hon. Member opposite. I am bound to say, having sat on the Grand Committee, and speaking as a mine-owner, that no one could possibly have been more courteous or considerate to every class affected by the Bill than the hon. Member has been. It must have been a very difficult Bill to have steered through Committee and through this House, and it reflects great credit on the hon. Member that he has done so skilfully and without eliciting animadversions or any strong feeling on the part of those who are affected. There is one small coalfield in the United Kingdom which is very much affected by this Bill. In the past they have had very little consideration. In this Bill, thanks to the hon. Member, they have had a very considerable amount of consideration. That is the Forest of Dean. Living in that district, and owning a mine there, I should like to thank him for the consideration he has given to the weakest part of the mining industry.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I must, in a word, thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite for what they have said, and I should like to take this opportunity of
1362
thanking someone else, and at least two gentlemen outside who have given valuable services in connection with this Bill—one is Mr. Thomas Ratcliffe Ellis, Secretary of the Mineowners' Association, and the other is Mr. Robert Smillie, President of the Scottish Miners' Federation, who has also been doing splendid work on this Bill. Let me say one word in conclusion. This Bill was twenty-three days in Committee. The last great mining legislation in 1887 was, I think, four days in Committee. The distinction between the two is, I think, the measure of how the House has gained in those thirty years by the introduction of an ever-increasing number of those who have knowledge to speak personally of such technical and safety provisions as the bulk of this Bill includes. Despite the Debate of the last three hours, I may be permitted to remind hon. Members this is a safety Bill, and some hundred of the 120 Clauses are concerned with safety, and safety alone. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has rightly stated that the mining industry is the greatest industry in the country, and it is certainly the industry upon which all other industries depend. Every day in the industry, in summer and winter alike, four men or boys who have gone into the mines without any expectation of death are brought up dead, and every day some 500 men and boys receive serious injury which is reported. Besides that daily and lamentable toll of death, we had last year two tremendous losses through explosions, one of which was a worse loss than we have had for the last thirty years—at Knowsley in Lancashire. It killed more men in ten minutes than were killed in the biggest battle in the South African War. We promised to bring all the resources we could and all the appliances science could contrive in order to try and reduce this daily toll of death and render these accidents less possible, even if we cannot render them altogether impossible. I cannot promise that the result of this Bill, over which so many Members have spent so much gratuitous time, will altogether render coalmining an entirely safe occupation, but, speaking, as I do now, for all those who worked on it, if as a result of all these scientific inventions which we are applying and the vigilance which we are demanding, we can reduce that daily death-rate from four to three persons, or in one generation make one of these explosions impossible that otherwise would have been possible, we may well rejoice.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

Part VII.
  Appointment of Inspectors.
  INSPECTORS.

    CLAUSE 97.—(Appointment of Inspectors of Mines.)
    (1) The Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons to be inspectors (under whatever title he may from time to time fix) of mines, and assign them their duties, and may award them such salaries as the Treasury may approve and may appoint a chief inspector with an office in London, and may remove any such inspector: Provided always, that in the appointment of inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire, among candidates otherwise equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred.
    (2) Notice of the appointment of every such inspector shall be published in the London Gazette.
    (3) Every such inspector is referred to in this Act as an inspector, and the inspector of a division means the inspector who is for the time being assigned to the division, district, or portion of the United Kingdom with reference to which the term is used.
    (4) Any person who practises, or acts, or is a partner of any person who practises or acts as a land agent, or mining engineer, or as a manager, viewer, agent, or valuer of mines, or arbitrator in any difference arising between owners, agents, or managers of mines, or is a miners' agent or a mine owner (whether the mine is one to which this Act applies or not), shall not act as an inspector of mines under this Act, and no inspector shall be a partner or have any interest, direct or indirect, in any mine in the district under his charge.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "persons" ["the Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons"], to insert the words, "who are holders of first-class certificates of competency under this Act, or, in the case of second grade inspectors who are holders of second-class certificates Tinder this Act."
    I move this Amendment in order to secure some sort of guarantee that the persons appointed as inspectors are qualified for their positions. I think it is a reasonable thing that they should show that they are qualified in some way or other.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This point was raised in Committee by the hon. Baronet, and I would ask him to do the same thing now that he did then, that is, not to press it. The qualifications of the inspectors are dealt with in the regulations to be issued, and these are very fully discussed from time to time. The regulations at present in operation make it explicit that the qualifications for a first-class inspector must be a first-class certificate. In regard to the second-class inspector, we have done better than the hon. Baronet actually desires, because we not only say that he must hold a second-class certificate, but if he has a first-class certificate preference must be given him. These regulations are always in force and are open to discussion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "persons" ["The Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons"], to insert the words "who have been nominated by the Board of Mining examinations."
    We are anxious to lift the appointment of inspectors out of the region of doubt and suspicion, so that they will give satisfaction to all those engaged in the coal trade. I do not think there can be any doubt but that the old system was unsatisfactory, and I think that social and political influence had a great deal to do with the appointments made. That is not a good feeling to get abroad in regard to these appointments. We wish to see these appointments open to the best men, whether they be the sons of working miners or not, and we want to see the most competent persons appointed to these important positions. I think the most competent body to nominate the inspectors is the Board of Mining Examinations, which is created under the Bill. We are very hopeful, from what was said by the Under-Secretary during the Committee stage, that he will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. RICHARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This question was raised on the Committee stage, and I made a promise then which holds good now, and which I shall be glad to repeat again in a public way. We cannot put in these words, because these words detached from the Bill would make very little sense. This can be done by regulation issued by the Secretary of State. I made a promise, after a very full Debate, partly in order to meet the suggestion of my hon. Friend, that directly we established the general form of the mining examinations new regulations enforcing the system he desires would be issued. That is, that nomination in the first case shall be made, not as at present, by a Committee of the Home Office, but by the Board of Mining Examinations, which itself includes representatives of the managers, the coal-owners, and the men. That promise holds good, and I give a guarantee that it shall be put into force.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I raised this point at considerable length in the Committee, and I want to know now, is the declaration of the Under-Secretary quite clear and specific that no inspectors will be appointed unless they are recommended by the Board of Examinations? The point is

    1301
    this. Is a man to be appointed through the Board of Examinations, or is the Home Office to have the right to take a man that may have got a second or third-class certificate thirty years ago and appoint him? What I object to is that inspectors are appointed by the Home Office without acknowledge or qualification.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: What the hon. Gentleman objects to is this. Various names were sent in to the Home Office of those considered competent to sit for examination. These were chosen by a small Committee of the Home Office. The Home Office itself wishes very strongly, and the wish was expressed by all parties in the Committee, that that somewhat invidious work of selecting those suited to examination should be done by the Board of Mining Examinations. The method of procedure we propose to adopt is that when inspectors are going to be appointed the names will be sent in not to us, but to the Board of Mining Examinations, and that body will choose the men.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is quite satisfactory.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am well satisfied also with the explanation, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Powers and Duties of Inspectors.

    CLAUSE 98.—(Powers of Inspectors.)
    (1) An inspector under this Act shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:

    (i.) to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act relating to matters above ground or below ground are complied with in the case of any mine:

    (ii.) to enter, inspect, and examine any mine, and every part thereof, at all reasonable times by day and night, but so as not to impede or obstruct the working of the mine:

    (iii.) to examine into and make inquiry respecting the state and condition of any mine, or any part thereof, and the ventilation of the mine, and the sufficiency of the regulations for the time being in force in the mine, and all matters and things connected with or relating to the safety of the persons employed in or about the mine or any mine contiguous there-to,
    1302
    or the care and treatment of the horses and other animals used in the mine, and may take with him for the last-mentioned purpose a duly qualified veterinary surgeon:

    (iv.) to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect.

    (2) The owner of every mine, his agents and servants, shall furnish the means required by an inspector as necessary for an entry, inspection, examination, inquiry or the exercise of his powers under this Act in relation to that mine.
    (3) If any person wilfully delays an inspector in the exercise of any power under this Section, or fails to comply with the requisition of an inspector in pursuance of this Act, or to produce any certificate or document which he is required by or in pursuance of this Act to produce, that person shall be deemed to obstruct an inspector in the execution of his duties under this Act.
    (4) Every person who obstructs any inspector in the execution of his duty under this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move in Subsection (1), paragraph 3, after the word "may" ["and may take with him"], to insert the words, "and in all cases where a complaint from a responsible source as to their physical condition shall."
    The object of this Amendment is to insert these words to strengthen the Clause. Unless such words are put in the inspector cannot take effective action. If the House will turn to the Report they will find in paragraph 10 of the Appendix, these words,
    "In addition to this, periodic inspection should be made at least once in every six months of every horse in every mine where there are more than twenty horses by duly qualified inspectors."
    The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I content myself by moving it and expressing the hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
    Captain JESSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment, especially as I think it will be agreed that upon this point we met most of the demands in Committee. This is a case where discretion should be left to the

    1303
    managing inspector under the instructions of the Secretary of State. It would be a very great mistake to lay down an obligatory rule that in all cases where complaint is made from a responsible source that he should take down a veterinary surgeon. There may be many complaints where there is no necessity to take down a veterinary surgeon at all. I think the point of the hon. Baronet is fully met in the Clause as it stands.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I will not press the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember my kindness later on.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (4), after the word "who," ["every person who obstructs any inspector"], to insert the word "wilfully." The object of this Amendment is merely to make this Sub-section agree with Subsection (3), which says "if any person wilfully delays an inspector." This Subsection will then read "any person who wilfully obstructs an inspector." I think the word "wilfully," in Sub-section (4), was accidentally omitted.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think this Amendment is moved under a misapprehension. The insertion of the word "wilfully" in Sub-section (4) would have no meaning at all. In Sub-section (3) it is provided that "if any person wilfully delays an inspector" that person shall be deemed to obstruct an inspector. Then, in Sub-section (4), you give the penalty. You must have a wilful delay in order to get obstruction and Sub-section (4) provides the penalty for obstruction.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 99.—(Notice by Inspector of Causes of Danger not expressly provided against.)
    (1) If in any respect (which is not provided against by any express provision of this Act, or by any regulation), any inspector finds any mine, or any part thereof, or any matter, thing, or practice in or connected with any mine, or with the control, management, or direction thereof by the owner, agent, or manager to be dangerous or defective, so as in his opinion to threaten or tend to the bodily injury of any person, he may give notice in writing
    1304
    thereof to the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, and shall state in the notice the particulars in which he considers the mine or any part thereof, or any matter, thing or practice, to be dangerous or defective, and require the same to be remedied or, if the same cannot be remedied, require the men to be withdrawn from the mine or part; and unless the same be forthwith remedied or the men withdrawn he shall also report the same to the Secretary of State.
    (2) If the owner, agent, or manager of the mine objects to remedy the matter complained of in the notice or to withdraw the men he may, within seven days after receipt of the notice, send his objection in writing, stating the grounds thereof, to the Secretary of State; and thereupon the matter shall be determined in manner provided by this Act for determining disputes.
    (3) If the owner, agent, or manager fails, when no objection is sent as aforesaid, to comply with the requisition of the notice within seven days after the expiration of the time for objection, or when there has been a reference to a referee to comply with the award within the time fixed by the award, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and the notice and award shall respectively be deemed to be written notice of the offence:
    Provided that the Court, if satisfied that the owner, agent, or manager has taken active measures for complying with the notice or award, but has not, with reasonable diligence, been able to complete the works, may adjourn any proceedings taken before them for punishing the offence, and, if the works are completed within a reasonable time, no penalty shall be inflicted.
    (4) No person shall be precluded by any agreement from doing, or be liable to any injunction, damages, penalty, or forfeiture in respect of such acts as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of this Section.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "seven" ["within seven days after receipt of the notice"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten." The object of the Amendment is to restore the period mentioned in the Act of 1887, which was ten days instead of seven.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member did not press this Amendment in Committee, and I hope he will not press it now. There have been cases where the danger appeared to be so imminent that it required immediate decision, or at least decision within seven days. Surely seven days are enough for any manager to make up his mind.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 102.—(Prosecutions of Owners, Agents, Managers, etc.)
    (1) Where proceedings are taken under this Act against the owner or agent of a mine in respect of an offence under this Act for which the owner, agent, or manager or each of them is liable under this Act, the owner or agent shall not be liable to any penalty if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court—

    (a) that he was not in the habit of taking, and did not in respect of the matters in question take any part in the management of the mine; and

    (b) that he had made all the financial and other provision necessary to enable the manager to carry out his duties.

    (2) Save as above provided, it shall not be a defence in any proceedings brought against the owner or agent of a mine under this Act in respect of such an offence as aforesaid that a manager of the mine has been appointed in accordance with this Act.
    (3) Nothing in this Act shall render the owner, agent, or manager of a mine liable to a penalty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, if he proves that the contravention or non-compliance was due to causes over which he had no control and against the happening of which it was impracticable for him to make provision.
    (4) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing proceedings being instituted, in the first instance, against the manager for any offence for which the manager of the mine is liable under this Act.
    (5) No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, manager, or under-manager of a mine for any offence under this Act, not committed personally by such owner, agent, manager, or under-manager, which can be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction, except
    1306
    by an inspector or with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State; and in the case of any offence of which the owner, agent, manager, or under-manager of a mine is not guilty if he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent the commission thereof, an inspector shall not institute any prosecution against such owner, agent, manager, or under-manager, if satisfied that he had taken such reasonable means as aforesaid.
    (6) A prosecution shall not be instituted against a coroner for any offence under this Act except with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.
    (7) If a boy or girl was employed on the representation of his or her parent or guardian that he or she was of an age at which his or her employment would not be in contravention of this Act, and under the belief in good faith that he or she was of that age, or if a person has been employed in any capacity or in any manner on his representation that he fulfilled the conditions as to age, experience, and otherwise necessary for such employment, and under the belief in good faith that such representation was true, the owner, agent, or manager of the mine and employer shall be exempted from any penalty, and the parent or guardian or the person making such representation, as the case may be, shall in respect of the misrepresentation, be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    (8) The owner of a mine shall not be liable to an action for damages as for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act if, under the provisions of this Act, he is not liable to any penalty in respect of that contravention or non-compliance.
    Amendment made: After Sub-section (b), add the following Sub-section,
    (c) that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent, or connivance.—[Mr. Masterman.]
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg leave to move the omission of Sub-section (8).
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): My hon. Friend has moved to omit Sub-section (8), and I think it will be convenient if I explain at this stage what that Sub-section is intended to effect, and why it is we feel that some such provision should exist in this Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see that it is proposed slightly to vary

    1307
    the words. Let me first say what the point is. The previous law, when it laid down certain statutory duties, introduced the list of those duties by words saying that certain rules should be observed "so far as is reasonably practicable." That was the standard of duty laid down by the Act of 1877. The House is probably aware that, in addition to proceedings being taken before a magistrate for penalties for a breach of a Statute, it is sometimes possible to make a claim, on behalf of the man injured or on behalf of the relatives if the man is killed, in the Common Law Courts for a breach of statutory duty. But that is not the same thing as a claim for negligence, and it simply means that in certain circumstances you may recover damages by proving them and showing that the employers have failed to observe the statutory duty and the man has suffered damages in consequence.
    The House will see that if we express the duty, not as a duty to be carried out under these rules, such as is reasonably practicable, but as an absolute duty, this claim for damages might be very greatly enlarged. Take a particular instance. One of the first rules under the old law is as to ventilation of a mine, and as long as it is shown that the defendant has not only failed to ventilate a mine, but failed so far as is reasonably practicable, it is quite right he should be held responsible for damages which ensue to persons working in the mine. If you say that his liability is an absolute liability, and that the duty which you put upon him is an absolute liability, it is plain that we must be careful to limit his responsibility to such breaches if he has not done what is reasonably practicable. I say to the hon-Member who moved this Amendment the object we have in view is to secure in respect of this matter that the law shall remain exactly as it is. We want to secure that the law shall not be enlarged neither in the interests of the plaintiffs nor limited in the interests of the defendants by the slightest fraction. The amended words we are proposing to the best of my belief secured that result, whereas if we omitted this Sub-section the result would be an entirely new liability, which would be thrown upon the owners. I think my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, as well as other hon. Members, do not really desire to see any new liability of this kind imposed by this Bill. May I call attention to the way in which it is proposed this Clause should
    1308
    run. The Order Paper contains two Amendments, but we do not propose to move the first Amendment, which proposes to insert the words "by him." With our Amendment the Sub-section will read,
    (8) The owner of a mine shall not be liable to an action for damages as for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act, if it is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach.
    I can assure the House, after studying this point carefully, that as regards actions for breach of statutory duties, the only thing that remains is the proposal on the Paper. My hon. Friend has put on the Paper a proposal to insert after the word "breach" the words "by him." I desire, to be perfectly frank about this point, and I wish to say that I do not think it makes the slightest difference to the extent of the liability whether those words are in or not. The only circumstances in which an owner could be responsible for damages would be if you could show that there had been a breach of duty for which he was in some way responsible. That is the meaning of a breach of duty by him. It has been pointed out to me, not only from one side of the House, because it has been brought to my notice by those who have studied this question from the owner's point of view as well as that of the miners, that the insertion of those words is open to misunderstanding.
    One contention is that the words would strengthen the Clause against the interests of the owners, and another view is that it would strengthen it in his favour, and we do not desire to do either. For this reason I do not propose to move the insertion of the words quoted by him. I do propose, however, to move the other words, which, I believe, will exactly place the law in the position in which it was before. I think that is plain to the House, and I hope my hon. Friend, in view of what I have said, and in view of the great care which has been taken with this subject, will agree that the proper course is not to enlarge the common law liability of the owners by throwing upon them a responsibility to pay damages, although everything that is reasonably practicable has been done. That would be throwing an entirely new liability upon him, and that is not our object. I am satisfied that we are not cutting down his liability, and upon that understanding I

    1309
    hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Solicitor-General, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (8), leave out the words "under the provisions of this Act, he is not liable to any penalties in respect of that contravention or non-compliance," and insert insert instead thereof the words, "It is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach."—[Mr. Masterman.]

    CLAUSE 108.—(Prohibition of Use of Dangerous Machinery.)
    A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may on complaint by an inspector, and on being satisfied that any part of the machinery or plant used in a mine (including a steam boiler used for generating steam) is in such a condition or so placed that it cannot be used without danger to life or limb, prohibit its use, or, if it is capable of repair or alteration, prohibit its use until it is duly repaired or altered.
    Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause. I do so because I do not think it is applicable to the provisions of a Mines Bill, and I suggest that Clause 99 gives every power that is required in this respect. This Clause practically means that if the inspector takes one view and the owner takes another, the owner will be compelled to appear before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It seems to mc that this will mean the stopping of a colliery entirely, whereas everything that is required in this respect is provided for in Clause 99.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This Clause has been put in to meet a real grievance which our inspectors have found in the actual working of the Act. Clause 99 gives rather elaborate and complicated machinery for dealing with these matters, which ultimately go to a referee if there is considered to be any danger in the working of any apparatus in connection with the working of a mine. The inspectors have informed us that they have come across cases where the provisions contained in Clause 99 would take too
    1310
    long to put into force to secure the safety of the mines. We have introduced this Clause to give power to the inspectors to take immediate action under the Factory Acts. A case was brought to our notice not long ago in which a boiler had been reported by an insurance company to be unsafe, and they recommended that the owners should discontinue using it. The mine inspector on his next visit found that boiler still in use, and in that case he could put into operation this Clause which allows an appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. This Clause is not intended for ordinary matters of procedure, but only where there is some obvious danger for which the inspectors dare not take the responsibility.
    Sir C. CORY: Clause 99 allows seven days, and surely that is sufficient.
    Amendment negatived.

Miscellaneous.

  CLAUSE 109.—(Protection of Animals in Mines.)
  (1) The regulations contained in the Third Schedule to this Act (which relate to the care and treatment of horses and other animals in mines) shall be observed in every mine.
  (2) Any person who acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of those regulations shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and in the event of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of those regulations by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager of the mine shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable means, by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those regulations, to prevent that contravention or non-compliance.
  (3) The Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons to be special inspectors for the purpose of examining into the care and treatment of the horses and other animals used in mines, and of enforcing the provisions of this Act relating to horses and other animals, and any person appointed as a special inspector under this provision shall so far as necessary for the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties as such inpector have the same powers as are given to and be subject to the same obligations and restrictions as inspectors of mines under the foregoing provisions of this Act.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) to leave out the word

  1311
  "may" ["(3) the Secretary of State may appoint"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall." There will be a consequential Amendment to leave out the word "any," so that the Clause will read, "The Secretary of State shall appoint fit persons to be special inspectors." I look upon this as an extremely important Amendment, but the necessity of it will be apparent to anyone who reads this Subsection. If the word "may" be left in it will be entirely at the option of the Secretary of State to appoint special inspectors. You might have a Secretary of State who considered that it was unnecessary to appoint these inspectors to examine the ponies, and he might take advantage of the fact that the word in the Act is "may," and not appoint them. On the other hand, the hon. Member might be succeeded by an Under-Secretary who might think it was necessary to appoint these inspectors. I believe the whole House agrees that the inspectors should be appointed to see that the ponies in the mine are treated in a proper manner, and if we are going to do that we had better do it in a workmanlike way and make the Clause read that these inspectors shall be appointed. Possibly the Under-Secretary may say there are other Clauses giving power to the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors where the word "may" has been left in, and I have often heard gentlemen learned in the Law argue that in Acts of Parliament "may" means "shall." I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am always in favour of making an Act of Parliament as clear as possible, and therefore I think it is evident "may" should be left out and "shall" should be put in. It is possible, unless "shall" is put in, the Secretary of State may leave private societies to do work which should be done by the State. The Royal Commission on that point said,
  "We are not in favour of relying on secretaries or officers of private societies to enter mines.…The right of entry should be conferred on men who are responsible to and who are paid by the State."
  I think it is most important that should be done. The Under-Secretary told me just now he had met my views during the Committee stage. I am grateful to him for it, but I want him to make the Bill as perfect as possible.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Baronet has forgotten the arrangement made in the
  1312
  Committee. If he intends that arrangement to be abandoned, I do not quite see how his Motion is in order on the Report stage, because we shall thereby be laying a charge on the Exchequer which has not been authorised in Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause says the Secretary of State "may" appoint, and therefore the power of the Secretary of State to charge the estimates is given. It makes not the slightest difference upon that point whether "may" or "shall" is inserted. The Bill gives power to appoint inspectors. They may be inspectors of horses or anything else, and of necessity it means that money is to be paid for the salaries of the inspectors. There is no necessity for a Motion in Committee to give power to raise the money; that has already been done.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to take that as a special point of Order, but, if we intended to pay Government inspectors, we should have to put in words as in another Clause, "to be paid for by the Treasury." This Clause is the result of a compromise and an agreement between ourselves and gentlemen who have authority to speak for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Although I do not think these inspectors were recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, and although considerable objection was taken in some quarters to them, we came to a general agreement with the mine-owners, as well as with the miners' representatives and the gentleman whom my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) represents, that we would establish tentatively this system as immediately to be put in operation. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would supply us with the names of fit persons who had had some experience of underground work and also of the work of the prevention of cruelty to animals, the Secretary of State would appoint them as being fit persons under this Act, and the society would undertake their payment. I have another communication from the hon. Member, in which he says they feel themselves competent, if this Clause goes through, to begin with, to provide one inspector for each of the divisions. There are six divisions into which the county is divided at present. I think that system is worth a substantial trial. We had no provision, nor did the Committee give us provision, for paying special animal inspectors ourselves, nor have we a special animal department

  1313
  which would do the work as well as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I thought it was agreed by the hon. Baronet, as well as by everyone in the Committee, that that system should be established, and that system I would still suggest should be maintained in the Bill.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: We have listened with some interest to what the Under-Secretary has said, but I have heard with much surprise that he finds himself unable to accept the Amendment.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Baronet in order in moving this Amendment at all, seeing it constitutes a new charge on the Exchequer?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I heard what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said, but I did not consider the difference between the words "may" and "shall" constituted a new charge on the Exchequer.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I hope it is possible this point may be considered without any technical narrowing down of the important issues that ought to be raised. I think it is safe to say the House as a whole are prepared to view the suggestion of the hon. Baronet with consideration and with sympathy. In effect, it means that in future the Home Office shall appoint inspectors to examine these ponies in the mines. It is, as the Bill stands at present, in the power of the Home Secretary to refuse to appoint these inspectors. That is the whole issue. I do not attach undue importance to what the Under-Secretary has said about an arrangement upstairs. The House must itself keep control over these matters. Every hon. Member cannot be in the Commitee upstairs, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I know nothing of any arrangement, and I would be no party to any arrangement made upstairs or anywhere else which would deny the right of the Home Office to appoint inspectors in regard to this matter. We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) for his splendid work in connection with this matter. Whatever is in this Bill is largely, if not entirely, due to his efforts, and I am bound to say, if he said everything in this Bill met every demand which he thought might legitimately be put forward, that would have very great weight with me in regard to any action I should take; but, as I understand the hon. Member and many friends outside who have
  1314
  taken an interest in this matter, they are for compulsory State inspectors. That, I understand, is what he desired and wished for, and that is the position I am prepared to support, and nothing else. Is it not rather an undignified position for the Home Office to take up to say a society outside the House, dependent upon voluntary contributions, with no connection whatever with any State Department, shall, as long as the public are kind enough to subscribe sufficient money, provide inspectors and the Home Office will be good enough to appoint them? I say that is a most humiliating position in a great matter of this kind. The society has done splendid service, and will do so in the future. I hope the Home Office will avail itself of the assistance and co-operation it offers. But this question is important enough to be a State matter. We are not talking false sentimentalism in regard to this matter. It is not a question of mine-owners or mine managers; it is a larger matter. It is not disputed that, in certain cases, there have been cases of cruelty to horses in the mine. Above ground we have our inspectors, and anyone walking along the street can call the attention of the inspector and thus check cruel treatment. It is, however, quite different underground. I have had in my possession photographs which leave no doubt that in some mines these cruelties go on and the ponies have been found in a state simply scandalous.
  I make an appeal to the Home Secretary in this matter. We are anxious to do what is best for the horses and ponies in the mines. This is a case in which the State should not stick at the question of the expenditure of a few thousands of pounds. We have had an assurance that everything that can be done shall be done in the interest of these animals. But that is not enough. If it is a question of finance, and that is a question which is always present, it seems to me it is an infinitesimal point with regard to an important measure of this kind. Surely the Government will not say that they cannot find the money for this purpose, and that they are merely going to kindly consider the suggestions made by a voluntary association outside. That is not enough. We want State appointments, and I believe that mine managers will have no objection to them. Good mine managers are not afraid of the horses being inspected. I have seen a letter from a veterinary surgeon employed by a very large company which leaves no doubt in my mind

  1315
  that there is grave cause of complaint in regard to this matter. This is not a party question, and I do ask the Home Secretary to see if he cannot go a little further in this matter and appoint inspectors; if he will do that it will give very great satisfaction to a large section of the public outside this House.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has especially referred to me, and I should therefore like to say a few words upon this question. I look upon this Clause, empowering the Secretary of State to appoint special inspectors for animals, as one of the most, if not the most, important part of the Bill. It is the most important so far as the animals are concerned. There have been rules for a long time under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, but it is one thing to have rules and quite another thing to have them enforced. We are going to have a very good code of rules, but it appears to some of us that, unless we can secure the appointment of independent men to be special inspectors of these animals in the mines, we have no guarantee or security whatever that the rules will be put in force. We know perfectly well there are a great many mines in which the animals are well treated, but we also know that there are many—and this is borne out by the Report of His Majesty's inspectors—where cases of cruelty do occur, and for every case brought to light there are twenty which have not been discovered. We think this Clause with regard to the inspection of animals most important.
  I should like to say a word as to the position of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in this matter. It has always held that the Government should appoint and pay these special inspectors, but if the Government will not do so, it is prepared to do the next best thing. The society has gone as far as this: it will submit the names of men to the Government perfectly well qualified to carry out these duties. Indeed, these men are now doing this work in many places, and there are many mine-owners who allow these inspectors to go into the mines. If the Government do not appoint their own inspectors the society is prepared to submit the names of men to do the work, and at the same time the society will do its best in the matter of finance: it will endeavour to see that the men are properly financed. I do not think it is necessary that the men should be duly
  1316
  qualified veterinary surgeons. There are many men who are very well qualified to act as special inspectors of these animals. I do not want to violate any agreement, but if the Home Secretary refuses to accept the word "shall" instead of "may," I cannot understand it. One would have thought that under the circumstances he could accept the word "shall."
  Mr. McKENNA: I should very much like to say a few words as to how the case actually stands. If the Bill passes in its present form it will give me power to appoint special inspectors. I shall act on that power. But if the Bill is altered so as to make it mandatory it is obvious I must first have the inspectors, and here, of course, a question of order comes in. So far as the word "may" goes I am already provided, through the kindness of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with a promise that I shall have inspectors placed at my disposal, and those inspectors I shall appoint. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who will pay them?"] The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The society will provide inspectors whom we shall employ. We have to deal with the Bill as it stands now. We have to remember that we are on the Report stage, and if this mandatory injunction is laid on the Home Office we shall have to appoint inspectors for the payment of whom there is no provision. The Government itself cannot do that at this stage.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that in other parts of the Bill the Home Secretary is taking power to appoint inspectors? This is exactly the same.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have looked into that point. These special inspectors cannot be included among the inspectors to be appointed under Clause 97. Consequently it would be imposing a fresh charge upon the Exchequer if it were laid down as a mandatory command to appoint inspectors.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at Clause 112. It says:—
  The salary and remuneration of inspectors and examiners under this Act and all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act, to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

  1317
  I submit that that gives full power. It does not specify inspectors, but says "inspectors." Surely that Clause would authorise the payment of inspectors, and all you have to do is to put in the word "shall" instead of "may."
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Baronet is a great authority on these points, but I am advised that the inspectors referred to, and the expenses referred to in Clause 112 would not cover the case of special inspectors. The Home Office takes power to appoint under this Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Leave out the word "special."
  Mr. McKENNA: That would impose a new charge. There is no possibility, by any alteration, by the drafting of the Clause, of bringing in a new body of men, because it would cause a charge to fall upon the Exchequer.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Let the Bill say that it can be done.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no power whatever to pledge the Government to the charge.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is there no power to pay inspectors for this purpose under the Clause as drafted?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I could not pay them except under the authority of an Act of Parliament. I cannot introduce this proposal into the Bill at this stage. The Bill would have to be recommitted for the purpose of empowering me to pay these special inspectors. Under the arrangement that has been made with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, if, as they will, they place at our disposal the services of these inspectors, we shall appoint them. In any case, where power of this kind is given to a Government it is always exercised as a matter of course, unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the reports come to you?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, to the society and to me. Through the intervention of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Greenwood) and the the society, we are able to give the assurance to the House that without involving a new charge on the Exchequer, an inspector will be appointed immediately in each district. I undertake, on behalf of the Home Office, that I shall appoint them,
  1318
  but the moment it is laid upon me as a mandate that I must appoint them, then I submit that the proposal is out of order, and I submit to you, Sir, that it could not be inserted in the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the wording of Clause 112. It says,
  The salary and remuneration of inspectors and examiners under this Act
  Then follows the words to which I direct your special attention, and all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act, to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  I submit that the larger words "all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act," if taken with a previous Clause, making it mandatory on the Home Secretary to appoint these special inspectors, would cover the case of any such special inspectors.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the point of Order, the point was put to me at the outset of this discussion whether the Amendment to insert "shall" instead of "may" involved a new charge. I cannot hold that it does, because these inspectors may be appointed without salary. They may be officers of the organisation or other inspectors without additional pay. Therefore I cannot take that point as between "may" and "shall." The other point as to whether Clause 97 and Clause 112 would cover the payment of inspectors such as are engaged under this Clause, is one on which I confess I do not feel at liberty to give a definite answer, because this Clause seems to anticipate special inspectors who are not inspectors of mines. Clause 97 applies to inspectors of mines, and it may be held that Clause 112 refers back to Clause 97. That is a matter of interpretation on which I must leave the House to exercise its own judgment.
  Mr. McKENNA: On a point of Order. Under your ruling is it not a fact that if the word "shall" be here inserted there would be no power to appoint inspectors, except inspectors without salary.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point we need decide now. That is a point which, as I have just explained, is one of interpretation in regard to these various Clauses.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not referring to Clause 112, but I am referring to the distinction you drew between "may" and "shall," namely, that the insertion of the word "shall" might not impose a charge upon the Exchequer. If it may impose a charge on the Exchequer I submit to you that it is out of order. It is only on the assumption that it does not impose a charge on the Exchequer—an assumption which can only be justified by the inspectors receiving no salary—that the Amendment would be in order. I submit that if it might impose a charge on the Exchequer it is out of order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think so far the right hon. Gentleman is correct. We may assume that the alteration of the word "may" into "shall" will not involve a charge. The effect upon the merits is one for argument in the House and not for the Chair.
  Sir C. CORY: As a colliery owner I should like to join in the appeal made by hon. Members to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. During all the years I have been going underground in South Wales I cannot say that I have seen any instance of horses which have been badly treated, but I believe it is quite possible that such instances might occur. I am sure, as a lover of horses, I shall be only too glad that such instances should be brought to light by inspectors properly appointed. I would far rather have inspectors appointed by the Home Office than by any association. I do not wish to say anything that is offensive to an association which I know has done very good work, but we do not want them to be manufacturing cases. We only want genuine cases brought to light, and we are much more likely to have that if the inspectors are appointed by the Government than if they are appointed by private associations supported by voluntary subscriptions. I trust my right hon. Friend will agree to this.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I heard the speech of the Under-Secretary of State to-night with the utmost surprise, and with a very great deal of regret, because I, in common with every one else who came to read Clause 109 for the first time, was under the impression that the inspectors were to be appointed and paid by the State, and were to be responsible to the State, and I never doubted for a moment that that was going to be done. The only question raised in my mind was as to the word "may" or
  1320
  "shall," and I assumed that the word "may" was taken from Clause 97, where it says that the Home Secretary may appoint inspectors for the ordinary purposes of mines, and I took that to mean "shall." But now we are told that we are not going to have independent inspectors appointed by the State, but that they are to be nominated and paid by a private society, and that is a position which is entirely degrading to the State, which ignores the responsibility of the State, and which is totally unsuitable to meet the necessity of these cases. I desire to say nothing against the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have subscribed to it for twenty years or more, and I have no doubt they are as good as any private society can be, but this is not a matter which ought to be left to a private society. Some considerable time ago the attention of the then Home Secretary was called to the existence of alleged ill-treatment of ponies in mines. There was a certain amount of primâ facie evidence given in favour of that view, and consequently he directed that evidence should be taken by the then sitting Commissioners on this very question of the ill-treatment of ponies, and a large amount of evidence was taken, on which the Commissioners made a Report. I do not for a moment suggest that there is anything like wholesale cruelty to ponies in these mines, but undoubtedly the result of the evidence is that there are cases in mines where ponies have been ill-treated owing largely, I believe, to neglect, and, in order to meet that, that certain regulations should be introduced in this Bill. I have to thank the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for having introduced valuable regulations in order to prevent cases of ill-treatment, and for having made some provision for inspection. I do not suppose any Member would deny that there is not the slightest use in having regulations unless you have responsible persons to inspect. Regulations without inspection by competent and independent persons are absolutely waste paper. A Clause was introduced into the Bill which seems fair on the face of it. It says,
  "The Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons to be special inspectors for the purpose of examining into the care and treatment of the horses."
  We are told now that there was some compromise upstairs of which I know nothing, that these were not to be State

  1321
  inspectors at all, but nominated and paid for by this private society.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The matter has been arranged. What I propose is that the Amendment shall be accepted by the Home Secretary, and if he finds that he has not got enough to pay for it next year he will introduce legislation which will give him the power to find the money and pay the inspectors. I believe that will be accepted and it will meet the views of every one.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If that is the intention of the Home Secretary I think it is quite satisfactory. I understand these will be State inspectors paid by State money and responsible to the State.
  Mr. BRACE: I am in entire sympathy with the project, but I hope it is not going to be done at the expense of putting on workman inspectors to protect the lives and limbs of the men.
  Colonel HICKMAN: Are we to understand that the Secretary of State is going to take power next Session, if he has not got it already, to appoint inspectors who will be Government inspectors, paid by the Government, and that we shall not as colliery owners and managers have to do with any inspectors who are appointed under the ægis of the Government, but nominated by a private society and paid by them?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I certainly thought the arrangement which was come to in Committee had been come to by general agreement. Evidently the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was under a misapprehension, and therefore I do not in the least press that. I thought I was defending a general agreement, but I agree that the situation has changed. The difficulty that we had as to the point of order was a real difficulty and not an attempt to burke discussion, and even now I am advised we have not the power under the Financial Resolution. On the other hand, it is very evident from the Debate here that everyone is agreed that they will prefer Government inspection to inspection by a private society. Therefore, with the best will in the world, the hon. Member (Mr. G. Greenwood) will exonerate us from the agreement we came to with the societies offering this as an alternative. What we propose is that if we find on consideration that we can appoint Government inspectors under the financial provisions which have been passed, we will do so. If not, my right hon. Friend, in consultation with
  1322
  the Treasury, will see whether it is possible, perhaps on the Estimates, perhaps on the Appropriation Bill, so long as the hon. Baronet will agree, unlike his usual method, to facilitate the expenditure of public money as much as possible. One other promise I certainly made, that under no circumstances would the appointment of these special inspectors make any difference to the appointment of working men inspectors for the general safety of the mines.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: May I say that this question is not a question of exonerating the Under-Secretary from any agreement? On the contrary, we are most grateful to him for having accepted the position we have put forward from the first. I take this opportunity of thanking him most sincerely for the way he has met us in the Committee and now.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: A Return has been asked for by the Opposition of the number of new officials to be appointed under this Bill. Will the new officials demanded by the Opposition be included in the Return?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "any" ["appoint any fit persons"].—[Sir F. Banbury.]
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "fit persons" [" fit persons to be special inspectors"], and to insert instead thereof the words "duly qualified veterinary surgeons."
  We have heard a great deal this evening on both sides of the House of the objections to appointing officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have not a word to say against that society. In fact, it is one I have always supported. Now that the Government are going to pay the inspectors, I cannot see any reason why they should depart from the conditions recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Report says:—
  "Periodical inspection should be made once at least in every six months of every horse in every mine where there are more than twenty horses by duly qualified veterinary surgeons."
  I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the College of Veterinary Surgeons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Well, naturally they must have somebody to represent them in this House. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman opposite should object to their looking after their own interests. He

  1323
  represents his interests here. The veterinary surgeons think that they are the proper persons to undertake this task.
  Mr. FALLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. The Government will naturally appoint the fittest persons to do the work, and in some cases they will undoubtedly be veterinary surgeons, but not necessarily so. I believe my hon. Friend will support me in saying that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals very frequently do not employ veterinary surgeons for this class of work. In this case it is unnecessary to tie the hands of the Government.
  9.0 P.M.
  Captain JESSEL: I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will meet this case later on by some provision in the Schedule. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "provision" ["special inspector under this provision shall"], to insert the words "shall at intervals of not more than three months report the result of his examinations to the inspector of the division and."
  It seems to me that this is rather important, becauce when you have got a Government inspector it is desirable that the result of his examination should be reported and laid before the inspector of the division, with the view to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. I do not know whether there is any objection to inserting these words. It seems to me that they are really necessary in order to make the inspection effectual, and to enable the inspector of the division to know what the special inspector is doing.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I can explain to the hon. and learned Member how this Amendment is unnecessary. The special inspectors will have to report in the ordinary course of their duty to the inspectors of mines. We shall not wait three months for their report. Special inspectors, managers, or other persons, who undertake any inspection under the Act have to report after each inspection.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word
  1324
  "powers" ["the same powers as are given"], to insert the words "and protection."
  We want to make it quite clear that the inspectors shall have the same protection in regard to this Clause as other inspectors have under the Mines Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the hon. Member reflects for a moment he will see that this Amendment is no longer needed. When he put the Amendment on the Paper he was imagining the case of an inspector employed by the society. The inspectors are to be Government inspectors, and they will have the protection which other Government inspectors have.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add,
  (4) A periodical inspection shall be made once at least in every three months of every horse in every mine by one of the special inspectors mentioned in this Section and, in addition to all other powers and duties conferred on or imposed by this Act on such special inspectors, each special inspector shall on the occasion of each visit he pays to a mine examine the book kept by the horse-keepers in pursuance of the Third Schedule to this Act and sign the same, and shall report to the manager any irregularities or breaches of this Act in so far as they affect the care and treatment of horses, and shall make an entry of these in the aforesaid book.
  I need not dwell on the absolute necessity for inspection. The Sub-section which I propose merely places on the special inspector the duty of making periodical inspections. Apart from this proposed Sub-section, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to make it incumbent on every special inspector to make an inspection periodically. He can make inspections, but what I want is to impose upon him the duty of making periodical inspections. My proposal is founded on the third report of the Royal Commission on Mines, page 8, Section 10. What they recommend is that a periodic inspection should be made once at least every six months—I propose three, but do not lay stress on the exact period—of every horse in every mine by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, who shall examine the horses, and also the book kept by the horse-keepers and sign the same on each occasion on which he visits the mine, and who also shall be required

  1325
  to report to the management any irregularities or any breaches of the Act that come under his notice, and make an entry of it in the aforesaid book.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: We have got that.
  Mr. BUTCHER: There is nothing to that effect in the Bill as it stands. In the case of the ordinary inspectors, who are appointed by the Secretary of State, we know that it has long been the practice in cases concerning the safety of men to make periodic visits and inspections, but now, when we are beginning an entirely new kind of inspection, the inspection of animals, I submit that it is most important that some periodic inspection should be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. So far from hampering the operation of the Act this Amendment will assist it and will ensure that this inspection, which is so essential, will be carried out. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. If he does not care to adopt three months I am willing to accept six months, and if he thinks the terms of the Motion too stringent it is perfectly easy to put in two or three words to say, "unless the Home Secretary otherwise orders." But it is absolutely clear that something should be put in.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: This is a new proposal, but so were all the proposals dealing with the safety of men, and after thirty years' experience we have found it perfectly safe to leave questions of this kind to be settled by instructions of the Secretary of State. I quite agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Member that it is desirable that inspections should be made frequently, but the disadvantage of putting it in an Act of Parliament is that the moment you lay down something of the kind as a hard and fast rule other things which are not mentioned are supposed not to be necessary. I think that the hon. and learned Member may rely with confidence now that we shall have inspectors who will be Government servants, and those inspectors who will perform these duties will have nothing else to do except inspect, and it would be very inadvisable for Parliament to take upon itself a function which has been performed by the Secretary of State for thirty years.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that there will be proper periodic inspection
  1326
  in the case of these special inspectors, I will accept his assurance, and withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 116.—(Manner of Sealing Disputes.)
  Any matter which under this Act is to be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes shall be referred to such one of the panel of referees appointed under this Act as may be selected in manner provided by rules made for the purpose, and the decision of the referee shall be final:
  Provided that no such matter shall be so referred unless the party making the objection or refusing compliance has served notice on the other party within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and all objections not made within such time and in such manner shall be disregarded.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move to omit the words "as may be selected in manner provided by rules made for the purpose," and to insert instead thereof the words "failing agreement between the parties to the dispute as to the selection of a referee, may be selected by the reference committee hereinafter mentioned."
  My Amendment is to give the parties an opportunity of themselves selecting a referee without troubling the reference committee appointed under this Act to appoint a referee.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The plan which the hon. and learned Gentleman desires, and which certainly we wish to encourage, can be carried out under the Bill as it stands, with this one exception. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be a couple of referees, while under Clause 117 the mode in which a referee in any particular case is to be selected is to be left to a reference committee to make provision for. Everyone wants a settlement, as far as possible amicably, between the different parties, and it is perfectly possible, and no doubt will be done, where there is an amiable arrangement between the two parties to choose one of the panel. In that case they can do it without any difficulty. The only difference is we think that we ought to keep even in these settlements one of the panel of referees.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: After that explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 122.—(Interpretation.)
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
  "Mine" includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven, and all the shafts, levels, planes, works, tramways, and sidings, both below ground and above ground, in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine, but does not include any part of such premises on which any manufacturing process is carried on other than a process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals:
  "Owner," when used in relation to any mine, means any person or body corporate who is the immediate proprietor or lessee, or occupier of any mine, or of any part thereof, and in the case of a mine the business whereof is carried on by a liquidator or receiver includes such liquidator or receiver, but does not include a person or body corporate who merely receives a royalty, rent, or fine from a mine, or is merely the proprietor of a mine subject to any lease, grant, or licence for the working thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil, and not interested in the minerals of the mine; but any contractor for the working of any mine, or any part thereof, shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an owner, but so as not to exempt the owner from any liability:
  "Agent," when used in relation to any mine, means any person appointed or acting as the representative of the owner in respect of any mine, or of any part thereof, and as such superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act:
  "Prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State:
  "Boy" means a male under the age of sixteen years:
  "Girl" means a female under the age of sixteen years:
  "Woman" means a female of the age of sixteen years or upwards.
  Amendment made: After the word "minerals" ["for sale of minerals"], insert the words, "Main airway" means an airway commencing from, or terminating
  1328
  at, a shaft or outlet to the surface, or any airway from which a split is taken to ventilate any district of the mine, or into which a split so taken returns.—[Mr. Masterman.)

  CLAUSE 124.—(Saving for Existing Managers and Firemen.)
  Nothing in this Act shall—

  (a) prevent any person who is less than twenty-five years of age from acting as manager of a mine if he was lawfully so acting at the date of the passing of this Act; or

  (b) prevent any person acting as a fireman, examiner, or deputy, notwithstanding that he has not obtained a certificate of his ability to measure the quantity of air in an air current, if he was employed as a fireman, examiner, or deputy at the date of the passing of this Act;

  (c) prevent any owner or agent of a mine taking part in the technical management of the mine notwithstanding that he is not qualified under this Act to be a manager, if he was taking part in the technical management of the mine at the time of the passing of this Act.

  Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, to add to the Clause the following paragraph,
  (d) prevent any person acting as a surveyor, and preparing such plans as are required by this Act to be kept, notwithstanding that he does not possess the prescribed qualifications, if he was so employed at the date of the passing of this Act.
  I think that the omission of some provision to this effect is probably the result of an oversight, and that in the case of the persons referred to when they are still holding their position they should be allowed to continue to do so.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In the original Clause power is given to gentlemen like the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield to manage their own mines, and having given persons like the hon. Gentleman that power I think he will agree that we should give the same right to surveyors to carry on their work.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think my explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend. All we wish is that the surveyor who is acting in connection with these matters shall be

  1329
  a competent person. The only test we wish to apply is the test of competence and efficiency for this work, but there is no intention of making the surveyors pass an examination.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 125.—(Application to Scotland.)
  This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
  (1) "Attorney-General" means Lord Advocate; "information" means complaint; "summons" means citation; "High Court" means Court of Session; "injunction" means interdict; "county court" means sheriff court; "local education authority" means school board; "licensed premises as defined by the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910," means certificated premises within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903; "section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875," means section sixteen of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "receiver" includes a trustee in bankruptcy; "attending on subpœna before a court of reference" means attending on citation the High Court of Justiciary; "master of the Supreme Court" means auditor of the sheriff court; "county court judge" means sheriff:
  Amendments made: "Leave out the word "reference" ["reference means attending."], and insert instead thereof the word "record."
  After the word "Justiciary" ["Court of Justiciary "], insert the words "and any reference to a Court of Record shall be construed accordingly."
  At the end, insert "'London Gazette' means 'Edinburgh Gazette.'" — [Mr. Masterman.]

  CLAUSE 127.—(Repeal [1887, ss. 78, 79, 81, 83, and 84].)
  The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule:
  Provided that:—

  (a) Nothing in this repeal shall affect any order made by the Secretary of State or any certificate of competency or of service granted, or having effect as if granted, under
  1330
  any enactment repealed by this Act which is in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, but every such order and certificate shall have effects as if made or granted under this Act; and the register of holders of certificates, and the other registers which at the commencement of this Act are kept in pursuance of the Acts hereby repealed, shall be deemed to be registers or parts of registers kept in pursuance of this Act:

  (b) Nothing in this repeal shall affect any special rules which at the commencement of this Act are in force under any Act hereby repealed in any mine, but such rules shall, until regulations affecting the mine and revoking such rules have been made under this Act, have effect as if they were the regulations of the mine under this Act:

  (c) Nothing in this repeal shall affect the tenure of office of any inspector appointed under any enactment repealed by this Act:

  (d) Any document referring to any Act repealed by this Act, or to any enactment thereof, shall be construed to refer to this Act, and to the corresponding enactments there of:

  (e) This Act shall apply to offences under such of the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1908, as are unrepealed by this Act in like manner as if they were offences against this Act, and expressions in those provisions shall have the same meaning as in this Act.

  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in the first paragraph, after the word "the" ["the Schedule"], to insert the word "fourth."
  The word "fourth" has been omitted, and the Clause as it stands reads, "The enactments mentioned in the Schedule." It should be "the Fourth' Schedule."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 128.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Coal Mines Act, 1911.
  Amendment made: Insert "(2) This Act, shall, except as otherwise provided, come

  1331
  into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve." — [Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
  I should like to remind the Government that there is a good deal to be done before the Act can come into operation in the way of making new regulations and giving instructions to a large number of managers, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to splitting the difference with me and making the date the 1st of October.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I hope the hon. Gentleman will adhere to his proposal. He has already made concessions in regard to various Clauses.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am reluctant to delay the operation of the Bill longer than is necessary, and we would feel unhappy if any disaster happened between June and October.
  Amendment negatived.

SCHEDULES.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—FORM OF ANNUAL RETURN.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Part A ("return of persons ordinarily employed"), to leave out the word "Amount" [Amount of coal won, including small or slack].
  All that is required at present is the quantity, and surely that is all that is needed. It has nothing to do with safety.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Department is responsible for annual statistics, and it is desirable that they should be in every respect accurate. The Royal Commission in 1893 reported very strongly on this point, and recommended that there should be power to require exact statistics. There was a general Report of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies in 1905, and they stated that if the suggestion of the Departmental Committee that this kind of statistics should be prepared had been carried out, it would have greatly assisted their inquiries. Not long ago the Census Production Act was passed, and colliery proprietors have to make a return
  1332
  once in five years, and it means that the statistics furnished to the Board of Trade must be accurate.
  Sir C. CORY: Those statistics under the Schedule may not be accurate, because a colliery may be working at a loss.
  Mr. McKENNA: All we ask is that we shall be supplied with these statistics, and that they shall be accurate.
  Amendment negatived.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
  Part I.

    PROCEDURE FOR MAKING GENERAL REGULATIONS.
    (1) Before the Secretary of State makes an order he shall publish in such manner as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to make the order and of the place where copies of the draft order may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than thirty days) within which any objections made with respect to the draft order by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Secretary of State.
    (2) Every objection must be in writing and state—

    (a) the specific grounds of objection;

    (b) the omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

    (3) The Secretary of State shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to him to be affected which is sent to him within the required time, and he may, if he thinks fit, amend the draft order, and the foregoing provisons shall apply to the amended draft in like manner as they apply to the original draft.
    (4) If after the publication of the notice with respect to any such draft order (whether an original or amended draft), any general objection as hereinafter defined is made within the required time with respect to the draft and not withdrawn, the order shall not be made by the Secretary of State until that objection has been referred to such one of the panel of referees appointed under this Act as may be selected in manner provided by the rules made for the purpose.
    If on any such reference the referee considers that the draft order should be varied to meet the objection, he shall recommend any variation which he considers necessary or expedient, and effect shall be given to those recommendations in the order, if made.
    (5) The reference committee may appoint any person or persons possessing legal or special knowledge to act as assessor or assessors to the referee.
    (6) If the Secretary of State considers that any objection, though not a general objection, is of such a character that it is desirable to refer it to a referee, he may so refer it, and in that case the foregoing provisions shall apply as in the case of a general objection.
    (7) If any objection, though not a general objection, is made on behalf of the owners of mines of any particular class or mines in any separate area, and it is alleged in the objection that having regard to the special natural conditions or special methods of working in mines of that class or mines in that area the proposed regulations ought not to apply to those mines, the Secretary of State shall, unless he is of opinion that the objection is frivolous, refer it to a referee, and in that case the foregoing provisions shall apply as in the case of a general objection.
    (8) For the purposes of this Section a "general objection" means an objection made either by or on behalf of owners of mines employing not less than one-third of the total number of men employed at the mines affected by the proposed order, or, if the order contains different provisions for different classes of mines, of the total number of men employed in any such class of mines, or by or on behalf of not less than one-third of the total number of men so employed.
    The number of men employed shall be calculated in accordance with the returns for the last preceding year sent by owners of mines to the inspectors in pursuance with the provisions of this Act.

Part II.

  PROCEDURE IN CASE OF SPECIAL REGULATIONS SENT TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR APPROVAL.
  (1) Where any special regulations have been sent under this Act to the Secretary of State for approval he shall consider the regulations, and either approve or disapprove the same.
  Where the Secretary of State disapproves the special regulations, no further action shall be taken in the matter.
  Before the Secretary of State approves the special regulations there shall be published, in such manner as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to make the regulations and of the place where
  1334
  copies of the draft regulations may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than thirty days) in which any objections with respect to the draft regulations made by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Secretary of State.
  (2) Every objection must be in writing, and state—

  (a) the specific grounds of objection;

  (b) the omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of persons appearing to him to be affected which is sent to him within the required time, and he may, before approving the special regulations, require such amendments to be made therein as he may think fit.
  (4) If the owner or a majority of workmen who have sent any objection to any special regulations sent for approval feel aggrieved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to give effect to their objection, the matter shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Part II., to leave out the words, "Where the Secretary of State disapproves the special regulations, no further action shall be taken in the matter."
  The House will see that by Clause 87 the inspector of a division or the owner or the majority of the workmen may ask that the general regulations should be supplemented, and can suggest special regulations to the Home Secretary, and if the Home Secretary disapproves under this Section no further action can be taken. That is quite contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Having dealt with the procedure under the Factory Act the Royal Commission stated,
  "We have come to the conclusion, however, that, the Factory Act procedure is not altogether appropriate for the establishment of rules or regulations under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts. Having regard to the wide character of these regulations, and to the stringent requirements which may be imposed by them either on owners or workmen, we do not think the ultimate authority for making the regulations should be vested in the Secretary of State, as in the case of regulations for dangerous processes in factories. It appears to us desirable that where objections are made to regulations proposed by the Secretary of State by persons affected, whether owners or workmen, he should either withdraw that part of them to which exception is taken, or else apply to the High Court for the appointment of a referee, with or without the assistance of legal or technical assessors."
  My Amendment means that where the Home Secretary objects the matter should

  1335
  go to a referee, while if the lines remain in it is stopped, and there is no reference to any arbitration. I submit by the recommendation of the Royal Commission the Factory Act procedure is not suitable.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment was moved in Committee and not pressed to a Division. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to adopt a similar course here, having made his protest, because it is not intended that this power as to special rules shall be of general application. It is rather a serious matter to say that every owner even of quite small mines shall be enabled to get out of the general regulations which have been accepted by forcing a reference to an arbitrator, with all its complications and costs that are involved. I thought we had met the hon. Gentleman by a very considerable alteration we made in dealing with the general regulations in Sub-clause 7. There we allowed objections to the general regulations on behalf, not only of the owners of mines in general, but of any class of mine or mines in specific areas. That really provides that the owner of a mine of a particular class in a particular area with an appeal against the general regulations. The whole intention and desire of the Bill carrying out the idea of the Royal Commission as far as possible, is that if the mines are to be safeguarded they should be under similar regulations.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (4), leave out the words "the matter shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes," and insert instead thereof the words,
  "the objection shall be referred to such one of the panel of referees appointed under this Act as may be selected in manner provided by the rules made for the purpose.
  "If on any such reference the referee considers that the regulations should be varied to meet the objection he shall recommend any variation which he considers necessary or expedient, and the Secretary of State, before approving the regulations, shall require that variation to be made."—[Mr. Masterman.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Can the Home Secretary state what business will be taken to-night?
Mr. McKENNA: At this late hour we do not propose to proceed with the Naval Prize Bill. That Bill will be taken as the first Order of the Day on Thursday. The Finance Bill was to have been taken, but the Naval Prize Bill will now be taken.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ADMINISTRATION).
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I desire to raise a question—I said I should yesterday at Question time—as to educational administration, and to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Education. It is not a partisan matter. I raise it at the urgent request of those interested in denominational schools, both Church of England and Roman Catholics, and especially of the Roman Catholic Cathedral authorities connected with my own constituency for Salford. I venture to hope, as many of them are my opponents in politics, that I shall receive support from below the Gangway in this matter, and, if he were present, from the temporary dictator of the House, and I would urge him to use his potent influence with the Government in so good a cause while he has the power to do it. The change of Presidents of the Board may give us the hope of a change in policy. We do not wish to press hardly on the President, because we know what the difficulties of his great office are; but we understand a Nonconformist deputation has already been seen, and we think it is true that the case were stated on behalf of the Church authorities. In our view, the policy of the Government up to the present, at any rate, has been a wrong policy. It has been conceived in the interest,
1364
not of the whole community, but of one section of the community alone. We have not forgotten the statement of the late President of the Board that where Dr. Clifford led the President of the Board was prepared to follow. In our view it is to, say the least of it, not a very dignified position that the President of a big Government Department should be driven in a sort of harness tandem with a minister of religion. It is true that there has been recently a truce, but in certain areas of education irritation still prevails—although it may not extend over the whole field of education. But we have not forgotten recent events, especially in the Law Courts. There is, for the moment, something in the nature of an armed truce, and in regard to training colleges it is something like what lawyers might call an armed neutrality. We have, however, to submit to a modus vivendi, which we do not accept, but which we have to put up with. I propose to say nothing with regard to the inspectorate or the Holmes circular except that we in Manchester and Salford have a particular grievance. We were attacked by the Holmes circular directly, and a weighty resolution was come to by the Manchester Council——
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present
The House was adjourned at Half after Eleven of the clock, till to-morrow (Wednesday).