HC Deb 05 December 1911 vol 32 cc1335-63

1. No horse shall be taken underground until it is four years old and until it has 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 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 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 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 "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 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 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 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)
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
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? 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.