HC Deb 09 May 1922 vol 153 cc2046-77

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I think the explanatory Memorandum attached to this Bill really makes it quite clear that the sole object of the Measure is to secure for the Board of Trade power to carry out a pledge given by the Home Office in 1914 to British lamp-makers. Perhaps I should slightly amplify the story, and start it from the beginning. Before the War most of the glasses used in flame safety lamps were made in Germany or Austria. When the War came on, and the stock of lamp glasses in this country began to get low, the Home Secretary, who was then responsible for mines, felt he was bound to make some effort to produce lamp glasses in this country which should be good enough to be used in mines and should replace the German and Austrian stock as they became used up and could not be renewed. In October, 1914, the Home Office, with the written approval of the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna), gave an undertaking to the managing director of Messrs. Ackroyd and Best, Ltd., that As the German and Austrian manufacturers of safety lamp glasses are no longer able to supply them, their glasses will be removed from the approved list, and, provided English manufacturers are able to supply sufficient numbers of suitable glasses, no German or Austrian glasses will be restored or added to the list for a period of at least three years from the conclusion of the War. It was necessary, in order to get any English glass manufacturer to undertake this work, that he should be given an opportunity of making good and of not doing the work at a loss. At that time there was plenty of work for glass manufacturers of a more remunerative character, and in order to make these special glasses it was necessary for the manufacturers to set up a new and expensive plant, to get their workers taught and, at a later date, even to introduce workers from foreign countries to instruct their men in the best way of making this kind of lamp. Not only the firm mentioned, but two other firms went to very great expense, which they cer- tainly would not have undertaken had it not been for the pledge given to them by Mr. McKenna in 1914, and renewed later on by the Ministry of Munitions in 1917. I do not know what was in the Home Secretary's mind in 1914 as to the way in which the prohibition should be enforced. I think, and I have very little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thought, that under Section 33 of the Coal Mines Act there was power to approve or disapprove of any form of glass. That power rested then with the Home Office, and is now vested in the Board of Trade.

There is, however, some doubt in the minds of legal people whether that Section of the Coal Mines Act really gives power to do more than disapprove of a type of lamp. Therefore, in order to keep the undertaking which was then given and accepted in good faith and acted upon—I would say that the action taken by these manufacturers saved us from a very serious dilemma in time of war and a short time afterwards—this Bill is introduced to make it quite clear that the Board of Trade can have the power to fulfil the pledge then given. It is safeguarded by retaining for the Board of Trade the power to decide whether the glasses are suitable and "sufficient in quantity or reasonable in price." At the present time, I have no complaints about the lamps that have been supplied, though in the earlier process of manufacture there were considerable complaints. I have had no complaints recently, and I have every reason to think that the supply from the firms now making the classes in this country is likely to be adequate. The promise given was for three years after the termination of the War. The official termination of the War being on the 1st September last year, this has rather more than two years to run. I hope the House will allow this Bill to pass in order that we may carry out the pledge given by my predecessor.

Mr. HARTSHORN

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what he bases his statement that he has every reason to think now that these glasses are satisfactory? Have they been tested by experts, or has any investigation been made as to their utility?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I cannot give any answer to the hon. Gentleman except to say that they have been tested and found suitable. The lamps were tested in various places, I believe.

Mr. SUTTON

Were the tests made in the mines or above ground?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The tests were made in various places. I can give the hon. Member a full answer afterwards.

Mr. ADAMSON

This Bill is brought in for the purpose of giving effect to two separate pledges given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of Munitions in 1914 and 1917. I understand the pledge was given on the distinct understanding that the British manufacturer would be able to supply an equally suitable glass which would compare in all respects with glasses which had been supplied by Germany and Austria previous to the War. So far I do not think the Secretary for Mines has convinced us, from the information at his disposal, that these glasses have conformed to the Regulations laid down, and I should like to put a few questions with a view to bringing out the necessary information before we consent to pass the Bill. There is no doubt that in the early days of the War there were very general complaints by the miners in various parts of the coalfield about the quality of the glass in these lamps. From the information we have been able to secure there was a considerable increase in the number of nystagmus cases and we should like to know a little more about the home made glass as compared with the glasses which were supplied previously. The thing we are mainly conserned with is the effect it is having on our men from the point of view of safety, and we should like to know if this noticeable increase in the number of nystagmus cases can be traced to the use of the British made glass.

We understood there has been a Committee of Inquiry into the quality and the suitability of these glasses for use in the mines. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has at his disposal the Report of the Committee, and before we give a Second Reading to the Bill we ought to have that information. The whole question, as far as we are concerned, is whether the home manufacturer is able to supply an equally suitable glass for the purposes of mining as compared with that previously supplied. Safety and health enter largely into the matter, and the Secretary for Mines and those who represent, mining constituencies are equally responsible for it. I do not think we should be entirely satisfied with tests which are made even at Enfield. I think tests should be made in the workings in the respective parts of the British coalfield as well. This is a matter that we are vitally concerned with, and I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us before he asks us to be consenting parties to the Bill. There in another element that arises here, namely the question of Protection, but to begin with we are vitally concerned with the safety and health of the men, and it is on this point that we should like to have satisfactory evidence. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has any evidence that nystagmus has been on the increase, but that is our impression, and we should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman confirms that information. If it is on the increase there must be some reason for it, and naturally our men came to the conclusion that these glasses which have been introduced since 1914 are to a considerable extent responsible. It is on this point that we want satisfaction. If he cannot satisfy us that this is an equally suitable and safe glass to use he would be well advised to delay further consideration until proper tests have been made which will satisfy those who are vitally interested in the mining industry.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN

I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines a question on the legal side of the case he has put to us, whether one of the main objects of the Bill is to remove any legal doubt as to the action of the Department up to date within Section 33 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. That section says Wherever safety lamps are required by this Act or the Regulations of the mine to be used, no safety lamp shall, after the first day of January, 1913, be used by any person employed in the mine, unless it be provided by the owner of the mine, and is of a type for the time being approved, as respects the class of mines to which the mine belongs, by the Secretary of State. That is, is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and those who advise him. So far as the Bill is required to legalise action which has already been taken under this Section by the Department, I have no objection to it, but in so far as it embarks on a policy of Protection, which limits the field of selection.

of the best kind of glass for miners' lamps, I shall be opposed to it unless some case is made by the Department showing that there is a shortage at present and that the safety of the miners is affected by such legislation as this. If that is proved— until matters stabilise themselves—I shall hear what is said, but I shall withhold my own decision as to what I shall do. All the the right hon. Gentleman said was that as far as information had reached him, or some such general terms as that, he thought the thing was working well. That will not do. There must be something far beyond that. There must be a report of people who understand the matter, and I think the House will be well advised to press upon the Government that this matter should be suspended, except in regard to the point I have already made as to legalising action up to date, until a very strong, indeed, an overwhelming case is made to justify the Government in restricting the field in which the best glass can be obtained not only for the safety, but for the efficiency of the miners in the most difficult and dangerous task which they discharge in the service of the community.

Captain COOTE

It does not require the information which has been asked for by the two right hon. Gentlemen to convince me that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. I can assure them that this is not really a question of getting better information as to the quality of glass which is employed in safety lamps. The reason the Bill is being introduced is because a number of years ago a promise was given by the then Government to a certain firm of glass manufacturers that they should be given what practically amounts to a monopoly of this kind of glass. [Interruption.] If there are three firms who make it that does not prevent it being capable of being made a comparatively close monopoly. Which are the other countries that are affected by this Bill? I understand them to be Germany, Austria and Czecho-slovakia. Of these three the last at any rate is one of those new States which we did a great deal to bring into birth and in which this glass industry is of tremendous importance. With what sort of face can we as a people go to these European countries and ask them to remove barriers and restrictions upon trade and then ourselves come in with a proposal of this sort, which directly affects one of these countries which we are engaged in urging to revert to more proper and peaceful methods of international commerce? It seems to me that this Bill has no sufficient justification whatever. It is not necessary to await any report of any Committee to condemn it upon what it contains in the proposals which are printed on the Paper, and I hope the House will not readily assent to give a Second Reading even to this Measure, which is totally opposed, not only to the interests of the mining industry, but also, in my opinion, the more general interest of the peaceful stabilisation of the channels and methods of industry throughout Europe.

Mr. KILEY

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."

I move the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the Minister in charge has one duty, and one duty only, cast upon him in connection with these lamps, and that is to provide the best lamp that is available in any part of the world, irrespective of whence it may come. If he desires to give some compensation or some reward for some service rendered many years ago, there are plenty of ways and means at his disposal. He knows, as we all know, that if any person rendered any service to the State during the time of War, there are various ways of giving compensation. Such a person can, out of his excess profits, if he has put down special plant, machinery, etc., set off that cost against his profits at the end of the year, and the Commissioners of Excess Profits Duty have treated very leniently any expenditure of this kind. If it is a case of an invention, there is an Inventions Reward Board that gives money. There are various other ways by which money can be obtained for any services rendered to the community during the War. If there is anything due to the manufacturers in question, I suggest to the Minister that that is the proper way to reward them for any services rendered. Having done that, there is one course only open to the Minister, and one responsibility falls upon him, and that is that he should provide the very best-lamps that can be found in the world.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) brought this Debate back to reality. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) suggested that the use of English-made glass during the War has caused an increase in the percentage of cases of miners' nystagmus. An idea of that sort is so wildly impossible that it is the duty of those of us who know anything at all about pit conditions to nail such a suggestion to the counter. Those Members who have no technical knowledge of these matters may think that the substitution of British glass for Czecho-Slovakian or Austrian glass in the miners' lamps may possibly have had the effect of producing an increase of nystagmus. That is wholly and utterly impossible. The lamp glass manufactured in England would have to be of such an extremely inferior nature that it would be shutting out 10 or 20 per cent, of the actual light to produce such results. Everyone knows perfectly well why the cases of nystagmus have gone up. In the first place, the dise'asc is much better understood now, and doctors are much quicker in diagnosing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In the second place, the spread of moving-picture shows in mining villages has had more to do with aggravating cases of nystagmus than any amount of English glass that ever existed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite know it. They have only to ask their doctors and they will find out that that is so.

My reason for objecting to this Bill is very much graver. We are setting up, if we pass this Bill, a very big and valuable monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has suggested that there are three separate firms. What on earth is to" prevent these three separate firms from combining, if they are not combined already? One firm is very much bigger than the others, and has had more practice and has spent many more thousands of pounds in development. There is nothing more simple than that as soon as the Bill is through these firms should combine and put up the price of this particular glass in this country Hon. Members who have not technical knowledge may probably think that this is a small matter, and that a few dozen glasses a week are all that are required There are between 750,000 and 1,000,000 safety lamps in use in the collieries of this country and Scotland, certainly over 800,000, probably nearer 1,000,000. So far as my own experience goes, the number of these lamps taken down the pit day by day may be considerably less than the total in existence, but hon. Members who have had some experience of the pit will agree with me that to supply the fresh lamp glasses for 800,000 to 1,000,000 lamps is a very valuable monopoly for any firm that gets it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAM

It is 600,000.

Mr. HOPKINSON

The right hon. Gentleman says that 600,000 is nearer the mark. Supposing the number is 600,000. Having regard to the circumstances in which safety lamps are worked in the pit, the replacing of broken lamp glasses year after year, for three years, in the pits of the United Kingdom, is a monopoly of enormous value to those to whom it is granted. If we have pledged ourselves— I hold that we have not pledged ourselves in the very least; and certainly if we are going to be responsible for every pledge given by every Radical that has ever been in a Government in this country, it is a case of heaven help us—can we not get out of the pledge? Suppose we are responsible for foolish pledges given during the War, when everybody was in a more or less hysterical state, cannot we compensate these people? Cannot we cut our losses, instead of shackling the whole mining industry with a monopoly of this sort? The allegations made against English lamp glasses were made from a totally wrong point of view, and objections were raised which cannot possibly be upheld by medical evidence; but there is no doubt that the Austrians particularly, and I presume also the Czecho-Slovakians, have made an extremely good quality of glass. Again and again a miner's lamp is knocked crooked without going out, and you find the flame has been blackening the glass for perhaps five minutes before you take up the lamp. Glass that will stand that sort of thing is glass of very high quality. There is no question that the Austrians have brought the making of that glass to a very high state of perfection, and it is doubtful whether for some time to come we shall be able to get the same high quality of glass from the English makers as we can from abroad.

If hon. Members will look at the second paragraph in Clause 1, they will see that a proviso is put in that the Minister may refuse to carry out this Bill if he thinks that the glasses which are made in this country are not available in sufficient quantities, are not suitable in quality, or reasonable in price. What does "reasonable in price" mean under these conditions? Supposing the foreign makers of good lamp glasses are offering them here at 3d. or 4d. each, and the English makers are offering them at 1s. and 1s. 6d. 1s 1s. and 1s. 6d., the price offered by the English maker, a reasonable price when foreign makers are offering them at 3d. or 4d.? I protest against this particular phrase in the Bill, because it is typical of the sort of phrases we get in legislation to-day. It is a perfect example of the literary style of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. To put in a phrase of such enormous importance as this must be to a particular trade, a phrase which is so utterly indefinable as the words "reasonable in price," is really an insult to this House. If the right hon. Gentleman is determined to force this unfortunate Bill through the House, I hope he will in Committee try to re-draft that Clause, so that, at any rate, it shall mean something that an intelligent person can understand.

I second the Amendment because this Bill means granting to certain individuals who may have done something to deserve it, though I believe there is no evidence that they have done so, a monopoly of enormous value. That monopoly is being paid for by the mining industry of this country. Any profit which these manufacturers make owing to this monopoly is being paid for by the mineowners of the country in the first instance, and in the last instance it will fall upon the miners. Therefore, I protest, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Bill, and give it a little more consideration instead of forcing it through.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

I shall vote with reluctance against any Bill which the Government brings in to carry out a pledge. I have a much higher opinion of the keeping of our pledges than the last speaker seemed to think is necessary. As I understand it, the pledge was given by Mr. McKenna when he was Home Secretary. I do not know exactly what the pledge was, but we ought to know.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I have read it.

Sir C. WARNER

I did not hear it. I do not mind the exact words, but if the words of the pledge were actually the words of this Bill we should be in an awkward hole. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who spoke on behalf of the miners, that this is entirely a miners' question. If the health and the lives of the miners are endangered, this Bill raises a very important point. We have to consider whether these lamps of British glass are as safe as the old lamps. If they are not, surely we cannot go into the consideration of a Bill like this. Surely we are not going to sacrifice human life for the sake of carrying out a protective measure, even when it is supposed to be the redemption of a pledge. If it is going to cost human life, we must face the facts, and, if necessary, the Government must pay money down to redeem their pledge, or, instead of money down, they must give some, privilege to replace the pledge. We must not chance the lives of the miners on any question of carrying out what was believed at the time to be a pledge to use English lamps if they were sufficiently good to be used. That means if they are sufficiently safe to be used without endangering the lives of the men.

5.0 P.M.

This is not the moment to put an extra tax upon the mining industry. This morning I was reading that the wages now paid to the miners put the miners in a worse condition than they were in 1914. If that is the case, surely this is not the time to bolster up what may be a monopoly or, at any rate, an industry of a very small kind in this country, and of a very unimportant kind at the present time, thereby taxing the mining industry, which is our greatest and most important industry. The miners themselves were our best and truest support in the days of trouble during the War. I cannot understand why a Bill like this should be brought in without our having absolute proof that these English lamps are as good as any we can buy abroad, or proof being given that it would be ruinous if the Government allows other lamps to come in. If it is a question of compensating two or three firms, that is the business of the Government, but it ought not to be a tax upon any particular industry in this country. It is true that most of the points which have been raised are points that will be better dealt with in Committee, and it may be that in Committee a great deal that is objectionable might be taken out. The point as to what is a reasonable price and many other points might be thrashed out, and evidence might be brought before the Committee in a much better form than that in which it can be brought before us. At the same time I do think that unless the House have strong evidence that this is not going to cause the loss of a single life in a mine we should support my right hon. Friend.

Mr. SWAN

My colleagues and I would be the last to suggest that pledges ought to be dishonoured, because there has been so much dishonouring of pledges so far as miners are concerned. But there are one or two things which I would like to know and I am pleased that the Home Secretary is here. His Department is most vitally concerned in connection with this Measure if it is passed. What we are apprehensive of on behalf of the miners in connection with this change, regardless of the monopoly price of the glass or whether it is cheap or otherwise, is that the glass used in the mines shall be the best possible glass in order that the miner may do his work efficiently and with the utmost security. My colleagues do not claim the extensive and intensive technical and practical knowledge of which the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) boasts. Men like us who have spent 30 years, and others up to 50 years, in the mines would not seek to compare our knowledge of mining and of the effects of good and bad glass upon the health, with his. But some of us would like to see the experience which he has had as regards some of the lamps which he says can be tumbled over.

Mr. HOPKINSON

I never suggested that there was any question of these lamps at all. It was entirely a question of lamp glass. I reassert the fact that you could not possibly have any effect whatever on the production of this by using English lamps.

Mr. SWAN

We would like to see those lamps which he has seen, not only for five minutes but for five seconds, without smashing or going out. What we are anxious to know is if the Secretary for Mines and the Home Office have any comparative statistics as to the effect which the lamps, between 1914 and 1920, have upon either the increase or diminution of mining accidents. We do not agree with all the learned technical knowledge of the hon. Member for Mossley. In the year 1914, the last year for which statistics are available, there were recorded 2,774 cases of mining nystagmus, with 3,218 others, making a total of 5,982 cases of nystagmus, Knowing the terrible effects on the health and the loss in productive value to the nation of nystagmus, we want to be very chary in these innovations of lamps which may or may not add to this disease. Our friend suggested that nystagmus is caused, not so much by foul air or bad lamps or bad light in the mines as by moving pictures. If he knew anything about the effects of nystagmus, he would know that one of the first things which the man with nystagmus is told is that he must not go to a moving picture show.

Mr. HOPKINS0N

That accentuates his disease.

Mr. SWAN

Because of the disease he is not permitted to go there. The Home Secretary will come to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Mines, if he will supply us with data as to the number of nystagmus cases from 1914 to 1922, and allowing for the large number of miners who were out of the mines from 1914 to 1920, and that will enable us to make some comparison as to the value of the lamps that were being used during the last eight years and the lamps used in the mines previous to 1914. This is information of vital importance to us because we know that it has been calculated that if a man is once attacked with nystagmus you never really effect a permanent cure. In the life interests of our men and their dependents, we cannot lend ourselves to the introduction of a Bill that would add to the numbers of those suffering from this terrible disease. During the period of the War we had numerous complaints about the bad lamps that were in use, and what we want now is to have a better lamp placed upon the market so that the health of the miner will not be diminished by compelling him to produce coal to work the machines of gentlemen all over the country. It is not a question of compensation. We do not want compensation but we want to have the maximum amount of security in the mines and the maximum protection of the life and health of our men, and we hope before a definite decision is arrived at by the Government to place this Bill upon the Statute Book that they will have full inquiry made as to the effect of these lamps, and I hope before the Debate closes that the Home Secretary will get these statistics which are so essential.

Mr. HAYWARD

I cannot conceive a more objectionable form of legislation than pressing this Bill through the House, and when it is applied to a matter of such paramount importance as the glass for safety lamps in the mines, the position becomes alarming. I press upon the hon. Gentleman to take the advice already tendered and suspend this Bill until the House are in possession of further information, because there are some points on which the House ought to have information before they pass the Second Reading. First, there is the question as to whether the Government are compelled, according to the terms of the guarantee agreement, to bring in such a Bill as this. The Secretary for Mines has read out the terms of that guarantee, but we have never yet had an opportunity of reflecting upon it and forming our own judgment as to whether it is necessary to bring in such a Measure unless to carry out the terms of that undertaking. There are two further points on which it is necessary for the House to have further mention. Under this Bill the Minister in charge will be compelled to disapprove of certain types of glass. I would ask whether, under the Bill which has already been approved, it will be possible in future to use such glass? For instance, there may be types of glass coming from countries whose products are excluded, which have already been approved, and if that be so, will further glass of that type be permitted to come into this country? Another question: Why has Czecho-Slovakia been included in the Bill? If I remember exactly the terms of the guarantee which the hon. Gentleman read out, they included Austria and Germany. Is he obliged to include Czecho-Slovakia in the terms of the undertaking which has been given? I shall be glad to have these questions answered.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I feel sure that there is not a Member in any part of this House who does not consider that, in a matter of this sort, the safety and good health of the miners are the very first consideration. I regret very much that I was prevented from hearing the greater part of the speech of my hon. Friend who introduced this Bill, and I am not sure as to what information he gave upon that point. So far as I am concerned—and I suppose it is the same with every other Member—I would sooner see these few firms of glass manufacturers in this country go out of business altogether than do something which would lead to a terrible disease among miners or tend to a decrease in the safety of the miners. But some of the hon. Members opposite, and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) have taken a very short view of this question. None of them seem to have considered what would be likely to happen in the event of another war breaking out. I know that my hon. Friends opposite will say that we are never going to have another war.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

We do not say that.

Mr. HERBERT

If we are going, as we definitely hope, to get rid for generations to come of a repetition of anything like the Great War, we are still more than ever likely to have economic and trade strife between different countries. If we cannot make these glasses in this country, what is likely to happen if we should, unfortunately, have a quarrel with those few countries from which alone this glass can be obtained? Surely it means either that our mines have to go out of business altogether through the stoppage of the supply of lamps, or that we have to work the mines with lamps of a vastly inferior kind made at home, because we have not learned the way to make them ourselves. If we are to take the long view, in the interests of the safety and health of the miners, there is a deal to toe said for doing something—I do not say for the moment whether this is the best way or not—to see that we ourselves can provide these lamps. Hon. Friends say that this will create a monopoly, and the only hon. Member who took any notice whatever of the proposed safeguards in the Bill is the hon. Member for Mossley who referred to the second paragraph of Clause 1. Surely, if I am right that we ought to provide these lamps, it is a Committee point as to whether the safeguard against monopoly and high prices is good enough and strong enough or not. In the interests of the miners themselves something is required in order to encourage the manufacture of the very best type of lamp that can be obtained in this county, so that we shall not be at the mercy of any foreign country, either in the event of a war like the last or in the event of a mere trade and economic war.

Mr. ROBERTSON

All mining authorities are agreed upon the necessity of a better and safer lamp for the mines. A great deal of time and money have been spent in that direction in years past. When this supposed pledge was given we had reached a stage in national history when mining authorities were agreed for the time being that they must have something that was inferior to carry us through the national emergency. I approach this question first and foremost from the standpoint of safety in the mines. An hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to what might take place if another war occurred. God knows, none of us wants another war. I want the House not to forget that, while in the late War every section of the community was in the trenches, the miner in the mine every day in the week is in the trenches, and is facing danger whether there is war or not. The first consideration ought to be the safety of the miner. Has the Secretary for Mines attempted to satisfy us that the continuation of this glass keeps the mines as safe as they were in 1914? There is the question of the health of the miner. I hope that the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) does not reason that the miner has to work in the mines with an inferior lamp, and not to attend moving pictures. The miner would reason that if the miners defective eyesight is caused by attending moving pictures, nystagmus will be found outside the mining population. That statement shows the folly of the hon. Member's reasoning. He says that if we have the lamp used now it is only 10 per cent. I am a miner, and I put my 20 years' experience underground alongside his experience. He says that this inferior glass only takes 10 per cent.

Mr. HOPKINSON

I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member said it may take away 10 per cent.

Mr. HOPKINSON

I did not even say that.

Mr. ROBERTSON

It is very difficult to know what the hon. Member did say until we see it in the OFFICIAL REPOBT to-morrow. I understood him to say that this glass used in the lamps was not so much inferior as to be objected to on the ground of light. If you put 100 per cent, as the maximum value of light, and you take away 5 per cent., it is not missed very much, but if the maximum light is 10 per cent., and you take away 10 per cent., you leave the miner in absolute darkness. If you are working with an inferior light, the amount of light you take away is felt much more than if you take the same percentage from a bright illuminant. I am against this Bill for another reason. The men most deeply concerned were never consulted on this question. This pledge evidently was given to the manufacturers without the miners being considered at all. It is not only a question of safety and of health, but of the extra cost. That will not be borne by the community, but by the miner. 83 per cent, of the extra price, comparing the British glass and the Austrian glass, has to be paid by the miner when it comes to a question of calculating his wage-earning capacity according to the cost of production. We want a better light for the mines, and no one with any knowledge of underground light, even a very limited knowledge, will deny that it is a great necessity. Nothing would tend to minimise serious accidents and the daily incidents that take place in a mine more than the introduction of a better light. This Bill is a step backward. I hope that the House will not approve of such a Measure, affecting the most dangerous of all the industries in this country.

Sir WILLIAM BIRD

I do not think that any of the speakers have had a good word to say for this Bill. Even the Minister in charge of it seemed to think very little of his bantling. Personally, I think the question before us is a very simple question. The question is whether you are to give a monopoly for making this glass to two or three firms in this country, or whether you are to throw the market open and endeavour to get, as you would get, the best possible glass both for safety and for light. We certainly will not get that by creating a monopoly. The Bill is a step in the other direction. Although I am usually a supporter of Government Measures, I intend, on this Bill, to oppose the Government to the best of my ability. A good deal of what I might call foreign matter has been brought into the discussion; that is questions which do not affect the subject. There is the question, for instance, as to whether or not the glass caused the painful disease to the miners' eyes. No doubt bad glass might have that effect, but I think probably that frequent visits to pictures are more likely to make it a serious disease for the patient than anything else he could do. That, however, is all beside the question. What we want is the very best glass at the lowest possible price. The more you create a monopoly the greater will be the burden thrown on an industry already greatly overburdened. The sooner we can get back to the old doctrine of free trade in this and other matters the better.

Mr. CAIRNS

Having been a miner for 50 years I can claim to speak with some authority on this subject. There are two kinds of lights in the pits—what we call naked lights and safety lights. I want to say to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that it is not the custom of the miner to put his safety lamp on the floor of the mine. Safety lamps must be hung on the timber with a nail. I hope that when hon. Members speak on this subject they will at least show that they know something about it.

Mr. HOPKINSON

Does the hon. Member suggest that he has never seen a lamp on the floor?

Mr. CAIRNS

It is not permissible for a man to put a lamp on the floor.

Mr. HOPKINSON

He puts it there all the same.

Mr. CAIRNS

If that were done, there would be many more lives lost by explosions of gas. I object to this Bill as being ill-considered. We are told that, there are 600,000 safety lamps in use. The Bill would grant a huge monopoly, and monopolies in industry always increase prices. Take the miners standpoint also. At present all miners' wages are between 20 and 25 per cent, above the 1914 rate. The cost of living is 82 per cent, above the 1914 level. In proposing this Bill the Government are not considering the miners' wages at all. There are miners getting only 6s. or 7s. per day. With the cost of living still 82 points above pre-War level they cannot live on it. The use of defective lights in the mines not only causes neuritis and neurasthenia, but nystagmus, and nystagmus is worse than explosions. There are more men injured by it than by explosions or by falls of roof, slag or sand, and these are due many times to bad lights. Poor lights, especially when the lamp is hanging on the props, prevent men from seeing the roof or sides where they are dangerous, and men and boys are constantly being killed through this defect. We want the best possible light we can get. We want to get a light, if we can, equal to the open day and the sunshine in a quarry, and if we cannot get that, we want to go as far as we can. If some hon. Members had to work in the mine they would be content to work even less than the two hours a day which it has been stated is all that a miner should work. I know of a man who, on looking down a pit mouth, exclaimed: "Good God, who would ever go down there?" and that man was a general. I do not know what the miners of the country have done that they should be penalised so much, and that so little consideration should be shown to them. We have been the most obedient men and the most loyal men in the country, but we are taunted from the other side of this House with being disloyal, although we sent 400,000 men away to fight. Many of these are the men who have to use these lamps. I hope the Minister in charge of this Measure will not proceed with it any further, because we want to save time. Supposing the Government has to pay the difference involved, to pay a half million or even a million is far better than to have men going about suffering from nystagmus and neuritis. Let us remember that a miner never knows when he may contract this disease. It is not like a broken arm or leg. It steals on from day to day and from year to year. You see a man coming out of the pit and suddenly turning his head away, unable to look at the light. It is not due to pictures. If people contract a form of nystagmus from looking at pictures, that is not miner's nystagmus, but another form. I hope this Measure will be rejected by the House.

Mr. MOSLEY

I should like to comment on some of the words which fall from the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson). There were two reasons to which he ascribed this disease of nystagmus. The first has already been dealt with, namely, that it was due to attending picture palaces, but the second was an even more remarkable reason, and it has not yet been touched upon. The hon. Gentleman actually said that the increase in this disease was largely owing to our increased knowledge of the disease. What a remarkable argument that as we find, in the spread of medical science, an increased mastery over a disease, so we find an increase in the disease which we are successfully combating.

Mr. HOPKINSON

What I said was that as the disease became easier to diagnose a larger percentage of cases were discovered than when it was very difficult to diagnose.

Mr. MOSLEY

I am happy to observe that already our arguments have induced the hon. Gentleman to cross the Floor of the House, and I hope he will support us in our assault upon this Measure. The hon. Gentleman now says that because it is easier to diagnose the disease, the spread of the disease can be noticed, but if the disease in its incipient stage is more easily diagnosed and can be arrested at that point and if in its later stage it in any case becomes manifest, surely that should lead, not to an increase but a diminution. The hon. Gentleman's is an extraordinary argument to advance, in contravention of the proposition put forward, that the spread of this disease is, in fact, due to defective lamps. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make a yet more remarkable proposition. He argued that no Government in this country need be bound by the pledges of its predecessors to individual citizens. That is indeed a strange contention to hear from an hon. Member holding the views of my hon. Friend. He said if any Government, in a time of war hysteria, gave a pledge to citizens of this country, a subsequent Government in a cooler and calmer frame of mind would be at liberty to repudiate that pledge. Would the hon. Gentleman say that pledges given to the holders of War Loan Stock should be repudiated by a subsequent majority in a cooler and calmer frame of mind—pledges which he might argue, on exactly the same hypothesis, were made in a mood of war hysteria and which might be subsequently repudiated, say, by a Labour Government, if such came into power, in a calm frame of mind. The hon. Gentleman is once again watering the deserts of our ignorance from the superfluity of his own omniscience, but on this occasion the gentle rain from heaven has not proved quite so refreshing as usual, especially to those of my colleagues who have spent the time of a generation in the actual toil and dust of the mines. The facts as I see them are these. The right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government is bound by a very unfortunate pledge through no fault of his own. He must either honour that pledge or compensate the people to whom it is given. If he does not, the whole basis of confidence between the State and its citizens in every walk of life and enterprise would be undermined. So he must take some action of that kind. At the same time it is, firstly, the duty of this House to take into consideration the safety and the health of the miners; and it is, secondly, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to escape from this pledge in an honourable fashion, if it be in fact detrimental to the safety of these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able either to give us a definite assurance that these lamps are as good as any that can be obtained elsewhere, or, in default, that he will be able to say he is prepared to come to an agreement with these firms with which his predecessor entered into an arrangement.

I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any other instances exist, to his knowledge, of cases where protection on a widespread scale has been introduced in a surreptitious manner, without any reference of any kind to this House. An actual widespread system of protection was introduced under an Act which never contemplated anything of the kind. Power was reposed in the hands of the Secretary, to discriminate against lamps of an unsuitable kind, but no power was ever given to him or was ever contemplated, to discriminate against lamps of a suitable type which were merely coming from countries which it was wished to ostracise. This is one, but possibly there are other instances of the introduction of a system of protection into this country, without any reference of any kind to this House. The right hon. Gentleman in this case saw it was actually ultra vires and he has been compelled to ask the sanction of the House, but this is a warning that other cases of this kind may exist, in which, with no legislative sanction, the Government imposed a marked process of protection.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I should like to intervene at this stage, if I may do so by the kindness of the House, as a good many questions have been asked and a good many points have been raised which I should like to explain and reply to. I take one small point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Major Hayward) in regard to Czecho-Slovakia and the arrangement made by Mr. McKenna in 1914. We did not think of it as Czechoslovakia in those days, but the place where the Austrian lamps were made is ill Czecho-Slovakia now. I should like to make it quite clear that I am quite satisfied as to the safety of these lamps from the tests that have been made and the reports of my own inspectors, but perhaps I did not emphasise that sufficiently when I spoke before. I think hon. Members realise that these tests were severe tests very carefully carried out both as to durability and safety. To go further than that, I am quite prepared to say that if we get the Second Reading of the Bill, we will not go into any further stage until we have consulted those who represent the miners in this House and decide as to whether further tests are necessary in order to make it quite clear that there is nothing detrimental in them.

Mr. KILEY

There might be a new invention next week, and you would not be in a position to utilise it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I hope the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. I could not answer all these points even if they were of interest.

Mr. KILEY

It is of some interest to the miners.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I am trying to speak of the miners.

Mr. KILEY

You should not be rude.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I apologise if I have been rude, and I come back to the question of safety. As everybody has said, it is absolutely essential that we should be absolutely secure in regard to that. With regard to nystagmus I think a good deal of misapprehension has been displayed. It is quite true that the Committee appointed to investigate it have pointed out that deficient light is a cause of the disease, but I do not think anybody has been able to> show that these glasses in any way impair the light. The real solution lies in making the pits lighter. If we could utilise the electric lamp and electric lighting it would be better than these flame safety lamps. The lamps dealt with in this Bill are merely the flame safety lamps and not the electric lamps. If the Nystagmus Committee had supposed for a moment that the use of English-made lamp glass had led to an increase in nystagmus, they would certainly have said so in their Report, and so, I think, would the Committee that we had on miners' lamp glasses. A good many Members have spoken of a great monopoly being set up.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Does the hon. Gentleman propose to leave that part of the question without any further information? Does he not know the smokeless quality of British-made glass has been so inferior that there has been a number of complaints, and does he not know that the glass would not stand the test of expansion and contraction when taken into the main roadways?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I was coming back to that question. If there is any other test that hon. Members representing the miners would like to have applied, we will certainly go into that before we carry the Bill a stage further. With regard to the arguments about monopoly and protection, I do not propose to enter into them. Those who think that the right hon. Gentleman who gave this pledge was a protectionist had better argue it out with him, and as to the monopoly it is a very small point. It is only a question of two years, and as for the additional cost to the industry or the public, I am sure the most it could be would be about one-twentieth of a penny per ton of coal. I do not think those are really relevant questions. There are two important questions for us to-day—first of all the pledge, and secondly, whether it can be carried out without endangering safety. [An HON. MEMBER: "That should be the first."] The hon. Member can put them which way he likes. With regard to the pledge, if any hon. Gentleman in this House had been in the position that the Home Secretary was in then and the Minister of Munitions was in subsequently, and had seen the supply of lamp glasses gradually being worked out, and that while the War was at its very height we were running the risk of having no adequate glasses in the pits at all, and that it was impossible to get them made without giving the makers some indication that they would not be the losers by it, if any hon. Gentleman had been in that position at that time, I think he would have acted in the same way that Mr. McKenna did and who ever the Minister was at the Munitions Department in the year 1917.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON

They were Bolsheviks, who demanded it at the expense of the lives of the miners.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I thought it was the protection of the miners. We had to use inferior lamps at that time, because there were no others, and what we wanted was to get English makers to make lamps which were not inferior, and they had to learn how to make them. They have done so, and they have put a great deal of time and trouble and expense into the experiment. I therefore say this, that any hon. Gentleman in this House who had been in the position of the Home Secretary at that time would have acted as he did, and anybody in my position now would, I am sure, have felt it his duty to carry out the pledge that was given them in good faith and which was acted upon by these glass makers. What we have to satisfy ourselves about is that there is nothing in this Bill which is detrimental to the safety of the miners, and it will be quite easy in Committee to strengthen the Clauses in the Bill to meet that, but I do not want even to go as far as that without having received from the representatives of the miners whatever evidence they have got that the glasses as they are now used for these particular lamps are bad. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or inferior."] Of two lamps of the same make, one, of course, may be inferior to the other, and I cannot say that these are the best lamps that have ever been made or could be made. Some- one might invent a new process to-morrow, but the pledge was that for three years after the War no Austrian or German glasses should be introduced. It does not apply to other countries, and therefore you have the competition of America and Belgium. I do not say there might not be some other way of keeping faith with them. But we cannot repudiate this pledge that has been given without making it up to them in some other way.

Dr. MURRAY

Has not the pledge been already fulfilled? Do these firms insist upon the letter of the law, the legal termination of the War, rather than the cessation of hostilities?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Yes, they naturally ask for what everybody else has recognised as the official end of the War.

Dr. MURRAY

Is there nothing technical in that?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I am quite certain of this, that although I believe the lamps they are making now are efficient and good, it took them a very long time and a great deal of trouble and expense to get to that standard, and the pledge would certainly not be fulfilled by using the phrase "termination of the War" in a different sense from that in which it has been used in all other connections. What I would suggest to the House is that we should pass the Second Reading of this Bill now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and before proceeding any further, whether we proceed with it lay taking it to a Committee upstairs, or to a Select Committee, I should ask the representatives of the miners to put before me any objections they have to these particular glasses, and any desire they have to have them tested in some further way than we are testing them now, and to satisfy them, as I hope we could, that before we continued with the Bill the question of safety had been thoroughly safeguarded.

Sir D. MACLEAN

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines has, with his usual fairness and courtesy, endeavoured to meet the case which has been presented from this side of the House, and I am really very anxious that this question should not drift into a matter which should be decided as between one side of the House and the other. Therefore I make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend, that he should adjourn this Debate, and meanwhile he would have an opportunity, with his advisers, of consulting the representatives of the miners themselves. He will forgive me for saying that I think that ought to have been done before the Bill was presented.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I have never had any complaint.

Sir D. MACLEAN

He may not have had a complaint, but I think it ought to have been done, and, at any rate, there is no reason why it should not be done now before the House passes the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to make it very clear to him, if I have not already done so, that I am not asking that in any hostile spirit to his Department or himself, but I think it is the proper way, if I may say so, of dealing with the matter, since it concerns the House as a whole, and not, any particular part of it, and I urge that very strongly upon him. The Government is not pressed for time, and it could be done within a fortnight, and then my right hon. Friend would be in possession of the views of the miners themselves. Then, if it were thought fit, which would be very likely, the Second Reading might be taken and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. I do not know how that meets with the views of my right hon. Friend. On the question of protection, we are bound by the pledge; there is no doubt about that. Whether it is a technical carrying out of the pledge or not, there are differences of opinion. I think it is rather pressing a technical view of the subject, because nobody expected for a moment that the legal termination of the War would take place 2½ years after the cessation of hostilities. However, there is no use going into that, for other citizens and associations of citizens have pressed upon the Government the technical view of the termination of the War, and these gentlemen, whoever they are, are as much entitled to that view of the case as any other citizens. I accept that> but the real point is this. Are the safety of the miners and his well-being fully and amply secured in every respect? I do not know whether I might venture to offer a word of suggestion to the House as a whole, but I do not think it would be the real Parliamentary dealing with this matter to give the Second Reading today. I think the right and fair method, and the absolutely non-party method, is to adjourn the Second Reading, consult the interests concerned, and then bring the matter up again, with all the information which is available, and let the House decide then. I think that is the right way, and I would urge it on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines.

6.0 P.M.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

I am not going to argue for one moment with regard to the desirability or otherwise of getting out of our pledges, unless the redeeming of the pledge, as it does appear to all of us in this case, is going to run counter to the safety of the men who are employed in the pits. In that case we shall be violently opposed to any price being paid by way of a monopoly or otherwise in the manufacture of lamp glasses. No doubt they were patriots to that extent, that they did put down machinery and plant and organisation for the manufacture of these glasses during the time of the War, but that has been represented over and over again. For the moment, however, what is very important to us is the question of the safety of our men. Are the glasses that are now being provided up to the standard of safety? That is the question, notwithstanding what has been said by a previous speaker, who displayed very little real, practical knowledge of underground work. I have already asked the Secretary for Mines as to the results of the Committee which has been sitting at the Home Office, and has gone very extensively into the complaints in respect of lamp glasses. Of course, it is not a question of the other parts of the lamp. We are only talking of that portion of the lamp which is fitted with the glass to render light to the miners at work. The difficulties under which the miner works have already been pointed out, and I asked a question as to the smoke-resisting property of the British glass, for the very reason that the complaint is that the glasses supplied even to-day are not of that standard quality we got before the War, and able to resist the smoke. In my opinion—and in our district I speak from knowledge—the increase of nystagmus has been enormous since these glasses of British make have been pro- vided. There can be no doubt with regard to that, and if the Secretary for Mines would come down with me to my district some day, I would convince him that miners are complaining as strongly of the type of glasses that are being provided as they did at the commencement. The experience is borne out by those who deal with the glasses in the lamp room, that there are more glasses cracked during the operations of miners because of their less-resisting power. In the main roadways there is a huge current of ventilation. At one point it is cold almost to freezing point, and a man may take the lamp to the return station only 20 or 30 yards away between the two doors, and he gets into a temperature up to 80, 90 or 100 degrees. Innumerable cases have been found where the glasses have cracked because of the sudden change of temperature.

I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to consent to the postponement of this question. Let us get the result of the Committee that has been sitting at the Home Office, and let us find out exactly where we are. If the tests are going to be continued, let them be continued not only at Eskmeals or any other Government station, but conducted in circumstances underground where, with the least danger, a practical test can be made. You will then find that, unless the workmen are very vigilant with regard to their lamps, the danger of an explosion is imminent always. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to postpone this Bill. It is not urgent. We can at least postpone it for two or three weeks to let the test be carried out, and, in that way, we shall be doing something at least to safeguard, so far as we possibly can, the life and the health of the miner. All agree that the miner is deserving of the best possible conditions, as he is working under a state of grave danger always, and it is highly important that he should get the best conditions. There are more fatal accidents from falls of roof in the mines than from any other cause, even including explosions. That being the case, we ought to bend our efforts in the direction of giving the miner the best light in which to follow out his occupation.

Mr. HARTSHORN

I think so much has been said on this subject, that it is becoming a waste of time to pursue this Debate, at any rate, for any considerable length. I rise merely for the purpose of adding my appeal to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and emphasised by several other speakers, for the postponement of this Bill until an opportunity has been given to the miners, and everybody interested in this subject, to ascertain whether or not the defects which were known to exist a short time ago in these glasses have now been remedied. We cannot have any stronger reason for a postponement than that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines himself in the two speeches he has just delivered. Like myself, I think he has been rather taken unawares. When he introduced the Bill, he said that it was known some time ago there, was great dissatisfaction with these glasses. He knew that from reports reaching him, but he said, so far as ho could gather at present, those complaints did not now exist. I was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not say something more than that, because I have been under the impression that a special Committee has been set up to inquire into these lamp glasses, and that a report had been issued that tests had been conducted at Eskmeals and other places, and that we had a report upon which this Bill was based. I gathered from the second statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that he is now of opinion that it is desirable not to proceed with this Bill, at any rate, further than the Second Beading, until there has been a consultation and conference with the representatives of the minors, to enable them to bring forward evidence as to the present condition of these glasses. I remember very well some time ago being called into a colliery office to deal with complaints made by the workmen about the condition of the lamps due to the glasses, and I was amazed to hear the statement of the general manager as to what he had discovered. He said he had discovered that, although the lamps when properly tested in the lamp station in the morning were in perfect condition, a very considerable percentage of these lamp glasses were brought in in the evening in a broken condition; in other words, these lamps were converted from safety lamps into ordinary lamps. In Wales, especially where we have had such awful explosions in the mines, this is regarded as a very serious matter, and I know one general manager who scrapped a whole consignment of these things, and declined to have another one of them used in any of the lamps in his colliery.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Where did he get them?

Mr. HARTSHORN

I do not know. All I can say is we had samples of them. We have also had very considerable complaints about the smothered condition of these lamps. It is well known that this miners' disease so much discussed this evening—nystagmus—is due very largely to the condition of the lamps, and there is said to be among miners definite evidence and proof that nystagmus has increased since these glasses have been, produced. I do not know, but I do know that when they were introduced, and the men were threatening to discontinue work in the mines on account of them, we were-bound to induce the men to go on by telling them there were no other glasses available, and that either they must use these or the collieries must close down, and under the stress of war the men did things that they would not otherwise do. It is quite possible that much of the discontent that existed then is still present to-day, but it is marvellous what the miners will become accustomed to and will put up with. But if they are suffering still under the sense that they are using an inferior glass, and they once get to know that that defect can be remedied, but that this House is pressing, a Bill to prevent an improvement being effected, then we shall certainly hear very serious complaints about what is taking place.

There is only one reason given for the introduction of this Bill, and that is that a pledge was given in 1914. I think we had better not talk so much about pledges, at any rate, so far as they affect the mining industry. I think if Mr. McKenna, who made this pledge, were in the House of Commons, he might possibly be entitled to talk about keeping pledges, but, having regard to the way pledges to the miners have been broken in 1918, 1919, and 1920—pledges that were made and broken even while the breath was warm—the less said about that the better. Whether the mere adjournment of this discussion until such time as the Minister shall have had a consultation with the miners' representatives, so that we may find out, it may be, that the complaints have been remedied or otherwise, is to the point. I do not know. Perhaps it is. Yesterday, before I left the House, I had a communication from one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines asking me to attend a meeting to arrange for going underground to take a test, to make an experiment with these lamp glasses. I rather think that is going on at the moment. In view of that, I hope the Minister will see his way to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill, and we will do all we possibly can in the meantime to find out for ourselves what is the position.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Once more I must say I am very much indebted to the House for the serious way in which they have recognised the somewhat embarrassing position in which this pledge of Mr. McKenna puts me. In regard to making pledges, I do not want to be too dogmatic, but it would not appear to be a pleasanter task to break somebody else's pledge than the pledge given by oneself. Really, how ever, all there is between us at the moment is as to whether or not we should adjourn this discussion before we have the Second Reading or after. What you want to do is to get this evidence, if there is any, to show that these things are not satisfactory. I was certainly under the impression that all this grievance had been removed, but if it can be proved that grievances have not been removed, then that puts a different aspect upon the subject. I think it is only fair that we should, at any rate, before proceeding any further satisfy ourselves on the point. Therefore, I am not prepared to press the Second Reading to-day. I should like, however, to have some undertaking that if we get this evidence, and it is proved that these lamps are quite safe and satisfactory, that we should be allowed to have the Second Reading without having this Debate all over again at a later date. If the investigation satisfies us that there is no danger, I think it is not asking too much that we should not have the speeches of to-day repeated. I am not complaining of them. We have had a very interesting Debate. I think it shows what everybody in this House feels, that the safety and the health of the men is the first thing that we set before us. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that proposal, I should be very glad to move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Mr. KILEY

What about my Amendment, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. ADAMSON

I am very glad to hear the Secretary for Mines say that he is prepared to accept the suggestion made that the further consideration of this Bill should be postponed until we get an opportunity to go fully into the question of whether the home-made lamp is as safe as that in which are the other glasses previously supplied to us. In agreeing to the adjournment he wants us to give him a pledge that if he finds that the home-made glasses are quite as satisfactory as they should be, that he shall have the Second Reading without having the same set of speeches over again. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the same speakers."] It would be impossible for me to give a pledge of that character. But I have no doubt that, what Debate may be required afterwards, after full and satisfactory inquiries have been made, will be conducted with the same good taste as it has been conducted to-day. If it is so conducted, there will not be the same speeches delivered, and there will not be repetition. What we are primarily concerned about is the safety and the health of our men. If following the inquiry we are satisfied, then you have met the reasons that we, at present, have against this Bill. I think the Minister ought to be satisfied with that. I think the suggestion I made might now be accepted and the further consideration of the Bill adjourned until the inquiry has been made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— [Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. HOPKINSON

Would the right hon. Gentleman please note that I do not withdraw my opposition in the monopoly question in case this matter comes up again?

Mr. KILEY

Do we at the same time adjourn the Amendment "That this Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months"?

Mr. SPEAKER

Yes.

Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed to-morrow.