The Marquess of Londonderryhaving presented several petitions against the Bill on their Lordships' Table, for the regulation of Employment in Mines and Collieries, proceeded to say, that the last petition from a number of coal-owners in! the counties of Northumberland and Durham, assembled at Newcastle-upon-Tyne,! and disclaimed in the strongest and most distinct manner, having been parties to any arrangement or compromise with respect to this bill. He believed, that the promoters of this bill owed a great deal of the support it had received to the notion, that the coal-owners of Durham and Northumberland had agreed to one part of the bill. He had heard of compromises with respect to election petitions, and seats in Parliament, but, for the first lime, he heard it asserted, that a compromise could take place in which one of the parties not only would not agree to the arrangement, 3 but were altogether opposed to it, and protested against it. It had been said, that Mr. Buddle, his agent, had, on the part of the coal-owners, met Lord Ashley, and had been (as we understood) a party to the compromise. Now, Mr. Buddle had written to him, denying that he had been a party to any such compromise, or that he had been authorised to enter into any compromise. The fact was, Mr. Buddle was coming up to town upon business, and the coal-owners had thought that they might take that opportunity of allowing Mr. Buddle to call on Lord Ashley, and explain the views they entertained with respect to this bill. But they had not authorised Mr. Buddle to enter into any compromise or arrangement whatever, neither had he done so. As much misconception prevailed on the subject, he had received a letter from Mr. Buddle, explaining his part in the tran action, and which letter he would no read:
§ "Pansher Colliery, 9th July, 1842.
§ "My LORD—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of yesterday, and, in answer to your Lordship's inquiry, I beg to state that I was not ' on the part of the coal-owners of Durham and Northumberland, authorised and instructed to make a compromise, and gain the best terms I could, upon which the opposition of the coal-owners of the north was to be withdrawn.' The following are the facts of the case.
§ "I happened to be going to London on your Lordship's business, of which the committee availed themselves to request me to confer with your Lordship, Mr. Bell, Mr. Lambton, and other Members, for the purpose of endeavouring to induce Lord Ashley to accede to their unanimous wish, for ten years to be the minimum age of the trappers, and eighteen that of the brake or engine men.
§ "This, to the best of my recollection, was the extent of my instructions; but I have written to the clerk, at the coal-trade office, to send your Lordship a copy of the resolutions of the committee, containing those instructions, which will show the extent of my instructions on the occasion. I had a private interview with Lord Ashley on the 18th of June, at his Lordship's house, in Upper Brook-street. His Lordship received me with the utmost courtesy, and discussed the subject of my visit in the most candid and open manner.
§ "His Lordship was very firm in his opinion that boys should not be sent down the pits till they were thirteen years old. I urged that ten should be the standard; and, after considerable discussion, his Lordship intimated, that he might probably concede the point, 4 provided the day's work were limited to six hours, or that the boys should only work three days of twelve hours each in the week.
§ "I told his Lordship, that I was not authorised to take upon myself the responsibility of making such a compromise: and, therefore, begged his Lordship to leave the matter open, till the meeting with Messrs. Bell and Lambton, and other Members, which had been previously appointed to take place at the House of Commons.
§ "I attended this meeting on the 20th of June, at which were present, to the best of my recollection, Lords Wharncliffe, Ashley, and Lord Henry Vane, with Messrs. Bell, Bowes, Liddell, Lambton, Losh, Granger, and Brotherton. Much discussion took place, and the parties present ultimately agreed to accept the conditions conceded by Lord Ashley, viz., to limit the age to ten years for boys to be sent into the pits, and that they should be limited to three days in the week, to be wrought alternately. Engine men not to be entrusted with human life before they arrive at the age of twenty-one, but no limitation of age for their superannuation was fixed.
§ "On returning to the North, I found the above compromise not at all satisfactory either to the committee or the body of coal-owners generally, especially as to the alternate days working of the boys, which will be attended with many practical difficulties. And there are other objectionable points in the Bill, as limiting the time for the ' employment of any such male person to one month after the passing of this Act.' And for the prohibiting of such male person from being employed, during one and the same week, in more than one mine or colliery, unless the mine or colliery, in which he shall be employed, shall belong to the same owner.
§ "The appointment of inspectors underground is also very objectionable, and the penalties for offences against the act are considered to be too high. For these reasons, and other considerations, the body of coal-owners are desirous that more time should be allowed for deliberation, and that the Bill should not be hurried through Parliament this Session.
§ "The petition presented by your Lordship to the House of Lords, was, I believe, forwarded to your Lordship from Newcastle, on the 11th of June, and a similar petition was at the same time sent to Mr. Bell, to present it to the House of Commons.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient faithful servant,
§ "JOHN BUDDLE.
§ "The Marquess of Londonderry, &c. &c."
§ As had been alluded to in the letter which he had now read, he had also been furnished with a copy of those instructions which he would stale to their Lordships:—
5§ (Copy.)
§ "Chester-le-Street, June 13,1842.
§ "Meeting of the United Committee— Present:
§ "TYNE.—R. W. Brandling, Esq. (chairman), Mr. Buddle, Mr. Losh, Mr. Carr, Mr. H. Taylor, Mr. N. Wood, Mr. George Johnson.
§ "WEAR.—Mr. Norton, Mr. Hunter.
§ "TEES.—Mr. Seymour, Mr. Seppings, Mr. Turnbull.
§ "Lord Ashley's Bill to prohibit the employment of women and girls in mines and collieries, to regulate the employment of boys, and make provision for the safety of persons working therein, having been read, resolved—
§ "1. That in the opinion of this meeting the age of ten years is the proper period at which the boys should be taken down the pit, to commence the easy employment in which they are first engaged.
§ "2. That it is the opinion of this meeting, founded on long experience, that after the age above-mentioned the boys do not acquire those habits which are peculiarly necessary to enable them to perform their work in the mines.
§ "3. That it would be a great hardship to families, and especially to widows, that their children should be kept out of the pit after they become able to work at the early stages of pit work.
§ "4. That it is the opinion of this meeting that it would be attended with great hardship to make the act retrospective, except as regards boys below the age of eight years.
§ "5. That the clause regarding the age of the engineman should be altered, so as to make the age of commencement eighteen years, and to continue so long as they are capable of performing their duties to the satisfaction of the engineer of the colliery.
§ "6. That Mr. Buddle be instructed to wait on Lord Ashley to explain the above views of the committee, and to obtain the assistance of Lord Londonderry, Mr. Bell, Mr. Lambton, or any other nobleman or gentleman connected with the North in enforcing these opinions."
§ This was sufficient to show that something like a manœuvre had been practised, he would not say intentionally, to induce a belief that the coal-owners had given up their opposition to the Bill; and this notion was entertained in opposition to the deliberate opinions of the coal-owners on the subject as set forth in their petitions. He had received the following letter, which would further explain what were the opinions of the coal-owners on the subject:—
§ "Low Gosforth, July 10, 1842.
§ "My dear Marquess—At the close of the proceedings, at the general meeting of the coal trade, on Thursday last, a resolution was 6 passed, which I shall take the liberty of subjoining, as it may be agreeable to your Lordships to see, that the feelings of the meeting were in unison with those sentiments which your Lordship entertains respecting the necessity for legislative interference with the conduct of the mines of Northumberland and Durham. I am quite aware of the extent of the obligation your Lordship has conferred upon the trade by your exertions in this matter; and confidently hope, when the bill is regularly before the House of Lords, that the influence which your Lordship's superior knowledge of the subject must give you will enable you to secure the postponement.—I am, my dear Marquess, yours sincerely,
§ "ROB. W. BRANDLING.
§ "'Resolved—That the best, thanks of this meeting be given to the Members of the House of Commons who used their utmost exertions to prevent the imposition of the export duty on coals, and to guard against any unnecessary restriction being imposed upon the coal trade of Northumberland and Durham by the act recently introduced for regulating labour in coal mines.' "
§ It seemed to him somewhat extraordinary that on so great a measure as this, and one which affected such large and important interests, not a single division had taken place in the House of Commons. He thought it also extraordinary that upon a question of such commercial importance no Cabinet Minister had expressed any opinion upon it. He was anxious to know whether the bill was to be promoted in that House by the influence of the Government, and with all his confidence in the present Government he would look upon it as an extraordinary proceeding, and it would diminish the great confidence he possessed in their capacity to direct public affairs if they allowed a bill of this importance to pass without expressing an opinion upon it. The public ought to know the decision to which the Government had come. He hoped that the noble Lord the President of the Council, who knew what were the opinions entertained by the coal-owners of the north, would state what were the intentions of the Government respecting this bill. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had on a former occasion made allusion to the high character of the commissioners. Those gentlemen were formerly factory commissioners, and they had then been sent to inquire into the mines. He had received several communications respecting those gentlemen, which he would now read to the House. The noble Lord 7 was proceeding to read these communications, when he was called to order by
§ Lord Wharncliffe,who protested against the inconvenience of reading private letters.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the communications were not private, but he would not press the reading of them. He hoped that their Lordships would legislate on this subject with due deliberation, and that they would not be influenced by the consideration that this bill had passed the House of Commons unanimously.
§ Lord Wharncliffe,in reply to the question put to him, would state that the Government had taken no part whatever with respect to this bill. The Government intended to remain perfectly passive with respect to the bill; but though they would take no part as a Government they would as individuals. He had a strong opinion with respect to certain parts of the bill, but he would reserve that opinion for a fitting occasion.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the noble Marquess had given the transaction referred to a character which did not belong to it in supposing it to be a question between Lord Ashley's feelings and those of the coal-owners, instead of an important public measure. Lord Ashley deserved much credit for the part he had taken, and that credit had been awarded him by the unanimous voice of the country. Those gentlemen who acted in the manner referred to were connected with those parts of the country which the bill more particularly affected, and he had seen letters which stated that the bill would be supported provided the alterations that were pressed upon them were agreed to—certainly, if there was not an agreement there was an understanding come to on the subject.
§ Petitions to lie on the Table.