HL Deb 17 December 1908 vol 198 cc2006-40

House in Committee (according to order.)

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to insert a provision that: "Where a majority of the workmen employed decide by a ballot that a period for rest or meals shall be provided during any shift, the time of absence from the surface prescribed by this Act shall be increased by the duration of such period." He thought that this Amendment was necessary to carry out the real object and intention of this Bill. If a man desired to work up to the full eight hours laid down by this Bill and earn as much as he could during the statutory time, he could not do that and at the same time get anything to eat during that period. He did not think it was the object of the Government to deprive these miners of an opportunity for obtaining meals and rest. As the Bill stood the miners must either go without food for the period of eight hours or else take their food within the eight hours whilst at work.

* THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

hoped the Government would be able to accede to this Amendment. By the terms of the Mines Regulation Acts, all boys on the pit brow were entitled to half an hour for dinner.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 8, to insert the words 'where a majority of the workmen employed decide by a ballot that a period for rest or meals shall be provided during any shift, the time of absence from the surface prescribed by this Act shall be increased by the duration of such period."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)

I am afraid the precise effect of this Amendment has not been correctly understood. I may point out to your Lordships that it would allow the workmen to have a period for rest or meals provided during the shift, and under those circumstances, as your Lordships will see, that period of time would be excluded in the computation of the period during which the miners are actually working. An Amendment much to the same effect was moved in another place, and it was defeated by twenty-five votes to ten. The argument which I think will appeal most to your Lordships is that the workmen do not themselves make this request, and from the very nature of the hewers' work it is apparent that the rest and meals have to be taken at irregular intervals whilst they are waiting for the tubs. I think it will be obvious that this proposal would cause a very serious dislocation of work underground, and I hope the Amendment will not be carried in the form which the noble Earl suggests. The practical result of the Amendment would be that it would allow workmen by ballot to increase the time spent below ground, and instead of making a six or eight hours day there is no reason why they should not make a nine hours day, or even a longer period.

* THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said it was the practice during the windings of coal to have a temporary cessation of work in order to allow the men to get their food. That was of enormous importance to the safety of the men, because during that interval the whole gear was examined and the lifting machinery inspected. He thought that was another argument in favour of this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, was right in his statement that if they added the time for rest or meals to the shift they might make the time below ground eight hours twenty minutes. He wished, however, to point out that under this Bill, arguing on the same lines, they were making the time at work underground only seven hours forty minutes and not eight hours per day. Under the circumstances, however, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

, in moving to amend the clause by omitting from subsection (a) the words "During the five years after the commencement of this Act," said this is one of a series of I Amendments necessary in order to carry out an alteration in the Bill which was alluded to more than once in the debate on the Second Reading. As the Bill now stands there are three transition periods during which it is to come into operation. In the first place, there will be a period of six or twelve months as the case may be, during which the collieries are to prepare for the working of the Bill. Then there is to be a period of five years during which the Bill is to come into force to this extent, that there is to be an eight hours day and both windings up and down are to be excluded from those eight hours. After a period of five years one of those windings is to be included in those eight hours, so that there will be a total period of half an hour less than during the first five years of the operation of the Bill. I must say that so far as I can gather from the expressions of Ministers on this subject, or from the Reports of the Departmental Committee, if there is any belief in the minds of those responsible for this Bill that its effect will not be injurious to the rest of the community, and also to the miners and owners of coal, that belief does not go further than this, that the proposal for the first period, namely, the eight hours, excluding both windings, might be safely adopted. I find with regard to that proposal an expression of opinion from a high authority who declared that it was not possible to forecast precisely the amount of disturbance that might occur in the working of a mine when the Bill came into operation, or the precise increase in the cost of production. He went on to say that in Durham and Northumberland that something like complete reorganisation in most of the mines would be necessitated, and that in South Wales and Lancashire inconvenience would arise and that the transition might involve some rise in the price of coal. That is what the Home Secretary said in the debate on the Third Reading in the House of Commons with reference to the first term when both windings would be excluded. Mr. Russell Rea, who is a high authority on this matter, said he could not regard the extremely drastic step which was to be taken next July without some degree of anxiety and apprehension. I must say that this seems to me to show anxiety with regard to the working even of the first five years under this Bill, and I do not think it will he denied that even that change will materially interfere with the coalmining industry. In Scotland, Yorkshire and the Midlands, I believe that, generally speaking, so far as I can gather from the Report of the Departmental Committee, an eight hours day with both windings excluded would not materially interfere with the present system of working, but the same Committee say that the hours worked by hewers in West Lancashire, instead of being eight hours exclusive of both windings, are now nine and a half hours, and that other workmen work for as much as ten and a half hours per day, whilst in the Cardiff Steam Coal Mines the hewers and day men work ten and a half hours per day. It is clear that in West Lancashire and South Wales, to say nothing of Durham and Northumberland, the effect of the proposal in this Bill, if it merely amounted to an eight-hours day exclusive of both windings, would be a serious change. At any rate it is clear that for practically six years to come all that His Majesty's Government, as the authors of this Bill, think can be safely done in the way of bringing an eight-hour day into operation is to enact the hours proposed for the first period, namely, an eight hours day excluding both windings. Turning to the question of safety, surely nobody can contend that the inclusion of a winding within the eight hours term would be otherwise than dangerous to the workmen concerned. There would be every temptation where an employer or his workmen desired to evade the operation of the restricted period of eight hours to hurry the winding, and serious accidents might occur owing to the inclusion of a winding within the eight hours. That being so, what do the Government tell us with regard to the possibilities of the future which would justify this change at the end of a period of five years? They tell us that they think there may be certain elements In the present system of working mines which do not bring out to the full extent their productive power. They suggest—and I do not doubt there may be something in it—that if men work shorter hours they would work more efficiently. They suggest also that there might be time saved if there was less loss by stoppage of the mines or absenteeism, and the Committee quote in support of that contention the fact that in Lancashire, where the longest hours are worked, there is a double percentage of absenteeism as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Whatever can be done towards minimising the effect of the Bill in this way will be required to make an eight hours day, with both windings excluded, a change which will not seriously diminish output. What His Majesty's Government really seem to rely upon with regard to the possibility of extending an eight hours day beyond that is some great change in the working of the mine due to the importation of new forms of coal-cutting machinery. That, however, is a purely imaginative view. It may be right or it may be wrong. Nobody can possibly foresee what changes will be made within the next five years. As was well said in the House of Commons in regard to what is to happen five years hence His Majesty's Government, like the miners, are absolutely working in the dark. That being so, why cannot they limit the Bill to what they believe can safely be done now, namely, to an eight hours day excluding both windings? If no harm results from the adoption of that practice in the mines, at the end of five years those interested can come to Parliament and ask that more stringent provisions should be enacted. If, on the other hand, as many fear will be the case, some serious injury may occur, Parliament can deal with the subject according to the experience gained. I can conceive but one objection to the exclusion from this Bill of legislation for an unknown future, which is utterly beyond the proper scope of the duties of Parliament. That is the argument suggested by the Secretary for the Colonies on the Second Reading of this Bill, in which he said that the Bill was shaped in the way in which it now stands to bring about what was believed to be a final settlement of the question, and that if an eight hours day including one winding, was not included in the Bill as the final result, the miners' agitation would continue. There would be uncertainty as to the future prospect of the trade; and everybody knows that uncertainty is one of the worst things for the prosperity of a trade. That was the noble Lord's argument, and I think it was the only argument he used in favour of this proposal. I am inclined to think that the trade do not share that view. So far as I know, and judging from the fact that my noble friend Lord Newton has also put this Amendment on the Paper, it may be concluded that the trade do not wish to go further than the Bill proposes for the first five years, and they desire the Bill should stop there. But whatever the view of the trade may be, we have to consider something much more important, and that is the interest of the consumer. In the interest of the consumer I do not think we have any right whatever to legislate for a future which we cannot foresee, and, therefore, we ought not now to enact that a further change should be made at the end of five years. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment prop sed— In page 1, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'During the five years after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

LORD KNARESBOROUGH

said he would not repeat what he had stated on the last occasion on this question. He wished, however, to point out that if they employed several Hercules or Samsons to hew coal, and they were able to get three times as much as the present miners were doing, it would not be the slightest use, because they could not get more coal out of the pit. The difficulty at the present time was to move away the coal after it had been got by the hewers. Collieries had been laid out for the production of coal during a certain number of hours through a shaft of a certain diameter, and they had constructed and laid out a certain class of ways or tunnels to support which a certain amount of coal was left. Where the amount of coal left was not sufficient, they had to build up and support the ways with masonry. The rest of the coal was worked out; the roof then crushed down, and they could not make any new ways through a lot of broken stone and roof. If the public liked to pay a couple of pounds a ton for coal, they could do anything with the assistance of engineers, but they could not make new ways in their present collieries except at enormous expense. Production at collieries went on now for nine hours-forty minutes per day, during which the coal flowed out of the pit. If they reduced that period to eight hours, they would cause a very serious reduction in the output of coal. Under this Bill it would be impossible for certain collieries to work except at a considerable loss unless they put on two shifts instead of one. It was very distasteful to the colliers themselves to have to work in two shifts. It also meant a very great increased expense, and in a case he had in mind, they would require 378 extra men for the extra shift. Having gone to all the expense of an extra shift, at the end of five years they were to be mulcted of twenty minutes per day of their outflow of coal. At the end of that period the hewers would be working in two shifts, half of them in one shift, half in another, so they would be hewing no more coal than they do now; if you cut off twenty minutes or half an hour from their hewing time you must curtail the output or employ more men to do the same amount of work.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think your Lordships will realise the great importance of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, and I think the House will hardly expect that the Government will be able to agree to the passing of this Amendment, at any rate without putting your Lordships to the trouble of a division. The effect of the Amendment, if it is agreed to by your Lordships, will be to make a temporary expedient proposed by His Majesty's Government to meet the convenience of colliery management into a permanent condition of affairs. I explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill the whole idea of this preliminary period, and I stated how it was intended to meet the convenience of the various interests concerned in the collieries. It was represented that the Bill as originally framed, involved the risk of certain economic disturbances, and it was also alleged that there was a possibility of certain temporary risks to the safety of those engaged in the mines. It was also asserted that there was some danger which might arise by hurrying the process of winding, in consequence of which the lives of the men would not be so safe as they are at the present time. It was in order to meet those representations and prevent those risks that His Majesty's Government decided to introduce this preliminary period, and the idea was that it would obviate both the dinger of economic disturbance and also the danger to the safety of the people employed in the mines. I think it is generally admitted that any inconvenience which might possibly be effected by the Bill, would be caused, not at the end of the period of five years named in this Bill, but would come now. Any danger would probably be over and passed long before the expiration of the period of five years. It is clear, however, that both these matters I have mentioned would be obviated by this period of five years. What I wish to point out to your Lordships is that at the end of this period of five years, there would not be the possibility of such an interference with the economic condition of affairs or with safety as is possible at the time when the Bill becomes law. I was very glad to notice what was said by the noble Viscount opposite this afternoon and on the Second Reading to the effect that they would not be averse to considering this question again after five years have elapsed if it was found no hardship had been inflicted either upon colliery owners or consumers throughout the country. [Cries of "No."] I think that statement was, at any rate, made by the Leader of the Opposition, and what has been said on this point certainly justifies me in asking noble Lords opposite whether, supposing the results which we anticipate from this Bill really occur—and the miners come forward again at the end of a period of five years, to ask this House to re-insert what it is now proposed to strike out—they will afford every possible facility for such a proposal becoming the law of the country. Of course, I hardly expect to get an answer to that question now. The real object of this Amendment is to turn this Eight Hours Bill into a measure which will establish an eight and a half hours day. [Cries of "No."] That shows how far this Amendment strikes at the root of the Bill, and I am afraid this fact will make it necessary for the Government to ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment if the noble Viscount presses the matter to a division.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

hoped his noble friend would press the matter to a division. He had listened attentively to the speeches which had been made in this House, and he had read the speeches made in the House of Commons on this question, and he had no hesitation in saying that no answer had been given by the noble Lord who had just sat down to the arguments pat forward by the noble Viscount. The reason for the exclusion of one of the windings was said to be for the purpose of securing safety and to prevent hurrying up. If that danger existed now why would it not exist in five years' time? He thought this measure would create a very great revolution in the coal trade, most certainly in that part of the country with which he was connected. Not only that, but if they were unable to settle down under this new system in the counties of Durham and Northumberland there would be another revolution in five years, when they altered the system by introducing one of the windings inside the eight hours. To those with any experience of coal mines there could be no doubt that this would add very materially to the danger of the men coming up and down by causing hurrying up. There was another danger to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships, and it was that in the course of five years time if the pitmen who were paid by the piece came under the new system they would naturally have far greater anxiety to send up the shafts quickly the coal for which they were paid, and which they turned out below but which had no value at all until it got to the top, than they would in getting up themselves. Therefore the speeding up in endeavouring to give more time to the winding would increase the risk considerably. What were the expectations of the Home Secretary with regard to improvements and discoveries within the next five years which he thought would make the inclusion of one of the windings in the hours safer than at the present time. All he could say was that the Home Secretary seemed exceedingly ignorant with regard to the cost of sinking shafts. He did not think anybody in their senses would think it wise to sink a great deal of capital in anything in this country at the present time. He should be very glad to hear what were the improvements and discoveries which the Home Secretary expected to find during the next five years. It was evident that they would have another revolution in five years' time, and if this Amendment were accepted that difficulty would be overcome.

* THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

I need add very little to what has been said by my noble friend behind me. I quite admit that there is something to be said on both sides upon this question, and there are arguments to be used both ways. There is undoubtedly some force in the contention that it is better not to admit a winding into the time at all. That I do not deny. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the argument which the noble Viscount used which was a very fair description of what I said upon the last occasion. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, says he desires to avoid a revolution, and that as this Bill will cause one revolution at once he wishes to avoid another revolution at the end of five years. The question whether there will be another revolution on this matter within five years or within any number of years does not depend upon the Government, and does not depend upon what we put into this Bill. If noble Lords are right in thinking

that miners will be satisfied with this day of eight and a half hours which was so clearly described by my noble friend behind me, then the question will fall to the ground and everybody will be satisfied. But does it not occur to your Lordships that this argument of danger, which has been put forward so strongly, might equally well be met by an agitation for a seven and a half hours day, excluding; both windings? If any agitation of that kind, which I for one do not wish to encourage, should be started, you cannot prevent the trade being subjected to another revolution, supposing it should, be found necessary to grant that demand.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

hoped the noble Lord had not misunderstood what he said. He meant, of course, a revolution of the system of working in the counties of Durham and Northumberland at the present time.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Of course, I did not believe the noble Marquess meant a revolution in the whole foundation of society, or that anything of that kind was going to be brought about by this measure in whatever form it was passed. I quite understood that he meant a revolution in the coal trade what I desire to point out is that either people will be satisfied with eight and a half hours per day, or they will not be satisfied, and what we put into the Bill as regards the winding will not affect that point one way or the other.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 136.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Craven, E. Eversley, L.
Fitzmaurice, L.
Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.) Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Selby, V. Haversham, L.
Hemphill, L.
Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Allendale, L. Herchell, L.
Armitstead, L. Lucas, L.
Ripon, M. Blyth, L. Lyveden, L.
Boston, L. MacDonnell, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) Colebrook, L. [Teller.] Marchamley, L.
Carrington, E. Courtney of Penwith, L. Monson, L.
Chichester, E. Denman, L. [Teller] O'Hagan, L.
Reay, L. Saye and Sele, L. Welby, L.
St. Davids, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) Winterstoke, L.
Sandhurst, L. Weardale, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Northesk, E. Elphinstone, L.
Bedford, D. Onslow, E. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Devonshire, D. Orford, E. Harris, L.
Newcastle, D. Radnor, E. Hatherton, L.
Northumberland, D. Shaftesbury, E. Heneage, L.
Portland, D. Stamford, E. Hindlip, L.
Sutherland, D. Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Hothfield, L.
Wellington, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Hylton, L.
Westmeath, E. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Bath, M. Wharncliffe, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Bristol, M. Wilton, E.
Bute, M. Kenyon, L.
Hertford, M. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Killanin, L.
Lansdowne, M. Falkland, V. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Zetland, M. Falmouth, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Camperdown, E. Goschen, V. Knaresborough, L.
Carlisle, E. Hampden, V. Lamington, L.
Carnwath, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Lawrence, L.
Cathcart, E. Leith of Fyvie, L.
Cawdor, E. Portman, V. Lovat, L.
Clarendon, E. St. Aldwyn, V. Middleton, L.
Cromer, E. Mowbray, L.
Dartmouth, E. Addington, L. Newton, L.
Dartrey, E. Allerton, L. North, L.
Denbigh, E. Ardilaun, L. Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Derby, E. Ashbourne, L. Penrhyn, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Atkinson, L. Poltimore, L.
Avebury, L. Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Durham, E. Balfour, L. Rathmore, L.
Eldon, E. Barrymore, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Baring, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Essex, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. St. Oswald, L.
Feversham, E. Borthwick, L. Saltoun, L.
Fitzwilliam, E. Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) Sanderson, L.
Haddington, E. Braye, L. Sandys, L.
Halsbury, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Seaton, L.
Harewood, E. Calthorpe, L. Sherborne, L.
Howe, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Jersey, E. Cheylesmore, L. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Lathom, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Lichfield, E. Stalbridge, L.
Lindsey, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Stanmore, L.
Lovelace, E. Colchester, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lucan, E. Cottesloe, L.
Malmesbury, E. Crawshaw, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Morley, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Willoughby de Broke, L.
Morton, E. De Mauley, L. Wynford, L.
Munster, E. Desborough, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Nelson, E. Ellenborough, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

*LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved to leave out the words "through unforeseen circumstances." This Amendment he proposed in the interests of coal-cutting machinery. He did not think, however, he should be able to make his point clear unless he gave to their Lordships a short description of how coal-cutting machinery was used. They commenced to cut along the face of the coal for about 100 yards, in length, terminating in one of the roads by which the coal was conveyed to the shaft. After the batch of men with the coal-cutter had proceeded a certain distance the men attached to the conveyer went down. Their business was to move the conveyer from the position which it held on the previous night close to the face under-cut by the coal-cutting machine, and they had to remove the props close up to the face. After that came the hewers, and they cut the face of the coal which had been under-cut by the coal-cutter, and they had to put it on the conveyer by which it was drawn to the trucks. Now, if any of those three different squads of men were delayed by any accident or any breakdown of machinery or by any fall of roof, or any other cause, they must remain to complete their own particular job before the other party could go over the same ground. It therefore followed that if the coal-cutter broke down, the men were not able to do their work within the time allowed. If, for any reason, the conveyer could not be put into its proper place the miners could not use it to fill in the coal, and it was for these reasons that the Departmental Committee said in the case of coal-cutters it was absolutely necessary that some elasticity of working hours should be allowed. That was his argument for giving more elasticity to each of those squads. It might be said that the words put into the subsection were sufficient. Those various occurrences by which a number of men might be delayed from coming out at the end of eight hours would occur very frequently. They might occur in one part of the pit one day, and in another part another day, and the men might still have to finish up their work flush when the eight hours had elapsed. He asked, therefore, that these words might be omitted.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'through unforeseen circumstances.'"—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment, but I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord on the points he has raised. His proposals are mainly concerned with coal-cutting machinery. What I wish to point out is that if anything goes wrong with the coal-cutting machinery, obviously it is an unforeseen circumstance. That will also apply to other occurrences by which gangs are stopped doing work because the machinery has broken down. All those things would come in under "unforeseen circumstances," and I think the noble Lord may be perfectly satisfied so far as that point is concerned. I desire to remind the noble Lord that his Amendment goes a great deal further than the circumstances which He contemplates. If these words were omitted the subsection as it would then remain would be very vague in its terms. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord so far as the machinery is concerned, which was the only point he dealt with; that really is already provided for by the actual terms of the Bill, and the words already provided will not cause any difficulty in the working of the mine.

* LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

said it was not only the machinery, but also the extra hardness of the face of the coal which might cause the hewers to be delayed in their work. They might have to remain to cut the face of the coal perfectly square, although there might be no accident at all to the machinery. He would not, however, press his Amendment under the circumstances, and he asked leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

* LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

said the same arguments he had used applied equally to the Amendment which he now moved to leave out the word "serious," and substitute the word "substantial." He wished to have this consideration, at any rate, allowed to the men remaining longer in the mine from these causes. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 5, to leave out the word 'serious,' and to insert the word 'substantial.'"—[Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, and I may say that I do not think it meets the point which the noble Lord desires to meet. In view of the drafting of this clause it is thought that the word "serious" is necessary, and, therefore, we cannot accept the change proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

hoped the noble Lord would consider an Amendment which he had handed in with a view to its acceptance on Report. He quite appreciated that His Majesty's Government was desirous of playing the game and affording fair play to both sides. They had already materially protected the consumer and he asked that in justice only certain protection should be given to the producers of coal. Noble Lords were aware that there were very many old pits in this country which would be placed in very serious straits by the operation of this Bill, and would in all probability have to be done away with and closed. It meant not only closing those pits, but moving the men who worked there from places in which they had been accustomed to live for a great many years.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Lord has not moved his Amendment, and that he suggests it should be moved on Report. In that case it is somewhat inconvenient that we should hear the arguments for an Amendment which is not before the House.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said the Amendment which he wished to move was to insert after the word "time" the words "or in the case of any individual pit or mine which, owing to the provisions of this Act may be found to be no longer workable at a profit, and if that in consequence public notice has been given that the pit or mine will be closed."

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I have only just had an opportunity of looking at this Amendment and from a cursory inspection of it I must warn the noble Lord that I think it is quite certain that the Government will not be able to accept his proposal on the Report stage.

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I think the point which has been raised by my noble friend is one of very great importance. I have in my hand a Report of the Departmental Committee, and I do not apologise to your Lordships for quoting from it because everybody must admit that the Departmental Committee made a most exhaustive and careful inquiry, and were by no means prejudiced against this Bill. Therefore the conclusions the Committee arrived at must be taken with very great respect. One unanimous conclusion they came to was that when a special statutory protection is afforded to the workers in a special trade it may be considered advisable in this country, as it has been considered advisable in all other countries which have enacted such legislation, to reserve in the hands of the Government certain powers of suspension and exceptions in the public interest. Already His Majesty's Government have followed that recommendation in Clause 4, so far as war is concerned, and any great emergency. Clause 4 says— His Majesty may, in the event of war or of imminent national danger or great emergency, or in the event of any great economic disturbance due to the demand for coal exceeding the supply"— take power to suspend entirely the operations of this Act. The Government, however, have not touched the point of exceptions to the operation of the Act. I will quote further from the Report of the Committee which shows in what cases exceptions might arise, and they are precisely the cases which the noble Lord near me had in his mind when he addressed your Lordships. The Committee say that in certain classes of mines, such as house coal mines in the Forest of Dean, and in thick seam mines like those in South Staffordshire, the difficulty of adapting the work to the hours will be such that it may be necessary to have special regulations. I notice there is something in the Bill relating to South Staffordshire, but there is nothing relating to the Forest of Dean. Now what did the Committee say on this point? They say that the district of the Forest of Dean presents a case of peculiar difficulties; that the majority of the men work in mines getting house coal, that the mines are rapidly becoming exhausted, and the representatives of the owners of house coal collieries state that this Bill will prove fatal to the existence of those undertakings. The mining agent of the district takes the same view, and the Committee further state that the miners of the Forest of Dean are almost without exception natives of the district, and receive no recruits from outside districts; also that 40 per cent. of them own their own dwellings. Let the House consider the result if those collieries are closed. These men in the Forest of Dean, district are largely freeholders owning their own houses, and consequently will be unable to leave them without serious loss. All these little collieries might be closed if this Bill became law. The Committee in their Report state that in other countries where similar provisions have been enacted care has been taken to meet such a case as this, and they refer to France, Austria, and the Netherlands. In France, exemption from the law may be afforded to poor mines where the application of the law might compromise the working of the mines and lead to the risk of depriving of employment certain populations living entirely by the working of those mines. The Report further states that those exemptions have given rise to no reasonable complaint. I wish to ask the Government seriously to consider this point. In case of grave economic disturbance, or in the event of war, the Government take power to suspend the operation of this Bill altogether, and why cannot they take power to vary the operation of the Bill in the case I have alluded to, where a whole population in a given district might be deprived practically of employment if the mines were closed, and the Government could not interfere to prevent it, although satisfied that the mines would be closed by the operation of this Bill? I am not asking for this concession upon any other conditions, but I think the Government are incurring a grave responsibility by not taking power to meet such a state of things as that. I have prepared some words by way of an addendum, and I move them now, as follows: "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, vary the application of this Act to mines, or to any class of mines in a particular district to such an extent and for such a period as may be necessary to prevent a loss of employment to the population residing in that district by the closing of the mines in consequence of the operation of this Act." I hope the Government will give some consideration to those words, and if they do not I think a very heavy responsibility will rest on their shoulders.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 37, at the end, to add the words, 'His Majesty may, by Order in Council, vary the application of this Act to mines or to any class of mines in a particular district to such an extent and for such a period as may be necessary to prevent loss of employment to the population residing in that district by the closing of the mines in consequence of the operation of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn).

LORD AVEBURY

said the coal of this country was a national asset, and one which was being very rapidly reduced in quantity. It was clear from what the noble Viscount has just stated that there were coal mines which could not possibly be worked unless they had some such proviso as that which had I just been proposed. The Bill would deprive the country of that portion of its mineral wealth and that seemed to him a strong argument in support of what the noble Viscount had just suggested.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount, when he has heard my reasons, will not press his Amendment. It might make a considerable distinction in various districts, and it would allow the Home Secretary to make a difference between one mine and another and one district and another. I think it is quite obvious that no distinction should be made, because the whole principle of this Bill is that we should establish a national system. It is clear that those coal-owners in whose favour no exception was made would clearly have a ground of complaint.

LORD NEWTON

What about Durham and Northumberland?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

The principle of this Bill is that the hours of labour in mines should be the same ultimately throughout the country. We desire that there shall be a national system and not any variation between one part of the country and another. That system would break down if this Amendment were accepted. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to exempt a certain colliery which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, but it did not meet with any success, and it was negatived without, a division. I ask your Lordships, to notice that Clause 3 provides for one hour's overtime on sixty days in the year, and that was inserted to meet the season's demand and with the object of mitigating the operation of the Act in such collieries as those mentioned by the noble Viscount. May I point to another effect of this Amendment? It has been said that His Majesty may vary the application of this Act, but supposing we had a Home Secretary who varied the operation of the Act in the direction of making the hours of working mines six hours per day. There would be nothing in the Amendment to prevent it working in a different direction from that which the noble Viscount desired, and I am sure he would be one of the first to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to do any such thing as that. That, however, is quite possible under the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, and it is quite obvious it goes a great deal further than he intended. Under these circumstances I hope your Lordships will not add these words to Clause 4, and I trust the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment to a division.

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I admit that the words may have the interpretation which the noble Lord has put upon them, and it is not my intention that they should bear that interpretation. I am only sorry that the time at our disposal did not permit me to consider the words more carefully. The Government have already taken power to suspend entirely the operation of the Act. Must that suspension apply to the whole country? No, because Clause 4 gives power to suspend the operation of the Act— To such extent, and for such period as may be named in the order, either as respects all coal mines or any class of coal mines. All I wish is that the Government should have power to vary the application of the Act in such manner as might make it adaptable to some of the specially situated coal districts. The Forest of Dean is not the only district to which special circumstances apply. There are other districts, like those in Lancashire. I was anxious to call the attention of your Lordships to the matter and more especially the attention of the Government, and if the Government are prepared to accept the responsibility by refusing to take power to vary the operation of the Act in such a way as might prevent the closing of mines and the loss of employment by the whole of the population in certain districts, then I must leave the responsibility on the shoulders of the Government.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I admit this subject is one of some difficulty. It is very singular after the many complaints we have heard from noble Lords of giving the power of dealing with private interests to public departments to find' now that the noble Viscount is moving an Amendment which will give the Home Secretary or the Government practically the power of favouring one coal business in one part of the country as against another business.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

But yon can do it now under the Bill.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The wording of the Bill on that point is pretty clear. The words are— His Majesty may, in the event of war, or of imminent national danger. The whole thing in such an event would be done under the eye of the public, but this Amendment would enable a preference to be exercised in favour of a particular colliery or collieries on the strength of their statement that they were doing badly or that they could not make their business pay. It seems to me to be a very unusual course to attempt to hand over a power like this to the Government of the day. Although I think it is impossible to deny that the incidence of the Bill cannot be entirely even, it is impossible to redress any such inequality in the way suggested by the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

There are a number of Amendments down to Clause 6, and I may say that a consultation has taken place with regard to those Amendments, and an arrangement has been come to satisfactory to both sides of the House. The way in which we propose to proceed is to divide Clause 6 into two parts, and insert a new clause after Clause 5. Certain Amendments are to be made to Clause 6, which, as I say, have been agreed upon by representatives of both sides of your Lordships House. Under these circumstances I think it would be convenient if I were to read the new clause we propose.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he knew the owner had to do what the noble Earl said with regard to regulations affecting safety. Did he understand that at the present moment there was not placed on the owner the unpleasant duty of having to enforce those regulations? Were they to be free from that responsibility?

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I hope we shall have this Bill in print to-morrow morning before the Report stage.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

That wish shall be conveyed to the printers, but at this period of the session they seem to be even slower than at other times.

LORD NEWTON

said that, perhaps it would be more convenient if he did not move his Amendment under these circumstances. His object was to protect the owner from an unjust provision which would put him to the trouble of sending people to search for men who might be infringing the Act. It was probable that when the Bill came into operation it would be found that a good many men would infringe the regulations. As the Bill was brought in in opposition to the wishes of the owner and in the interests of the men, it was distinctly unfair that the owner should be penalised for any offence on the part of a man which he would have the greatest difficulty in preventing.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

LORD NEWTON moved to leave out the words postponing the application of the Act for an extra six months as regards mines in the counties of Durham and Northumberland. He wished to point out that he did not move this as a wrecking Amendment. He recognised that the principle of the Bill had been adopted, but he did not wish to be charged subsequently with having wrecked the Bill on a side issue. The counties of Durham and Northumberland had been exempted for six months from the operation of the Bill, and he could not help thinking that there were suspicious circumstances in connection with the matter. He suspected that some bargain not necessarily corrupt had been arrived at between the Members for Durham and Northumberland and His Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] At any rate it occurred to him that some arrangement which was not quite clear to his mind had been arrived at between these two parties, and he did not mean anything offensive. In former years the chief opposition to this principle came from the Durham and Northumberland miners, and now the position had been assumed that the miners of Durham and Northumberland were such superior individuals that a Bill of this kind ought not to be made to apply to them. That might be true. The miners of Durham and Northumberland had had very high testimonials paid to them by the Marquess of Londonderry and by Lord Durham. Notwithstanding he was not disposed to admit that they were so extremely superior to all the rest of the miners of this country. They were always held up to admiration as men who had managed by their cleverness to establish an extremely short system of working hours. What did this system upon which the miners of Northumberland and Durham prided themselves so much amount to? Simply that in order that the men might work shorter hours the boys were made to work longer hours. That might be evidence of the extremely practical nature of the Durham miner, but for his part he did not see any moral beauty about it. These two counties were being exempted from the operation of the Bill, and the excuse put forward was that those two counties were more difficult to deal with. Possibly in a political sense they were more difficult to deal with, because they had returned an unbroken phalanx of supporters of the Government, but it was quite clear that the actual economic difficulties were much less than in the case of some other districts. The report of the Committee stated in dealing with this subject that the effect on production of the limitation of hours to eight in the collieries of Northumberland and Durham presented some difficulties, but they did not appear to the Committee to present the same difficulties as the districts in which the working day was much in excess of eight hours for all classes of workers. That was a self-evident proposition. It seemed to him that a change of this kind would be much less of a danger where the hours were already shorter than it would be in districts such as South Wales or Lancashire where the hours were longer. He had no doubt it would cause inconvenience. It would be extremely inconvenient to the hewers of coal who had been in the habit of working seven hours to be obliged to work for a longer period, but that was the penalty which they paid for joining the Federation. Having joined the Federation they ought to be placed in the same position as everybody else, and it was distinctly unfair on the other localities that these two counties should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. They were always being told that the Bill had been prompted by humanitarian motives. If that were so, if humanity was their real object, surely the case of the unfortunate boys working longer hours than the men was one deserving of sympathy. There were thousands of men working nine and a half and ten hours a day in many parts of the country, and it was perfectly clear that when the Bill came into operation there would be considerable difficulties to face with regard to the question of wages alone. There would be the difficulty, for instance, of paying the men who had been working for ten hours a day and were now going to work eight hours, because they would expect the same rate of payment, and that must cause a serious difficulty. It seemed to him that, having recognised the principle of the measure, having committed themselves to an eight-hours day, it was the business of everybody to see that as little disturbance and dislocation as possible was caused by the operation of the Bill. They were told that the people in Durham and Northumberland, were so peculiarly circumstanced that a whole year was necessary for them to accommodate themselves to the new conditions. If a year was necessary in the case of people who were already working-shorter hours than anybody else, a longer period was more necessary with regard to the people to whom the change would" be considerably greater. He had received all sorts of memorials and so forth from districts where the people considered they would be most seriously handicapped under the Bill. Take the case of the Forest of Dean district. They were told in the debate the other day practically that the case of the Forest of Dean could not be taken seriously because there were only 5,000 miners there. He did not care what the number was. He said it was a gross injustice that those people should be placed under disadvantageous conditions when strong counties like Durham and Northumberland managed to escape the effect of the Act for an additional six months. He did not put it to the Government, because they were not the real promoters of the Bill, but he put it to the Labour Party and the Miners' Federation that they were putting their comrades in the federated districts under a considerable disadvantage as compared with Northumberland and Durham. Personally he felt so strongly upon the disadvantage at which the other districts would be placed as compared with, Durham and Northumberland that he should prefer an arrangement by which the Bill came into operation all over the country on the earlier date of 1st July, He would like to make an appeal to those responsible for the Bill and not to the Government because he believed them to be much more reasonable than they occasionally appeared. They had got their Bill and it was a most notable triumph, and he thought they might well exercise some little generosity. They might under the circumstances, in view of the tremendous victory they had achieved, show some consideration to their opponents, and he ventured to submit that the most practical way of dealing with the difficulty was to postpone the period when the Bill was to come into operation to 1st January, 1910. He urged this for the purpose not only of studying the general convenience but for allaying the anxiety which was felt on all sides with regard to the effect of "the measure. He sincerely trusted that the Government who were only nominally responsible for the Bill would view his proposal in a favourable light, and if they were unable to accept the Amendment as he proposed it, he hoped they would consider the matter between now and the Report stage, in which case he should be most happy to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 11, to leave out from the word 'operation' to the word 'on' in line 12."—(Lord Newton.)

LORD KNARESBOROUGH

said he had put down a similar Amendment, but Tie intended to support this Amendment; The reason he did not put down 1st July was that he was afraid the Government would not consent to such an extension. July would be a much more suitable time than January, and if the Government would be content to give them 1st July, 1910, instead of 1st January, he was sure his noble friend Lord Newton and himself would be glad to withdraw the Amendment and support the Government.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

also desired to support the Amendment. He had received from both the East and West of Scotland urgent appeals that there should not be any preference given to Northumberland and Durham.

THE EARL OF DURHAM

said the noble Earl opposite had suggested something in the nature of a vicious compact existing between the people in Northumberland and Durham and the Government. For his part he should say there was no such compact. The noble Lord opposite had made a rather long speech upon this subject, and had pointed out to their Lordships the selfishness and greed of the owners and miners of the two counties of Northumberland and Durham. He might have ascertained with a very little inquiry whether it was true that these two counties were desirous of taking an advantage over the other coal areas in the country. He was informed on good authority by persons who ought to know that in those two counties they had not the slightest desire to gain any advantage over any other county, but what they said was that they should be given at least up to January, 1910, to make their fresh arrangements. Lord Londonderry had said that the Bill would produce a revolution in the coal trade of Northumberland and Durham. It would produce a revolution in the working of their system, and that was what the noble Marquess opposite meant. They did not want any advantage over the other counties, and they urged the Government to leave their time limit, if he might so call it, as it was in the Bill. If the Government would allow the other counties to have that same time limit as well he was sure the counties of Northumberland and Durham would not object in the slightest degree.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that if this Amendment was agreed to it would cover the case of an Amendment he had later on, so far as South Wales and Monmouthshire were concerned. He thought the case of South Wales and Monmouthshire strengthened the argument which had been used by Lord Newton. In the South Wales district, practically speaking, no house coal for domestic purposes went out of the district. The whole business was an export one, for the supply of shipping and large matters of that kind, and it was a business which must be carried on by contracts extending over a considerable time and made some time before the period commenced. He thought he would be quite accurate in saying that all the contracts for next year were made two or three months ago. He need scarcely point out that if the Bill was to come into operation in that district in July next, the disturbance and dislocation of business would be terrific, and it might be impossible in some cases for the contracts entered into to be carried out at all. Therefore, on account of the business of South Wales and Monmouthshire it was almost imperative that the operation of the Act should not come into force until the period for which these contracts had been made had expired, namely, the end of next year. There was another reason, and a rather cogent one, and that was that the wages scale which was fixed for three years, would terminate at the end of next year, and a new scale of wages would have to be settled upon. He need scarcely say that it would not diminish the labours and difficulties of the Conciliation Board in settling a new scale of wages in January 1910, if the district had scarcely recovered from the trouble and dislocation of business which would occur if this Act came into operation in the previous year. It was very important that in South Wales and Monmouthshire this Act should not come into operation until the end of next year. He had mentioned these reasons because he thought they would strengthen the case which Lord Newton had made out for postponing the operation of this Bill generally to that date.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said he did not propose to intervene in the discussion as to the relative virtue of the miners of one part of the country or the other. He noticed there was a preference given to the districts of Northumberland and Durham, and his noble friend had an Amendment on the Paper which would add to the districts which got a preference. He did not propose to argue for one date or another, but he urged very strongly that there should be no preference between one district and another. Northumberland and Durham they all knew exported a large portion of their coal, and so did South Wales. The districts in which he was interested in the East of Scotland, in Fifeshire and Clackmannan, were also large exporting districts, and he had had strong letters from his district urging that there should be no preference to any county at all. They said they were already engaged in arranging their contracts for next year, and unless they knew the terms and had the same terms as the other counties with which they were competing it would be most unfair to them. He did not intervene as between one district and another, but he wished to put in a plea for absolute equality of treatment between one district and another.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment on this point standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. At this point perhaps your Lordships will allow me to express my sympathy with Lord Plymouth and the cause of his absence, which is the serious illness of his eldest son. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise all the more when I tell you that the noble Lord's son is far away from homo, in India. Fortunately, we have now passed from the more acute stages of controversy in regard to this Bill. We have admitted the principle on both sides of the House, and what is now before us is not so controversial as the actual principle of the measure. The Government would welcome the opinion of any Member of your Lordships' House, and I delayed intervening in order that every noble Lord might have his say, and if possible, afford some guidance to the Government. Now there are two courses open to the Government. We may either withdraw the concession made to Northumberland and Durham—and I think that would be an ungracious step—or we might make the concession go further and extend it to every other coalfield throughout the country. There is this caveat which ought to be entered with regard to the date being fixed, which will appeal to the noble Lords who have any fear of a rise in the price of coal as a consequence of the passing of this Bill. If it takes effect on 1st January it will be much harder than on 1st July. So far as that is concerned, I think it is a matter which ought to be considered. In any case His Majesty's Government do not propose to divide the House on this question, and although no division will be taken I hope your Lordships will not regard that as an intimation that we are prepared to accept that date. We keep a free hand.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We hail with delight the noble Lord's readiness on this occasion to accept guidance from these benches. We have not found him quite so pliable on other occasions. I venture to say that this is an occasion upon which we really have a right to look for guidance from the authors of this Bill, and those who are responsible for its details and for the elaborate machinery which it sets up. I should have been perfectly ready to leave it to His Majesty's Ministers after hearing the eloquent pleas advanced from several quarters to decide whether or not this alteration to the Bill came within the scope of their scheme. I should be very sorry to take any part in forcing a proposal of this kind upon the Government, and I will tell your Lordships why. It is not because I hold a brief for Durham and Northumberland, which seem extremely well able to take care of themselves. My misgivings are founded upon an entirely different reason. If this Amendment were adopted we should fundamentally alter the scheme of the Bill so far as the time at which it comes into operation is concerned. Under the Bill as it stands for collieries in general, the date of the beginning of the operation of the Bill is 1st July, and it is quite obvious what the reason is why that date has been fixed upon. It is quite evident that the Government had at the back of their minds the fear that this Bill would produce a very serious disturbance of trade, and the fact that they chose the date as 1st July is conclusive evidence that they are aware that a great dislocation of trade may take place in consequence of the passage of this Bill. Now it is suggested that we should alter that date for all collieries and move it forward to 1st January, 1910. As the noble Lord has already pointed out that would bring the operation as to the commencement of the Act into mid-winter, and if His Majesty's Government are right in anticipating, and if we are right also in anticipating, that this dislocation of business might cause a coal famine, it is quite obvious that it would be most unfortunate if that dislocation took place in the winter months. I will be no party to any attempt to press this alteration on the Government, but if upon a review of all the facts they decide to abandon the preferential treatment of Durham and Northumberland, and to make the Act begin at the same date for all the collieries, choosing whatever date seems to them most advisable for that purpose, I have nothing more to say. I will not, however, take the responsibility of pressing this proposal upon the Government against their better judgment.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am very unwilling to take part in this discussion, because I am, to some extent, an interested party, and I should greatly have preferred one of my noble friends to have taken part in this discussion. The question is one of very considerable difficulty. I confess I do not see how the Bill is to be brought into operation without some hardship upon somebody. I think it is true that a preference given to the counties of Durham and Northumberland might operate to the disadvantage of trade in some other parts of England. It would not, however, be a permanent damage, but it might be one of considerable extent. On the other hand His Majesty's Government are impressed by the argument which I understand was put forward on the Second Reading by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, although we do not believe that any serious rise in prices will follow the coming into operation of this measure. Apparently a great many people do believe that and I suppose noble Lords opposite continue to hold that opinion and believe that the passing of this Bill will cause a rise in the price of coal. Those opinions unfortunately have a way of causing the very event of which they are afraid. We are not afraid of a serious rise in prices due to the actual operation of this Bill, but we are afraid of something like a possible panic caused by those who hold the view about it which the noble Lords opposite have expressed. It is undoubtedly true that any panic of that kind will have an infinitely more serious effect in the winter than in the summer, because it would affect not so much contract coal as house coal which is used so much by poor people. Under these circumstances we entertain a very strong objection to a winter date, and for that reason at any rate, as at present advised, we are obliged to adhere to the dates named in the Bill, although we do not propose to divide the House against the Amendment.

* THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said the noble Earl who had just sat down spoke of the loss not being permanent. He wished to point out that the loss on a contract made by a colliery company owing to a strike or anything of that sort was never recovered. He had had thirty years experience as Chairman of one of the largest coal companies in this country, and he could say that they never recovered the loss they sustained on any contract whim failed owing to a strike. Such contracts were taken up by somebody else in a moment, and contracts amounting to 30,000 or 40,000 tons per annum had been lost in this way.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not dispute the noble Lord's statement in the slightest degree.

LORD KNARESBOROUGH

asked I why, if the Government disliked this proposal so much, they did not bring up an Amendment to split the difference and mike the date the 1st October? In that case Durham would give up three months, and the other counties would gain three months. He thought the 1st October would be a very good date to adopt.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

said 1st October was the time when the large contracts were made in Yorkshire, and he was afraid it would be taken advantage of in order to get more money for wages.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the noble Earl opposite had stated he did not wish to give any preference to Durham and Northumberland and that he was very much impressed by the speech of Lord Newton.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

May I explain that in speaking of that preference I am speaking on my own account? I am personally interested in the matter, and I wish it to be understood I was speaking purely in my own personal cap a city.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he was certain no one supposed for a moment that the noble Lord would speak differently on any subject whether he was interested or not. He said he did not wish to give any preference to Durham or Northumberland, and then he went on to say that the 1st January was a suitable date, and he proposed to keep the Bill as it was. The result of that was that he continued this preference to Durham and Northumberland. He hoped he would accept the advice of Lord Knares-borough, which was that to-morrow morning, seeing the difficulty in which they were placed by the Government proposal as it stood, he would come down and take the lead of the House, and give them some date which in his opinion would meet the difficulties which he admitted had arisen.

LORD NEWTON

said that to him one thing seemed perfectly clear, and it was that each of the two front benches was anxious to fix the responsibility of the date on the other. This was a question which would have to be settled by the back benches. What he should like to do would be to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would come down tomorrow and give them a plain statement of their policy on this question.

LORD ST. DAVIDS

thought they were all agreed that Northumberland and Durham should not be favoured and that it would be inadvisable to bring this Act into operation in the winter. Would it not be a simple matter to make the date 1st July, 1909, and let it apply equally all round? That would equalise everybody, and bring the Act into operation in the middle of the summer at a time when trade was not very good and the price of coal was likely to be falling rather than rising.

THE EARL OF DURHAM

said he must really ask their Lordships to object to this proposal. It was now the 17th of December, and to say that in July next the unfortunate counties of Durham and Northumberland should have to make all their arrangements was absurd.

LORD NEWTON

said everybody else had to do the same.

THE EARL OF DURHAM

asked why not give them to July, 1910? He thought the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, was going to move an Amendment to that effect, namely, that the Bill should not come into operation until July, 1910. Durham and Northumberland required no preference, and noble Lords were all agreed that some inconvenience would be caused if it came into operation in January. It was absolutely sure that there would be a strike in Durham if the Act came into operation in July next, and it would be much better if the Government would prolong the time until July, 1910.

LORD AVEBURY

said they were all agreed that they could not give a preference to Northumberland and Durham. The Government said they could not withdraw from Northumberland and Durham the date they proposed. They also said that the Bill could not be brought into operation in December, and that it ought to come into operation on 1st July. Therefore he thought they were all agreed that the 1st July, 1910, was the date on which the Bill ought to come into operation. He suggested to his noble friend that he should withdraw his Amendment and move the words "the 1st July, 1910," and that would carry out the general opinion of the House.

LORD NEWTON

said he would do so but he knew that there was not the faintest chance of it being accepted. Therefore he saw no use in making that suggestion.

LORD AVEBURY

said he would take the responsibility of moving those words himself.

Amendment moved. In page 6, line 13, to omit the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Lord Avebury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I understand that the Amendment is to make the date 1st July, 1910. I think your Lordships will see that the Government will not be able to accept an Amendment of that kind.

* VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, speaking for myself, I think it would be advisable that we should insert this word now, and perhaps the Government will have made up their minds by to-morrow what their policy really is.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The policy of the Government is contained in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the Government had told them that they did not wish to give a preference to Durham or Northumberland.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I never said anything of the sort.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the policy of the Government was not in the Bill. The first words of the noble Earl were that the Government object to any preference, and preference was in the Bill.

LORD AVEBURY

understood the Government said there were strong reasons against bringing the Bill into operation on 1st January. Therefore they were all agreed that it should be July.

Standing Committee negatived.

The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 267.]