Sitting of 15 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [August 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading— Coroners* [378]; Statute Law Revision* [379].
Second Reading—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment *; Police Constables' Pensions* [35]; Suffragan's Nomination * [102].
Report of Select Committee —Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c.) (Belfast) [No. 288].
Committee— Coal Mines, &c. Regulation [130] — R.P.; Small Debts (Scotland) * [42]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment (No. 3)* [353]; Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [180]. and passed.
Withdrawn— Qualifications of Guardians of the Poor* [315].

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—CLONES WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any
  470
  complaints have reached the Local Government Board concerning the quality and quantity of the Clones water supply; whether it is true that samples of the water were submitted to the public analyst of Dublin, and condemned by him as unfit for human consumption; and. whether the Clones Local Sanitary Board have taken any steps to provide a wholesome and efficient supply; and, if not, will the Local Government Board take any action to prevent the dangers of further delay in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Complaints on this subject have reached the Local Government Board. Samples of water from the five public pumps in the town have been analyzed by the public analyst of Dublin. He pronounced the water of one to be utterly unfit for use, of two to be inferior, and of the other two to be of fairly good quality. The Local Government Board are at present in correspondence with the Rural Sanitary Authority in regard to the general question of the water supply to this town.

  COMMISSIONERS OF LUNACY (SCOTLAND)—NORTHERN DISTRICT ASYLUM.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the Northern Lunacy District is the only lunacy district in Scotland where there are no wards provided for private patients, either in the district asylum or in some other institution within the district; whether it is the case that patients have to be enrolled as paupers before admission to the Northern District Asylum (at Dunain), even though their curators should be able and willing to pay for their maintenance; whether the Commissioners of Lunacy for Scotland have, in their last Report, pronounced this usage to be illegal; whether they are prepared to press the Northern District Lunacy Board to supply accommodation for private patients; and, whether there are any, and, if so, what, burghs in the Northern Lunacy District unrepresented on the District Board of Lunacy, and the reason why they have no representatives on the Board?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): There is no lunacy

  471
  district known as the Northern Lunacy District. Shetland, Orkney, and Caithness each form a separate distinct, and their pauper lunatics are housed in Montrose or Edinburgh asylums. Sutherland, Ross, Cromarty, and Inverness form one district, and have a district asylum at Inverness. District asylums are provided by assessment only for paupers; but if there is spare accommodation in them, this may legally be used for private patients. The usage of housing patients as paupers, whose maintenance is privately paid for, was declared by the Lunacy Board in their Report to be illegal. There are seven Royal asylums in Scotland where such lunatics can be received at low rates of board. The burghs of Fortrose, Tain, Dornoch, and Cromarty have no separate representation on the Board of their district, owing to the small amount of their valuation.

  SCOTLAND—CROWN RIGHTS—COUNTY OF ORKNEY.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, What amount of money per annum is collected by Mr. Barnett, in the County of Orkney, on behalf of the Crown, and the annual salary paid to that gentleman?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I gave the figures of the amount collected in an answer some days ago, and will be glad, if the hon. Member wishes it, to furnish him with a note of them. Mr. Barnett's salary is £120 per annum.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— SALARIES.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether a Memorial from the fishery officers has recently been received by the Fishery Board of Scotland praying for an increase of salaries; and, whether the Board is prepared to consider their claims favourably and to recommend the Treasury to accede to their request?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The fishery officers applied to the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments in February last as to their emoluments being increased, and
  472
  on the 9th ultimo the Fishery Board received a letter from the Committee of Officers stating that no communication had been received to the statement made by them to the Royal Commission, and again beseeching the Board to recommend an increase to their salaries and allowances. The Fishery Board stated, in reply, that as the officers themselves had applied to the Royal Commission, it would not be suitable for the Board to approach the Commission on the matter; but that if the Commission applied to the Board for any information they would be glad to give it, adding that, so far as the Board were aware, the Commission had not as yet been in Scotland.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—ADULTERATED LEATHER.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether he has yet received the chemist's Report on the adulterated leather, and if, in accordance with his promise, he will communicate such Report to the House; whether the specification provides that the leather should be oak-bark tanned; and, whether the hides of collar leather passed were tanned with chemicals and adulterated to add weight?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The chemist to the War Department has reported that glucosides are employed in the tanning of leather, and that traces of glucose would be found after the process; but that a larger amount has been found in the hides he has examined than would, in his opinion, be accounted for by chemical reaction. The contractors' tanners contest the professional accuracy of this opinion. It appears to me, therefore, that further investigation is required, and I have given directions that an independent Report shall be prepared for the War Department from a competent outside source. The specification does not require that the leather should be oak-bark tanned.
  MR. HANBURYinquired what were the names of the Members of the Commission of Inquiry?
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether it was true that some of the leather was wet with glucose?
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid he would ascertain.

  EXCISE (IRELAND)—RUSSELL'S TEMPERANCE HOTEL, ST. STEPHEN'S GREEN, DUBLIN.
  MR. NOLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Russell's Temperance Hotel, Stephen's Green, Dublin, has been licensed as a house of public refreshment, resort, and entertainment, within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 107, during the last five years; and, if not now licensed, whether the Excise Authorities propose to take any action in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No refreshment house licence has been taken out in respect of Russell's Temperance Hotel during the last five years. It is not regarded as a house of public refreshment, resort, and entertainment within the meaning of the section referred to; and no action is contemplated by the Excise Authorities beyond that of satisfying themselves, from time to time, that the business is carried on in such a way as not to make Mr. Russell liable to Licence Duty.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND) — ALLEGED ROBBERY AT ANGHOR (BOYLE).
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a man named William Armstrong was robbed of over £17 in the townland of Anghor on his way from the fair of Boyle on the 25th July last; whether John M'Gorhan, who had been, with his father, in the employment of of Mr. J. G. Bennison as an emergency man, swore an information to the effect that he saw a farmer named William M'Cartin commit the robbery; whether on this evidence M'Cartin was arrested and kept in gaol from Saturday until he was released on Wednesday, when he was admitted to bail; whether M'Gorhan left the country on the 1st August; whether Armstrong on the 6th August made an information charging M'Gorhan with the robbery; whether M'Gorhan alleged some years ago that he had been shot, and, on his information to that effect, was allowed £120 under the Crimes Act of 1882, which was levied off the Ballinamore District; and, whether
  474
  the Government will take any action in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the facts of the case were mainly as indicated in the Question. With regard to the fifth paragraph, Armstrong swore in a previous information that the persons who robbed him were strangers. He did not know that any action could be taken.

  SCOTLAND—ORKNEY AND SHETLAND ISLANDS.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that in 1748, when the Native Government of the Norse State of Orkney and Shetland was abolished, the Governor of the Islands was allowed to retain, as his private estate and revenue, all the lands, taxes, and other revenues of that abolished Government, without diminution; whether, at the same time, the Islands, being reduced to a Scottish county, were in addition to their Native taxes, assessed with the local and Imperial taxation of a Scottish county, being thereby subjected to a double taxation; and, whether the Islands are still so deprived of their Government lands, taxes, and other public revenues, and still subjected to a double taxation?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Danish kingly rights in Orkney and Shetland were impignorated in 1471 by the King of Denmark in security of 50,000 florins, the dowry of his daughter, and were never redeemed. They were, in 1487, annexed to the Crown. After various grants from re-annexation to and devolutions from the Crown, Orkney and Shetland were, in 1707, finally devolved, with consent of the Scots Parliament, from the Crown, in favour of the then Earl of Morton, and were subsequently acquired by the ancestors of the present Earl of Zetland. The Crown rights consisted of (1) Scat duties out of lands possessed by uddalers; (2) the duties and mails, or rents, from Crown lands possessed by tenants, which, by Charters and otherwise, became rights of property under the burden of the Scat and a grassum; and (3) teind duties where the Crown was accountable to the Church for the teinds. The lands, when an-

  475
  nexed to the Scottish Crown, were made liable to land tax and other taxes, in addition to the old Norse duties, and that notwithstanding the Scots Act of 1567, sec. 48, that Orkney and Shetland were not to be subject to the common laws of the Realm; and this, among the descendants of the old uddalers and tenants holding under Charter, has always been considered a grievance. Many of them have acquired, by purchase Lord Zetland's rights; and where property has been sold these duties have always been taken into consideration. There never was a Governor of the Islands. The various disponees of the Crown exercised heritable jurisdiction, civil and criminal, as elsewhere in Scotland, until the passing in 1747 of the Act abolishing heritable jurisdiction.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — MILTON ABBAS SCHOOL, BLANDFORD.
  MR. PORTMANasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, taking into consideration that the Milton Abbas School, Blandford, has now been closed for 10 years, and that the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, for establishing in lieu thereof a girls' school, has met with general disapprobation in Blandford and the neighbourhood, he will take some steps to secure that the school shall speedily be re-opened for boys as in former years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he was aware that a great deal of dissatisfaction existed in the neighbourhood of Blandford with regard to the scheme referred to, and he was now in consultation with the Commissioners as to what steps should be given.

  ADMIRALTY—THE EVOLUTIONARY SQUADRON—THE NORDENFELT GUNS.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the inquiry into the recent explosions of improvised blank cartridges for Nordenfelt guns in the Evolutionary Squadron has cast any reflection upon the efficiency of the guns themselves, their manufacture, or upon the Service ammunition supplied for their use?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, that the recent accidents on board the Curlew and Black Prince were due to defective blank ammunition being used, and no reflection was passed upon the Nordenfelt guns or the Service cartridges. The blank cartridges were improvised; and as he thought they were not safe, he had given orders that no firing was to be done with them in future.

  WAR OFFICE — REGIMENTAL COLONELS OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the regimental colonels of the Royal Artillery who have been compulsorily retired under recent Warrants, and deprived of advantages to which they had reasonably looked forward, are to be treated in a less liberal manner than colonels in the Royal Engineers similarly retired; and, if so, whether the reason can be stated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The compensation granted to colonels of Artillery is calculated in precisely the same manner as that of colonels of Engineers; but, inasmuch as during employment the emoluments of the latter exceed those of the former on the average, the compensation of the Engineer colonel comes to the larger sum.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— AN EXCURSION TRAIN FROM PORT RUSH TO BELFAST—FIRING ON THE PEOPLE AT BALLYMONEY.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received further information as to the parties implicated in the use of missiles and fire-arms by the excursionists returning from Portrush to Belfast on the 7th; whether it is true that at Ballymoney there were any attacks, or signs of hostility, against the excursionists displayed by the people gathered at the station, or along the railroad line; whether a man named Crawford, a spectator, was struck with a bullet fired from the excursion train, and was saved from great injury by its coming in contact with a copper coin in his pocket; whether there was one Head Constable, two acting sergeants, and six constables (the

  477
  whole force in barracks at the time excepting one) stationed along the railway on either side of the station; and, whether at Portrush there was any firing reported by the police as having come from any party but the excursionists?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The police report that at Ballymoney there were no attacks made by the people on the excursionists. The people were inclined to stone the train, but were prevented by the police. The excursionists fired several shots, apparently without any provocation, and Crawford was hit on the thigh, but not injured. I am not aware to what his escape from injury was due. There were 11 policemen posted at the station. The excursionists alone used fire-arms at Portrush. They fired there about six shots in all; but no one was injured.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a telegram was sent to the Constabulary in Belfast from Ballymoney, or Ballymena, stating that this armed outrage had occurred; and whether there had been any search made of the excursionists on their arrival in Belfast?
  MR. M'CARTANasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was a fact that the excursionists were first attacked at Portrush; whether on their way to Portrush they took off their sashes lest they might give offence; whether it was a fact that before they came to Ballymena stones were placed across the line for the purpose of throwing the second train, which contained a large number of excursionists, off the line, and that when they came to Belfast they were attacked there; and whether he was aware that one person was arrested, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment for attacking them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would require Notice of the hon. Member's (Mr. Johnston's) Question, as he did not know what occurred as regards the police in Belfast. As regards the Question put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Cartan), it was true, apparently, that some provocation had been given at Portrush to the excursionists; but there was no provocation offered which would be sufficient to justify them in firing shots, which was the method by which the excursionists apparently replied.
  478
  There was an attempt made to upset the second train; but the attempt was frustrated by the vigilance of the police. The attempt was not made until the mob became excited, not unnaturally, by the unprovoked firing from the train upon them at places where they had not given any provocation whatever to the excursionists.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he had any objection in this case to grant an inquiry into the origin of the attacks, and all the circumstances connected with them; and whether he was aware that the Catholics of Belfast desired that the fullest investigation should be held into the whole matter?
  MR. JOHNSTONsaid, the Orange Party were also most anxious that the fullest inquiry should be held.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, so far as he knew, there were no matters connected with these occurrences which, remained in doubt; and therefore he did not know whether anything could be gained by an inquiry. There were, obviously, faults on both sides; but he was bound to say that the excursionists were far more in fault than the others.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in making the preliminary inquiry for the drainage of the River Barrow, the plans of Messieurs Lewis and Strype, which have found so much favour with all parties interested in the work, will be considered; whether, in preparing for intended legislation, the proposal of those eminent engineers, who say that the reasonable outlay of £153,000 is quite enough for all practical purposes, will be seriously entertained; and, if not, can he state for what reason; and, whether it is intended to make the expense a public charge, or, in case it is intended to raise any portion off the districts, will the people have an opportunity of expressing their views on the plans, the cost, and the mode of raising the proportionate amount necessary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no reason to doubt that all plans and proposals which may be put forward in regard to the drainage of the River

  479
  Barrow will receive careful attention. The question in connection with the incidence of the charge in carrying out the works is one that must await the decision of the Legislature.

  THE COLONIES—COLONIAL MAPS IN THE LIBRARY OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Colonial Office possesses, or can supply from time to time, sufficient information to enable the Colonial maps in the Library of this House to be marked with the railways, roads, and telegraph and postal stations now existing and in progress in each Colony; and, whether he will take such steps as will enable this to be done?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Colonial Office has, or can obtain, the necessary information; but as the progress of settlements in the principal Colonies renders it important to have the most recent maps of those Colonies, the preferable course would appear to be to procure for the Library of the House, from time to time, such maps giving the desired information as the Colonial Governments may recommend.

  IRELAND—DESTRUCTION OF TURF BY FIRE AT TRILLICK, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that, on the 24th of July last, a large rick of turf, the property of James Fitzpatrick, of Trillick, near Longford, was destroyed by fire; whether, on the two days preceding the fire, the police were engaged in musketry practice adjacent to where the rick of turf stood; whether, on the day the fire broke out, the Militia were similarly engaged on the ground; whether, in reply to a Memorial addressed to Dublin Castle on the subject, Sir Redvers Buller admitted that the turf had been accidentally burned at the rifle range on the day in question, and gave, as a ground for the Irish Government not giving compensation, that the fire did not take place on either of the days the Constabulary were engaged in practising; whether, from this admission, and for other reasons, there is reason to believe that the accidental fire was due to the pre-
  480
  sence of the Militia; and, whether, under all the circumstances, the Government will take into consideration the question of making compensation to this poor man for the loss of his winter's fuel?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The answer to the first four paragraphs is in the affirmative. As regards the latter portion of the Question, I cannot express an opinion as to the origin of the fire, and can only adhere to the reply given to the Memorial, to the effect that the Irish Government have no responsibility in the matter.
  MR. HAYDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the presence of the Militia had anything to do with the fire.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Even if it were true that the Militia caused the fire, the Irish Government have no responsibility in the matter. It is entirely a matter for the War Office.

  POLICE INSPECTION OF MUSIC HALLS, &c—THE PAVILION MUSIC HALL.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter addressed by Mr. Henry Varley to Members of Parliament, complaining of alleged breaches of morality at the Pavilion Music Hall; and, whether he is prepared to see that the Law is enforced for the protection of public morals?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would ask him whether this Henry Varley is the same person who issued a pamphlet to all the Members of this House containing most foul and scandalous insinuations against myself?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am happy to say that my mind has not been prejudiced by those insinuations, as I have not seen the pamphlet. I therefore cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's Question. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have seen a copy of the pamphlet by Mr. Varley, to which I suppose the hon. Member alludes. The music-hall in question is regularly visited by the police, who report to me that the place is well conducted, and that nothing

  481
  obscene or indecent has been witnessed by the police, either in the entertainment or among the audience. If any breach of the law is reported to me, I shall certainly see that the law is enforced. I may add that Mr. Varley, who had given notice to oppose the renewal of the licence of the Pavilion Music Hall, did not attend before the Licensing Justices to sustain his objections, and the licence was renewed.

  NAVY CONTRACTS — TENDERS FOR PORK.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in March last, tenders were invited for the supply of pork to the training ships lying off Devonport; whether the advertisements for such tenders stated that nothing but home fed and home cured pork would be accepted; whether, in spite of such condition, the contractor has not supplied home cured, but very inferior foreign, pork; and, whether the ships supplied with the same have been unable to use large quantities of it owing to its inferior quality?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY)(who replied)said: An advertisement was issued on February 11, 1887, for tenders for the supply of corned pork to Her Majesty's training ships at Devonport. The advertisement did not state that nothing but home-fed and home-cured pork would be accepted, as it is not usual for advertisements, which must always necessarily be brief, to contain all the conditions of the contracts. The advertisement, however, refers to the form of tender which, states that American or other imported pork is not to be supplied. Inquiry has been made of the Commander-in-Chief at Devonport as to the quality of the pork. He reports that it has been excellent, and that none has been condemned as unfit for use. To prevent the delivery of American or other imported pork, the contract provides that the slaughterhouse shall be open at all times to the inspection of the receiving officers. There has not been time yet to ascertain whether this inspection has taken place; but further inquiry will be made, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know the result of this inquiry.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ASSAULTS AT WESTPORT.
  MR. MACARTNEYhad the following Question on the Paper, but did not ask it:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph, in The Sheffield Daily Telegraph of 11th August: —
  "Our Dublin correspondent says;—I am in a position to inform you that the attack on a Protestant excursion party at Westport, which has been reported in your columns, has been followed by a state of things in the immediate district which is creating serious alarm among the Protestant residents. …. A few days ago a Protestant Police Inspector stayed at a Boycotted hotel in the district, and, on leaving, was the victim of a murderous assault for thus offending against the unwritten laws of the Nationalists. The Inspector bravely tackled his assailant, and held on to him in the midst of a hostile crowd till police assistance arrived;"
  and, whether the Government will take steps to protect the law-abiding inhabitants of the district of Westport from the dangers which may be apprehended from the state of things alluded to?
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a Question which appears on the Paper of a very offensive character to the county which I have the honour to represent. It is Question No. 19. The hon. Member for South Antrim placed it on the Paper; but he left his place in the House before the Question was called. I understand that on a previous occasion you ruled that any Question reflecting seriously upon a constituency, or a section of the people, when placed upon the Paper ought to be asked, if the hon. Member is in the House. The hon. Member deliberately left his place before the Question was called.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman likes to ask the Question himself, it is perfectly competent for him to do so.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Question of the Chief Secretary.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not seen the newspaper paragraph alluded to in the Question; but I find that it has reference to the case of a man who refused to leave the hotel premises until supplied with drink, he at the time being intoxicated. He was removed from the

  483
  premises, and subsequently arrested for being drunk and disorderly. The case has no connection with the religious ill-feeling which unhappily exists in the district,

  RIOTOUS MEETINGS (IRELAND)— ORANGE MEETINGS AT LURGAN AND SILVERWOOD.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to the fact that, previous to the lath. July last, a monster meeting of Orangemen was announced to take place on that date at Lurgan, under the patronage of Lord Erne, and that seven magistrates, who presided at the Petty Sessions held immediately before the meeting, after consultation with Mr. Mayne, R.M., decided that, in order to preserve the peace, it would be necessary to have in Lurgan on that day a force consisting of 200 police and 50 Cavalry soldiers; whether these magistrates accordingly signed a requisition to this effect, and handed same to District Inspector Bigley; whether, notwithstanding this requisition, and the fact that some members of the local force were obliged to be at Armagh Assizes on the 12th July, no extra force was sent to Lurgan; whether any, and, if so, what answer was sent to the local magistrates; whether serious disturbances took place at Silverwood, near Lurgan, on that day, when a party of Orangemen on their return home attacked. some Catholics, wounded two women, and wrecked two houses belonging to Catholics; whether shots were fired by the Orangemen, and one of them was terrifying the people by brandishing a scythe on the occasion; whether it was usual to leave Silverwood unprotected when such meetings were held at Lurgan; whether, on the evening of the 12th July, a number of Catholics went into Lurgan and offered to make information identifying the rioters, but no opportunity was given by the police; whether, on the following day, the same Catholics went to District Inspector Bigley, and were told by him "that he had too much to do to attend to their complaint;" whether the statements of those aggrieved persons were then taken on the 14th July, when a magistrate and the Petty Sessions clerk sent the complainants to the police;
  484
  whether any steps were taken by the police to bring the offenders to justice; whether on the 20th July, when Mr. O'Reilly, solicitor, applied at Potty Sessions to have informations taken, the application was opposed by Mr. Bigley, who got an adjournment to the following day; whether he was then requested to telegraph, to Dublin Castle for instructions, and received a reply not to prosecute; whether this is the same Mr. Bigley who ordered the police to fire into the "Catholic Street," at Lurgan, in March last; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the origin of, and the circumstances in connection with, the disturbances of March and July in this district?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): A requisition signed by the local magistrates, including Mr. Mayne, R.M., was forwarded, through the District Inspector of Constabulary, to the Executive asking for the presence of a body of police and Cavalry at Lurgan, at a meeting of Orangemen on July 12. The Lord Lieutenant, in the exercise of his discretion, decided not to send this extra force, but made arrangements for the drafting into Lurgan of a body of soldiers should disturbances arise. These arrangements were communicated to Mr. Mayne, R.M. Although some disturbances did take on July 12, they appear to be less serious than on later occasions, when a large extra force was present in the town. I have not had time, owing to the short notice given, to obtain a full report as to the latter portion of the Question; but I understand that proceedings are about to be instituted against some of the persona engaged in the attack.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the right hon. Gentleman, was he aware whether correspondence had taken place between the magistrates at Lurgan and the Under Secretary; and whether the explanation of the Under Secretary was regarded by them as both unsatisfactory and insufficient; and whether he was aware that in Lurgan riots had frequently taken place, and that soldiers, on the requisition of the magistrates, had been drafted into the town; whether he was aware the Under Secretary stated that he had considered the magistrates' application in connection with other Reports; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman

  485
  could say from what quarter the Other; Reports came?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not conversant with the whole correspondence between the magistrates and the Under Secretary. He could not agree with the statement that the explanation of the Under Secretary was not satisfactory.

  INDIA—THE NATIVE STATES (HYDERABAD)—THE SIRDAR DILER- UL-MULK.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that the £83,000 was promised to Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk, by; the late Prime Minister of Hyderabad, in a letter to the Sirdar, in the following terms: —
  "Five per cent commission (or £83,000) on the whole amount to be appropriated in manner you think proper in rewarding the services of those who have been mainly instrumental in starting the schemes and in carrying it through;"
  that, notwithstanding this letter, Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk pocketed the whole of the £83,000, and, as the negotiator for raising the funds for making the railway, allowed as promotion money to persons in this country who carried through the railway scheme what was an equivalent to an additional sum of £175,000 out of the capital, thus devoting one-fifth of the whole sum raised in this country for forming the railway to promotion purposes; and, whether the Government will appoint a Committee, or support a Motion, by an independent Member, for the appointment of a Committee, to inquire into the alleged gross misappropriation, for the most part among persons in this country, of the funds of a quasi- independent Indian State, but a State in some measure under the protection of the Indian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The statements in the Question are substantially correct, except that the amount paid for promotion was, so far as is known to the Secretary of State, £138,000, and not £175,000. As the facts of the case are perfectly well known, the Secretary of State does not think that any object would be gained by the appointment of a Committee.
  SIR GUYER HUNTER: As arising out of the reply of
  486
  the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, I would ask him whether the sum of £100,000 was not paid under an agreement with the India Office for the purpose of defraying all expenses up to the registration of the Company and remuneration for assuring capital, and whether that amount was not shown en the prospectus of the Company; and whether the balance of £35,000, and not £75,000 as stated by the hon. Member who put the Question, was not simply the commission granted on the debenture issue, and was allowed on the understanding that the debenture stock had been underwritten?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, as to the first part of the Question, that he had stated, in answer to a Question put to him a few days ago, that the sum mentioned was paid by the Hyderabad Government. As to the other part of the Question, he was not aware that the Secretary of State had any official knowledge on the subject; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of his Question.

  NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES—THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR.. HENRY H FOWLERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum proposed to be voted on the Supplementary Estimates for allowances and expenses in respect of the Newfoundland Fishery Negotiations includes any claim which the late Government refused to sanction?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.): My answer is no.

  BOARD OF TRADE—LABOUR STATISTICS—NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM MINERS' UNIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Unions have a permanent relief fund, which has been in existence 25 years, with copious annually published Reports; whether the last published Report shows 88,000 members, with invested assets £120,303, and an annual income of £55,053; and, whether the Northumberland Miners' Association, the Durhum Miners' Association, and their joint Permanent Relief Fund, are included in the 18 Trade

  487
  Unions, of which Tables are given in the Paper on Labour Statistics, recently issued by the Board of Trade; and, if not, why the easily obtainable details of these societies, and other large Miners' Unions, are omitted?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Northumberland and Durham miners have a permanent relief fund, but it is not a Trade Union, and could, therefore, not be included in a Report on Trades Unions. The Miners' Associations of Durham and Northumberland were applied to for Returns, in common with all the Miners' Associations of the country, but have as yet failed to supply them. The Board of Trade are, therefore, unable to state what are the numbers and financial condition of these Bodies.

  BOARD OF TRADE—LABOUR STATISTICS — THE UNITED PLUMBERS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the United Plumbers Association of Great Britain and Ireland was applied to by the Labour Statistical Department of the Board of Trade to furnish information for publication; whether any information was received, and when; why no statement is made as to the nature of such information in the Paper upon Labour Statistics recently laid before Parliament; whether he will state how many Trade Societies in all were applied to for similar information, and when; how many replies giving information were received; and, why the information received has not been published?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The United Operative Plumbers' Association was applied to for information by means of a Circular issued in October last. In November five quarterly Reports only were sent in by this Association. Since then three further quarterly Reports have been received. The information supplied by those Reports was insufficient for the purposes of the Report, and could not be tabulated. The Circular asking for information was sent out to 166 Societies. Only 30 Societies, in addition to those included in the Report of the Labour Correspondent, sent in any information;
  488
  and this information consisted merely of monthly or quarterly statements, which could not be included in the Report on account of insufficiency of detailed information.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE — FOREIGN BOUNTIES ON SUGAR — UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN AT THE EAST END (METROPOLIS).
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a large number of workmen have recently been thrown out of employment in the East End owing to the failure of a sugar refinery establishment; and, whether he is taking any steps to alter the law relating to foreign bounties on sugar?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr, GOSCHEN)(who replied)said: The Government have no official information, but have learnt with regret that a refinery has lately been closed in the East End, causing the discharge of a considerable number of work people. We shall continue to do our best, by means of negotiation, to induce Foreign Governments to abandon the injurious system of bounties. There are, of course, no laws in this country affecting the question.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— LEVEL CROSSINGS — FATAL ACCIDENT AT BROMLEY (LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY).
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident at the level crossing at Bromley; and, considering that this level crossing is close to the centre of a largely populated town, he will call on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to construct a foot-bridge at this point?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied)said: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the accident in question, both by a Report from the Company and by a communication from the Coroner. The Board of Trade have no power to compel the Company to erect a foot-bridge; but

  489
  they have directed one of their Inspecting Officers to hold an inquiry, with a view of ascertaining whether any arrangements can be made to prevent the recurrence of such an accident. They have also forwarded to the Company and the Bromley Local Board the recommendation of the Coroner's jury—that the Railway Company and the Local Board should combine to provide a safer means for persons passing over the level crossings between Bromley and Shortlands Stations.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)-SPECIAL TESTS OF SPEED.
  SIR HENRY TYLEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he would now, as a special test of existing vessels (without waiting for others hereafter to be constructed or taken over), require any two of the most recent and powerful ships in Her Majesty's Service to undertake four days' continuous steaming at full speed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Orders have already been given for eight typical ships of recent construction to carry out the full-power trial referred to. Of these, up to the present time, the Phaeton and Mutine are the only ships that have reported. In both cases the trials have been satisfactory. The other ships will report as their trials are completed.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— BOOKS USED IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutant of Ireland, with reference to the contract recently entered into by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for books used in the National Schools, Whether the new second books now supplied are stitched with wire instead of with Irish linen threads, as formerly; whether they are inferior in workmanship, less serviceable, and more liable to lose their covers when opened; whether the children have to pay the same price as formerly for them; whether the late contractor has offered to supply more securely bound books at prices 10 per cent lower than the price now charged; and, whether, under the circumstances, the teachers will be allowed to purchases, sell, and use in
  490
  their schools the books so procurable at a lower price?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education report that the new second books are stitched with wire. The books are not inferior, but quite the contrary, a great improvement in their durability being effected by the wire stitching. The children pay the same price as formerly. The late contractor has not offered to supply better books at the reduced price named.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that books stitched with wire could not be opened without tearing the covers of them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not aware.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE NEW SWORD BAYONET.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the men who have received the new sword bayonet, with the foresight on the ring, have had any target practice so as to test the accuracy of the shooting; if so, whether a Report of the result will be laid before the House?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied)said: The only issues of these sword bayonets have been to the Navy, and as yet no Reports have been, received from that Service.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked, if the hon. Gentleman anticipated a Report being made on the subject?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: Certainly.

  WAR OFFICE—QUARTERMASTERS AND RIDING MASTERS.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the special, appointments open to Quartermasters and Riding Masters which carry the rank of Major shall be given exclusively to the senior Quartermasters and Riding Masters of the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I cannot give any such assurance. The appointments referred to are those of special responsibility, for which the best qualified officers will be selected, irrespective of seniority.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL— WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consider the possibility of introducing, in the Committee stage of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill, some addition to the clause dealing with, the Weights and Measures Act of 1878, in order to provide against the notorious contravention of the intention of that Act, in the practice of selling coal in canal boats by fictitious measurement, which exclusively prevails in the mining districts of South Staffordshire?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I think it is outside the scope of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill to legislate for sales of coal, with which the Bill has nothing to do. I am not aware that the Weights and Measures Act of 1878 does not satisfactorily deal with the subject of sales.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACTS— AMENDMENTS.
  MR. GODSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to deal any further with the many difficulties arising from the present defects in the working of the Friendly Societies Acts than they are about to do in "The Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment (No. 3) Bill?"
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Yes, Sir; it is the intention of the Government to deal further with the difficulties arising from defects in the laws relating to Friendly Societies. The Government propose to make an exhaustive inquiry into the whole question, the Bill at present before the House dealing only with, some minor points on which all are agreed.

  FOOTPATHS AND OPEN SPACES—PROTECTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, SCOTLAND).
  MR. BRYCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the injury inflicted on the inhabitants of Fife, in the neighbourhood of Aberdour, by the taking by the North British Railway
  492
  Company, under powers alleged to have been conferred by a Private Act of Parliament, of an ancient footpath along the shore of the Firth of Forth, commanding views of great beauty; and, whether, in the preparation of a Local Government Bill for Scotland, he will consider the propriety of vesting in a representative Local Authority the duty of watching over and taking steps to protect the interests of the public in the matter of footpaths and open spaces, so as to prevent the occurrence of such injuries as the destruction of this Aberdour footpath has caused?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I do not understand that the Aberdour footroad has been shut up by the construction of the railway, although it is clear that the line could not be made without, in some degree, injuring its amenity. I shall be glad to consider whether, in any coming legislation, aid can be given to the saving as much as possible of similar public rights when works of public utility are being promoted in Parliament.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY-LE-STRAND.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the information lately given by the Metropolitan Board of Works respecting the dangerous condition of St. Mary-le-Strand, and to the great public improvement and safety which would be effected by the removal of the church, the Government would be disposed to introduce a short Bill, before the Prorogation of Parliament, authorizing such removal, in the event of the Patron and Incumbent, the Vestry, and the Board of Works, and any other parties properly to be consulted, considering it expedient; and, whether he is aware that the worshippers in the church are very few, and could be easily accommodated in any of the churches in the immediate neighbourhood?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Full information as to the present condition of the church of St. Mary-le-Strand was given to my hon. Friend on Monday last; and

  493
  he was informed that, though the Metropolitan Board of Works had considered the suggestion as to the removal of the church, they were not in a position at present to act upon the proposal. It is not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce Bills relative to Metropolitan improvements; and I am unable, therefore, to give my hon. Friend any hopes of the Government taking any steps in the matter.

  COLONIZATION—GUARANTEED FUNDS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any proposal ever submitted to or discussed with any of the Colonies on the subject of colonization has been based on the principle of the funds being provided by the public here, by subscription to a public marketable stock, to be issued upon the security of the lands settled on, and guaranteed as to the interest by the co-operation of the Imperial and Colonial Governments, the fatter undertaking and guaranteeing the administration of the capital and the collection of the interest from the settlers and the Imperial Government lending its guarantee, by way of endorsement of the Colonial security, to enable the money to be raised at the lowest possible cost; and, if not, whether there is any reason why an inquiry should not be addressed to the several Colonies, to ascertain their views upon such a plan, or, in the alternative, for their suggestions of any other plan, in order that the same may be submitted to the opinion of this House next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The subject of colonization on the principles sot out in the Question of my hon. Friend has not been discussed with the Colonial Governments. There seems no reason why the attention of Colonial Governments should not be directed to this question, and why they should not be requested to state their views thereon, and Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take the necessary steps.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could state when the Allotments Bill would be taken in Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government were under certain engagements in regard to certain other measures, and especially that the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill should be passed through Committee before any other Business was dealt with. After that he had entered into an engagement with the right hon. Gentleman himself that the Diplomatic Vote should be taken, and then would follow the consideration of the Irish Land Law Bill on Thursday and also the Irish Votes. He was unable, therefore, to say when progress would be made with the Allotments Bill; but he hoped that it would not long be delayed.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give, at any rate, two days' Notice when it would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was afraid that at that period of the Session he could not give two days' Notice; but he would give as much Notice as he could. The right hon. Gentleman would see that on the 15th of August it was impossible to give as much Notice as he would be delighted to give at another period.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONin consequence of what happened on Friday, when two Bills of considerable Constitutional importance were read a second time before they were delivered to Members, asked whether the Government intended to proceed with any Bills other than those already introduced into the House; and, if so, whether care would be taken that an interval of two or three days at least should elapse between their being circulated and the time fixed for second reading?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member that the Bills which he had referred to were proceeded with before they were circulated. The Chairman of Committees and hon. Friends behind him would bear him out in stating the fact that the Bills were circulated, although the hon. and learned Gentleman might not have received copies of them. He could not undertake that, under no circumstances, should a Bill of minor importance be proceeded with within two or three days after it was

  495
  delivered. At this period of that Session no general engagement could be given as to the progress of Business; but certainly no Bill of primary importance would be proceeded with until it had been circulated and considered by hon. Members.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not met his point— that the Bills were not circulated before being read a second time. Was it not the fact that in the Votes distributed to Members to-day the Bills were returned as being distributed on Saturday, the second reading having been taken on the previous night?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had not looked at the Votes sufficiently to confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, when the Indian Budget would be brought forward?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that for the reasons already given he could not say; but it would be taken on the earliest possible day.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say it will not be taken this week?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It certainly will not be taken this week.
  In reply to Mr. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he could not make any definite statement as to the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill.
  MR. CHILDERS: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope on Thursday I shall be able to make a statement as to this Bill.
  MR. CHILDERS: And other Bills?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; and other Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 130.]
  Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24 th June.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Certificated Managers.
  Clause 21 (Appointment of manager of mines).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Clause 21 already provides that every mine shall be under one responsible manager, who shall be the holder of a certificate of the first class; but by provision c, Section 3, it is provided that—
  "A mine in which not more than thirty persons are employed below ground shall be exempt from the provisions of this section, unless the Inspector of the district, by notice in writing, served on the owner or agent of the mine, requires that it be under the control of a manager."
  How many mines there are in the United Kingdom with fewer than 30 miners employed underground I do not know. The Returns do not show it; but I believe that in the Eastern District of Scotland, which is under the inspection of Mr. Ralph Moore, there are dozens of these collieries with considerably less, in many cases, than 30 employed underground. The Returns from 1850 to 1851 contain some 23½ pages of mines in this position—that is to say, that there were at that lime about 437 collieries in that district alone, and among them were, at least, 47 mines or pits which had less than 30 men employed underground in each of them. That may show the enormous number of collieries throughout the Kingdom which may be found employing this small number of men, and which would consequently be brought under the exception of the statutory protection which this clause is intended to afford. In these small collieries in the Eastern Division of Scotland, some of them are fiery, and some not fiery; several are 600, 800, and 1,000 feet deep, and I find that in the year to which the Return refers there were 10 men killed in them, and 19 men injured. Therefore, some rough idea may be formed of the very important part the small pits play in the general coal economy of the country, and how necessary it is for the Committee to apprehend what the Government propose to do with regard to pits as divided between larger and smaller—the line of demarcation being the employment of 30 men underground. I maintain that, however small these pits may be, they ought all of them to be under the control of some perfectly qualified and efficient manager. While, on the one hand, no one proposes that a manager should be in exclusive charge of each of these

  497
  small undertakings, yet I would submit that it is perfectly reasonable to ask that, on the other hand, he should not have under his care so large a number of them that the superintendence and responsibility would be frittered away until it became little more than nominal. The object of my Amendment is not to break up the unity and control of any large undertaking, because it is obvious that there must be some guiding mind and some controlling authority in every pit, however large it may be; but my object is to secure that in every pit or mine there shall be a certificated manager who shall be personally and immediately responsible for the general conduct, management, and superintendence of the undertaking, and that the number of men under one manager shall not be so numerous as to render his superintendence practically valueless. If hon. Members will examine the Returns and Reports they will find that it is almost impossible to draw any line of division between the different collieries or pits themselves, because any division of that sort would work most unequally in different districts. In some districts there are comparatively a large number of small pits and mines; while in other districts the small undertakings are comparatively few. Most of the collieries employ many hundreds of men in each of the mines; and, therefore, the only reasonable line of demarcation we can adopt is to be found in the number of men employed in one or more mines. By that means we can secure that each mine shall be under the efficient control of a perfectly qualified manager, and, at the same time, we can secure that no manager shall be restricted to one undertaking which is not sufficient to occupy his whole time and attention. When the Amendment was before the Committee on the last occasion the importance of the principle involved in it was recognized by both sides of the House, and the Government promised to consider the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was appealed to by the late Home Secretary, and he said that he saw the force of what I had stated to the Committee, and that before the next meeting of the Committee upon the Bill he would consider what the Government could do on the subject. I then stated, and I repeat now, that I am not at all desirous of standing by the
  498
  number of 30. I admit that that is a very low number indeed, and if the principle contained in the Amendment is assented to, I am prepared to accept any Amendment which may be suggested by persons of practical experience; but I desire to add that since the Committee sat last, I have been informed, on creditable authority, that any difficulty as to the number of first-class certificated managers has no foundation in fact. I am sure that, at the present time, there are 300, more or less, of certificated managers out of employment, so that there is an abundant number of first-class certificated holders eligible and available to take charge of all the pits that are likely to require additional managers under the further limitations which I propose. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to inform the Committee what decision the Government have arrived at.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 27, after sub-section (2), to insert the words—" No person shall act as manager to more than one mine in which more than thirty persons are employed below ground."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is one of a class which have the same object, which is to obtain greater security by limiting the number of pits or the number of men under one manager. The hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Donald Crawford) has given Notice of a Proviso that not more than six pits shall be under the charge of one manager; and the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Pickard) proposes that the limitation shall be to mines where there are more than 500 persons employed. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who has just sat down proposes to limit the employment of a manager to one mine, if there are more than 30 persons employed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No.
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is the way in which I read the Amendment. The words are—

  499
  "No person shall act as manager for more than one mine in which more than 30 persons are employed below ground."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The meaning of the Amendment is that a manager, having more than one mine under his care, shall not have charge of more than 30 men at the same place. The effect will be this—that a manager may have half-a-dozen mines or more under his care; but the total number of men, in that case, must not exceed 30 in each mine.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Amendment on the Paper certainly lays down that if there are more than 30 persons in a mine the manager shall not act for more than one. This matter has been very much considered, and I think the difficulty generally felt was in laying down any rule to meet all cases. A suggestion was made, which I think was almost universally accepted, that the question of the management of mines being insufficient, or of the mines themselves being neglected because the manager had too much to do, might be left to be dealt with under Section 43 — that is to say, that Section 43 should be included so as to enable the Inspector to step in and say—" Your mine is too large for your manager to superintend properly," or he may say—" Your manager has too many men under his supervision, and therefore I make a complaint that under Section 43 it is dangerous or defective, and requires to be remedied, and unless the same be remedied forthwith I shall report the state of the mine to the Secretary of State." We propose to insert words to enable the Inspector to give notice, if there are any causes of danger not expressly provided against. It would be easy to insert words in the clause to meet the case in that way; but any hard-and-fast rule would produce inconvenience and dissatisfaction, and as a matter of practice would probably work badly. Under the Bill as it stands, every mine with more than 30 men below ground must have a manager who must hold a first-class certificate, and must give his own daily personal supervision to the mine, or in his absence there must be another person, either with a first or a second-class certificate, who is able to devote the same attention to the supervision of the mine. It is, therefore, provided by the Bill that either a first-
  500
  class certificated manager, or a duly qualified certificated manager, must give his personal supervision to the mine. It was in order to let in the practical working man that we gave the second-class certificate. If that is not considered desirable, it will be necessary to substitute for the under manager a first class certificated manager also. In addition to that, we propose that the Inspector shall be able to step in and say that the manager has too much work to do, or that he does not give sufficient attention to the mine, and somebody must be employed in his place, or the amount of work must be curtailed. I believe that the difficulty may be met satisfactorily in that way.
  MR. FENWICK: I do not think it would be possible to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, unless he contemplates a large increase in the number of Inspectors. I imagine that there would be great difficulty in the way of carrying out such a suggestion as that which he has put before the Committee. At the present moment it is impossible for the number of Inspectors to go over anything like the whole of the collieries in the United Kingdom; and if their attention is to be called to difficulties in the way of management, and to complaints which may be made by the workmen, it will at once lead to the creation of ill-feeling between the workmen and the management, and there will be no end of mischief if the Inspectors are called upon to adjudicate in the event of difficulties of this kind arising. For my own part, I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to solve the problem by suggesting that the Inspectors should be permitted to call the attention of the manager to the fact that he has too much work to do, and that there must be additional managers appointed. I hope the right bon. Gentleman will relinquish altogether the idea of giving the Inspectors increased power to interfere in cases of this kind.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I understood that a promise was made, on, the part of the Government, to bring up words to meet this difficulty; but I fail to find them on the Notice Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for East Donegal press the Amendment?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Oh, yes, certainly; but I shall be perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment to the Amendment.
  MR. BURT: I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has raised a very important point, and one that deserves the serious consideration of the Committee. I have myself given a good deal of attention to this question, and while I think it is desirable that there should be some limit to the number of mines that should be under the management of one certificated manager, I find that the subject is one which is beset with very great difficulties indeed. I must say that, as far as I am aware, what the miners complain of, and what we have to guard against, is the danger of lessening the responsibility of the agent or owner, by making it possible for them to shelter themselves behind their subordinates. Again and again there has been a demand that the responsibility of the agent and the owner should be strengthened. There is no doubt in my mind that the Amendments which have been inserted in the present Bill have considerably improved the position of affairs in regard to the manager, and I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Pickard)—namely, to insert the word "personal," in order to secure that—
  "In every mine required by the Act to be under the control of a certificated manager daily personal supervision shall be exercised."
  By that means a real supervision will be secured. Speaking of the mines in the North of England, I must say that many of those in Northumberland are under the supervision of a certificated manager. The same individual may have the management of three or four collieries, and as far as I know there has been no complaint on that score. In every case the manager has under him a thoroughly competent man; but I am afraid that there are not certificated managers enough if it is desired to impose some limit such as the limit proposed. I certainly think that it is very desirable to have a limit to the number of mines under one manager, but I would submit to my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal that
  502
  the question of localities and the concentration or otherwise of the mines is quite as important as the number of men employed, because it may be quite as easy in one case to manage 1,000 or 1,500 men as it would be in another to overlook 400 or 500 men. We have, therefore, a somewhat intricate question to deal with, and if we fix any limit arbitrarily it would probably be a very difficult thing to satisfy the requirements of all parts of the country. I do not myself believe that it is always desirable to put a limit on the number of men that may be placed under the management of a certificated manager, and I understand that my hon. Friend will not adhere to the number he has proposed. I think the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire comes much nearer to the point.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I imagine that the intention of the Government and of hon. Members of this Committee in passing this Bill is to secure the greater safety of life and limb in these mines, without unnecessarily impeding the operations in the mines themselves. I am afraid, however, that if we in any way relax the responsibilities of the management, anything we may do in this House will have a contrary effect to that which we desire. At present it is well known that collieries which employ more than 30 men underground are compelled to have a first-class certificated manager—a manager holding a certificate of thorough competency. The contention that there are not a sufficient number of competent managers to be found is, I think, rather weak, and my experience in South Wales teaches me that it is erroneous also. I am certain that in my part of the country the supply is much greater than the demand. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has told us that he is desirous of giving the owners the advantage of the services and aid of first-class managers—men of high skill and experience, who come under salaries of four figures. Now, we do not wish to deprive the owners in any way of the power of procuring the aid and services of such gentlemen; but the question is whether, if we pass the Bill in its present form, we shall not be giving unlimited power to a manager who may hold a certificate of competency only.

  503
  If that is all that we do, I question whether it will not have a directly contrary effect to that which is intended by the right hon. Gentleman. At present managers of high skill and practice have now under their management seven or eight collieries with 3,000 or 4,000 men. These collieries may be situated in three or four valleys, so that the managers are unable to visit each more than once a-week, or, perhaps, more than once in every eight or 10 days. But the redeeming feature is, that they have competent men under them at each colliery. If you change the present condition of things, I am afraid it will have this effect—that high-skilled men will be got rid of, and men holding certificates of competency will take the place of the high-skilled men, while men holding second-class certificates will supplant the men to whom you now award first-class certificates. That is exactly what we wish to avoid, and as I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to reduce the competency of the management, I think if he had had practical experience of these matters, and knew what has been done in the past, he would regard all these questions in the same way that we regard them. We are afraid that if you give unlimited power, unless you can get an unlimited number of competent men, the condition of the miners will be worse than it is now. I believe that if the hon. Member for East Donegal and the Government consent to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire the whole difficulty will be met. My hon. Friend proposes that there should be a daily personal supervision of the mine. Unless we attach the responsibility of daily supervision to the manager, such a state of things will certainly be brought about that the mines will be daily supervised by second-class instead of first-class men, and we should go back instead of forward in point of safety. I will ask the Home Secretary to consider this point; because I most certainly think that, unless some limitation is fixed, the clause will have a contrary effect to that which he desires it should have.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I think I express the feelings of the great mass of the colliery proprietors when I say that the last thing they desire is that,
  504
  under this Bill, there should be any relaxation of the requirements in regard to the supervision of the managers. As far as I am acquainted with the collieries, the greatest pains are taken to secure thoroughly competent men. If it is disadvantageous to the men to have an incompetent manager, it is quite as disadvantageous to the colliery owners. Their desire is not to substitute second-class for first-class managers, but to supplement the first-class managers by men who have passed an examination that is calculated to show their fitness for the work. I think the last thing a colliery proprietor would desire would be to put an end to the employment of managers with first-class certificates, although I admit that a man may get a first-class certificate and yet be deficient in some useful qualities. I know some who are deficient in technical knowledge, and I know others whose technical knowledge is very considerable, but who, from, other defects, are not fit to be trusted. In my part of the country I believe there is no particular objection to putting a reasonable limit upon the number of mines a man may superintend. In Lancashire no manager superintends more than a moderate number; but I believe there are other parts of the country where, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out, very great benefit would arise from the employment of superior men to superintend a larger number of collieries. By allowing the work of first-class managers to be supplemented by managers of the second-class we should, I think, be putting a really valuable class of men into a position of responsibility which they are perfectly qualified to take. But, as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) has intimated, a difficulty might arise from first-class men being required. I certainly agree that the opinion which has been expressed that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal would not increase the safety of the mine or the interest of the miners.
  MR. PICKARD: In reference to the suggestion which was made by the Home Secretary a short time ago, I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind him that what the Inspectors themselves generally say is that they do not desire to have anything to do with the manage-

  505
  ment of the collieries, or to interfere in any way with it. I am inclined to believe that the Inspectors will hesitate before they take upon themselves any responsibility in connection with the internal management of the collieries. I believe that if a manager has a mine with 500 men employed in it, there is quite enough for him to do; and, therefore, I propose to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal, to provide that no manager shall manage mines where more than 500 persons are employed, instead of 30, as proposed by the hon. Member. I hope the hon. Member will accept the number I suggest. I have no desire in any way whatever to harass the employers, but I think that if the Bill as it now stands is carried into law it will simply mean this—that the first-class certificated manager will be able to appoint under managers under himself; and in that ease he would relieve himself of all personal responsibility if they committed any act of default, and personally it would be impossible to touch the chief manager under the provisions of the measure. I trust that the Home Secretary will be prepared to view the matter in the light we do. We believe that if a manager has under his supervision a mine with 500 persons employed in it there is quite sufficient work for a certificated manager to superintend daily, and know how the work is being done.
  Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty," in order to insert the words "five hundred."—(Mr. Pickard.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I thought that we had arrived at an agreement upon this matter, and I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken had accepted my suggestion. Some hon. Members expressed a desire to have four figure men, and no doubt it is very desirable to secure them. But you cannot get a "four-figure" man, if he is only to manage one pit in which there are no more than 500 men. You would not get a "four-figure" man to accept the management of a mine on such terms. The hon. Member for the Normanton Division
  506
  seems to suppose that under the Bill as it stands the principal manager, who must have a first-class certificate, would exempt himself from responsibility by appointing under managers and throwing it upon them; but, if he will examine the Bill, he will find that that is not the case. Clause 22 expressly provides that the under manager shall hold a first or second-class certificate, and shall, in the absence of the manager, have the same responsibility, and be subject to the same liabilities, as the manager. It is no part of the object of the Bill to drive out of business the tiptop and first-class men, but, on the other hand, to leave an opening in the mine for deserving and skilful workmen. We propose no limit as to the number of mines or men a manager may have under his supervision; but we throw distinct responsibility upon the manager for everything connected with the management and supervision of every mine he manages. We believe that it is desirable, wherever the mine is large enough to secure the services of an engineer of first-class abilities; but, on the other hand, we have a second object—namely, that of allowing deserving workmen to have some share in the management of the mine. If the Committee think fit, later on, to say that every man who may be appointed an under-manager must have a first-class certificate as well as the head manager, well and good; but we are only dealing with the question now whether it is necessary or desirable to impose on the manager, who must have a first-class certificate, and who must be personally responsible, whether he has an under-manager or not, a limitation that he is not to have the control of more than 500 men employed underground. There may be several mines in a colliery employing more than 800 or 1,000 men, and I do not see why they should not be managed and supervised by an engineer of first-class calibre, seeing that he is made the responsible officer. I think that a hard-and-fast rule such as that suggested in the Amendment would lead to mischief.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In deference to the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Normanton Division (Mr. Pickard) I am ready to accept his Amendment to my Amendment. It is useless to disguise from oneself the fact that the interests of the

  507
  coalowners and miners in this question are at issue.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not a bit.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am not concerned on one side or the other. I have been treating it, I believe, in a cold-blooded sort of way. It is perfectly plain that coalowners always endeavour to work their mines at the least possible expense, and to have as few managers and under managers as possible. That is only human nature. On the other hand, the miners and those who have an interest in the miners are anxious to secure the safety of life and limb. It is admitted that life and limb have not been properly secured in the past, and this Bill has been brought in to protect men who labour under such dangerous conditions. I believe that this question of management is one of the pivot points on which the whole thing turns. By insisting upon efficient management by competent men a large number of accidents will be prevented. It is well known that a large number of accidents have happened in the last 10 years which were preventible accidents. Efficient management, efficient superintendence, efficient inspection and control will go a long way towards saving human life and human suffering, and that is the object I had in moving the Amendment on the Paper. Now, the Amendment is altered so as to fix the limit at 500, instead of 30. What is the result? Simply this—that in all the large undertakings in which you have many hundreds of men employed—and there are many such—the extremely good men, whose salaries run into four figures—that is to say, who require at least £1,000 a-year in the shape of salary—can be employed where they are most wanted—namely, in the very large collieries; but you do not want such men for the smaller undertakings; and it is only a comparatively small portion of the managers who will look for these very large salaries. But there are plenty of large coal pits which are worth the sums which have been referred to; while there are a large number of the smaller coal pits which are not properly managed now, and if you adopt all the provisions of the scheme now submitted to the Committee, without amendment, what will you bring about? There may be a nominal manager in a very large district with not two, four, or 10, but,
  508
  possibly, 20 or 50 pits or more under him, and in charge of each of these pits there will be an under manager, possessing comparatively inferior qualifications. You must not take it that all certificated managers are men of first-class abilities. Men may pass examinations, but their certificates are only service certificates, and are you to allow managers to be put in charge of an indefinite number of pits, with second-class men under them? That is the system you are establishing, and the highly skilled managers will be got rid of by those coalowners who are anxious to work on the most economical principle, and the miners will be exposed more than ever to the inefficient protection afforded by the supervision of badly qualified persons. I do not think the Home Secretary has advanced a single valid argument against the proposed Amendment to fix a limit of 500 men; and I trust that the Committee, in the interests of these unfortunate miners, who are constantly being sacrificed by hundreds, will step in and insist upon some such limitation being adopted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'five hundred' be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'No person shall act as manager to more than one mine in which more than five hundred persons are employed below ground,' be there inserted."
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I entirely disagree with the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for East Donegal. I must altogether challenge the conclusion that he has arrived at, that the interests of the owners and miners are different on this subject. I maintain that they are absolutely and entirely the same. [Mr. A. O'CONNOR dissented.] The hon. Member shakes his head. I do not know whether he is a coalowner. I have been connected with mines all my life, and it has been my misfortune, on one or two occasions, to have a serious accident in one of my mines. If the hon. Member knew the extent to which the feelings of the owner are harrowed upon such an occasion, I am quite certain that he would never have addressed

  509
  the Committee in the way he has done. If the hon. Member could examine my books, he would from his last point of view—namely, the point of view of property—come to a different conclusion on this matter to that which he has stated to the Committee. The hon. Member is of opinion that owners of mines desire to work their mines at the least possible cost, and that, as a result, they employ inefficient men. I should like to know whether a mine could be worked at the least possible expense by having inefficient men in it? My opinion is that the loss which would occur would enormously outbalance any possible saving there would be in the wages of one man, as compared with the wages of another. If you want to work at the lowest possible cost, the best course is to get the best possible agent that you can. There was one most extraordinary point in the hon. Member's speech—namely, that you did not require the best man to work the small mines. Now, I maintain that you do want the best men to work the small mines. I am prepared to say that more accidents occur in small mines than in large ones. My point is that you should bring all mines up to the standard of the best work; that you should not lower the standard of the men who work even the smallest mines, because a great mischief occurs even in small mines. No man can go underground without having his life in his hands more or less; and, therefore, I want every one to be managed by the best men you can get. If I thought this Amendment would lead up to your having a better man in every mine, then I should vote for it; but I do not think that that would be the effect if the Committee were to agree to it. You want a thoroughly good man in the daily management of every mine, and that, as far as I am able to read the 22nd clause, this Bill will compel you to have; but what you also want is the guiding hand of the very best man you can get. I know from practical experience in connection with very large collieries that you want the guiding hand of a superior man to lay out the workings properly, and to be in daily charge of the colliery—men who understand their duty and discharge it properly. Depend upon it, if you pass such an Amendment as this, and take away from the owner the power of having the best
  510
  possible man he can get to take charge of the mine and be responsible for its management and supervision, you will run great risk of doing more harm than good. I quite agree that it is not desirable to have a manager to supervise a larger number of mines than he could be fairly expected to look after; but if you take away from the owner the power of obtaining the services of a superior man you will run great risk of endangering the safety of the pits.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think the difficulty might be met by adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary, that every mine should be under the daily supervision of a person holding a first-class certificate. I fully agree with what the hon. Baronet (Sir Hussey Vivian) has just said, that it is necessary to have over a mine the guiding hand of the best man you can get, and it is because I think that the clause in its present shape does not secure that object that I wish to support either the Amendment of my hon. Friend, or the suggested Amendment of the Home Secretary. What is the fact at the present time? Under this Bill, when it becomes law, there will be a first-class certificated manager who may have the control of any number of mines, and it would be extremely undesirable that the guiding counsel of such men should be lost to the miners of the country. But, at the same time, you can have appointed an under manager, holding a second-class certificate, and that under manager may be a very inferior person. In one respect the Homo Secretary is wrong when he states that the manager is still made responsible. If he will turn to Clause 66, he will there find that the fullest protection is afforded to the chief manager; because all he has to say when he is summoned for an offence under the Act is that he appointed a perfectly competent person holding a second-class certificate, and therefore took reasonable means to prevent the commission of an offence. Therefore, all the responsibility is taken away as far as the head manager is concerned. I do not think that any good purpose can be served by protracting this debate, and I trust the Home Secretary will put in the form of an Amendment the suggestion he has made, and in that case I

  511
  hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickard) will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BURT: I have no intention of continuing the discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has more than once referred to the proceedings of the conference we had upstairs. I am sorry that any difference should have arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and us. I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman that with regard to the proposition which was made upstairs, it was to be left open for discussion in Committee. No definite agreement whatever was entered into.
  MR. PICKARD: It was pointed out at the meeting upstairs that if Clause 51 remains as it is now, a certificated manager will be able to get out of all responsibility as far as his work is concerned. Under that clause, if he publishes the rules and other necessary information, no responsibility whatever will be attached to him. All he has to do is to prove that he has taken all reasonable means of publishing, and to the best of his power enforcing, the rules and regulations for the working of the mine.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I myself thought that the words at the end of Section 22 would place the manager, even if he had an under manager, in a different position from anybody else. Certainly the clause was drawn with the intention of preventing the manager from undertaking too much, and of making him liable, even if he had an under manager who might be considered to be a competent man, for anything that went wrong. If the chief manager is undertaking too much, and is prevented from giving a daily personal supervision to the mine, even although he trusts to the under manager, his responsibility remains just the same. That was what was intended by these words, and they were inserted in the clause with that object. I thought we had placed the best possible check on the manager to prevent him from undertaking too much.
  MR. FENWICK: If hon. Members will turn to Clause 51, they will see that the latter part of it reads—
  "Unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means, by publishing and, to the best of his power, enforcing the said rules as regulations for the working of the mine, to prevent such contravention or non-compliance."
  512
  So that all he has got to show is that he has taken the trouble to publish or enforce the rules. Clause 66 provides—
  "No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, or manager of a mine for any offence under this Act, not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager, which can be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, except by an Inspector, or with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State; and in the case of any offence of which the owner, agent, or manager of a mine is not guilty, if he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent the commission thereof, an Inspector shall not institute any prosecution against such owner or manager, if satisfied that he had taken such reasonable means as aforesaid."
  I think it will be found that those two clauses completely destroy the good intentions which the Government seem to have had in mind when they framed Clause 22. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake, on the lines he has just indicated, to alter Clauses 51 and 66, I think it is very likely that the difficulty might be got over; but, as those two clauses now stand, the object with which the right hon. Gentleman says this clause was framed is altogether nullified.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I do not think it is desirable to waste further time in this discussion; but I hope the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will press the Amendment to a Division. I may say that as far as the Scotch miners are concerned, unless the Bill undergoes very material amendment, they will not care for it at all.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Act of 1872 provides that every mine should be under the daily control and supervision of a competent and efficient manager; but the fact is that in South Staffordshire there is a large area, in which there may be a dozen collieries, over which one manager has the nominal control, and consequently his personal responsibility is frittered away. I do not see how you could fix him with personal responsibility when you know that it is physically impossible for him to have been at a mine, and when you have allowed him to have an under manager under him. In such a case the responsibility must rest on the under manager.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: After listening to what has been urged by the hon. Member for the Normanton

  513
  Division (Mr. Pickard) and the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), I am rather of opinion that the manager may escape by showing that he had taken all reasonable means to publish and have the rules enforced. Clause 51, however, is very vague, and I would ask if it is meant to apply to the general rules contained in the section preceding? If that is so, at all events the Bill does not say so, and it should be made clear.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I do not think it is at all desirable that there should be any diminution in the number of first-class managers, and if there were none but large collieries there would be no necessity for a second-class under manager at all. When several small collieries are grouped under one first-class manager it is necessary to have a resident under manager at each.
  MR. YEO: It appears to me that in our anxiety to give more protection to the miners we are running the risk of depriving them of the protection they now enjoy. As the collieries are now carried on, you have a first-class manager, who is a superior man, to give general directions, who is able to deal with the mine in a way in which a man with less superior attainments would be unable to deal with it. It appears to me that you are now going to decide that every colliery should only have one manager. [Cries of "No!"] I rose rather for the purpose of pressing upon the Committee the desirability of accepting the suggestion which fell from the Home Secretary. I think that the Mover of the Amendment has taken an exaggerated view of the duties which would devolve on the mining Inspector in carrying out that suggestion. We have been told by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) that in his experience the miners—who are fully alive to their own interests— have never brought forward this question. There has been no complaint that the colleries are not managed with sufficient care, and with due regard to their safety. I think we may take it that that is so, seeing that the number of complaints have been very few indeed. Therefore I think the suggestion of the Home Secretary might be adopted, and the Inspector be empowered to take into consideration the management of a mine
  514
  in a case where the collieries have expressed dissatisfaction either in regard to the manager in giving sufficient attention to it, or attempting to do too much. If such a complaint arose, there could be no harm in referring the matter to the Home Secretary, who would deal with it, and bring the manager who was acting so unwisely to book. I trust that that suggestion will be adopted by the Committee, and that the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment will withdraw it. I am persuaded that if it is accepted it will act in a direction altogether opposite to that which the hon. Member desires to move.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Section 51 only applies to the rules. It is a most sweeping section which makes the manager liable if any person violates any of the general rules. It has nothing whatever to do with Section 22. As to Clause 66, that is another question; but I confess that I do not think that it can have any application to Section 22.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to Section 51, so amend it as to show that it does not mean the general rules in the preceding section? because it is capable of being construed to apply to every rule, and. every provision and regulation in connection with the men.
  MR. MASON: I think there is a general wish that this discussion should close. I quite agree that the manager who is to be appointed to take charge of a colliery should be a first-class man. I would ask if it would meet the views of the hon. Member for the Normanton Division (Mr. Pickard) to say that no certificated manager shall have more than 500 men under his control at one time.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 132: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 376.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line line 7, after "managers," insert "name and."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Daily supervision of mine by manager or under manager).
  MR. PICKARD, in moving as an Amendment,

  515
  in page 11, line 15, after "daily" to insert the word "personal," said, the object was to provide that—
  "Any other mine under the control of a certificated manager daily personal supervision shall be exercised either by the manager or by the under manager, nominated in writing by the owner or agent of the mine."
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 15, after the word "daily" to insert the word "personal."—(Mr. Pickard.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'personal' be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERmoved, in page 11, line 17, after "owner" leave out "or," and after agent insert "manager," with the object of providing that the daily personal supervision shall be exercised either by the manager, or by an under agent nominated in writing by the owner, agent, or "manager" of the mine. The hon. Gentleman said—The effect of the Amendment is to enable the manager to nominate the under manager, which by the clause, as it stands, can only be done by the owner or agent. I would only point out that the owner may be absent from the mine, and it is perfectly possible that the agent maybe absent also, and that the manager is not able to give daily personal supervision to all the mine under his charge. No harm would therefore be done if the manager were empowered to appoint the under manager, especially as it is provided in the 2nd section of the clause that the person nominated under manager must hold either a 1st or 2nd class certificate, and the personal responsibility of the manager under the Act is not to be diminished. I think my Amendment is in the direction of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) in the event of Section 66 being held to override Section 22.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 17, after the word "owner," leave out "or."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think that the power should be extended to the manager. It is better
  516
  that the clause should remain as it stands.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: If the hon. Member will turn to the Interpretation Clause, he will find it there stated that the term—
  "Agent, when used in relation to any mine, means any person having, on behalf of the owner, care or direction of any mine, or of any part thereof, and superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Then I will not press it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would ask the Home Secretary if he has any objection to require a manager who has the supervision of a mine to enter in a book for the supervision of the Inspector the amount of supervision he has exercised, together with the dates of his visit and other particulars.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can raise that question at the end of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. TOMLINSON: I have to move a provision at the end of the clause, that—
  "The manager and under manager of a mine under this Act shall at all times be exempt from serving as jurors at any court of inquiry whatsoever."
  These managers are required by the Statute to be at their post, and it is rather hard in such a case that they should be required to perform public duties which must necessarily take them away. I know that the important duties of jurors must be performed; but I think that when you require a man to exercise a daily supervision over a mine, it is most undesirable that you should diminish his responsibility by taking him away in order that he may perform some other duty.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 23, at end add "the manager and under manager of a mine under this Act shall at all times be exempt from serving as jurors at any court or any inquiry whatsoever." —(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. It is one which the Government cannot accept. The ma-

  517
  nagers of coal mines never have been exempt, and I see no reason why they should be so. I hope Amendments of this sort, relating to a variety of subjects unconnected with the regulation of coal mines, will not be pressed. I notice that there are a variety of Amendments of this nature on the Paper relating to Coroners' juries, the law of Scotland with the juries Act, and weights and measures, and other matters, which are altogether irrelevant to the object of the Bill.
  MR. CHANCE: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Preston will press the Amendment. Considering that this is a Bill intended to secure life and property in mines, it is our duty to take every step we can to see that the responsibility of the manager shall be a real responsibility. If the Bill errs in anything, it errs in not laying down distinctly and precisely what the duties of the manager are to be. It would simply indicate how important we consider that his duties are, if we include in the Bill a provision that he shall not serve upon a jury. Where a person acts as a baillee, and discharges the duty of seeing that life and limb are preserved, he is always exempted from serving upon a jury. Take, for instance, a physician or a surgeon. It seems to me that the duty of a manager in providing for the safety of the mine, is in every respect as important as that of a surgeon or physician. Although we are not required to define the duties of a manager we can do so negatively, by providing that he shall not be required to serve on a jury. I look upon the Amendment as a very important one, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member will persevere with it.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: If a manager is not to serve on a jury, of course someone will have to serve in his place. I do not know why the manager of a mine should be deprived of a holiday, or why he should be considered free from attacks of illness, and always at the mine engaged in the discharge of his duties. If he happened to be sick, I presume that somebody else would have to supply his place. We all know that it is not a pleasant duty to be required to serve on a jury; but it is a duty which most of us have to perform for the good of the
  518
  State, and it is unreasonable to expect the manager of a mine to perform daily duty at the colliery without a holiday or without paying regard to any of the casualties of life. There must be, therefore, arrangements to fulfil the duties of an absent manager. When we remember the number of persons who are already exempted from serving on juries, I think it wilt be agreed that it is not desirable to add to the list, because somebody has to serve on the jury in the place of every man who is exempted.
  MR. TOMLINSON: With the leave of the Committee I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to learn from the Home Secretary, whether he proposes to take steps to secure that the supervision of the manager is real and regular. In order to do that, I think it would be necessary that a book should be kept in the mine, in which the manager should be compelled to enter the date of his visits and certain details for the information of the Inspector, in order that some security may be afforded that managers who have several mines under their care, do in fact give a personal supervision and exercise personal control in each of the mines in their charge.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I understand the hon. Member to want a book kept at every mine in every colliery, in which more than 30 persons are employed, and that in such book the manager shall enter the amount of daily supervision he has given to the mine. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will consider that suggestion between this and the Report, without, however, pledging myself to the adoption of any particular course. It must be remembered that there is an excessive amount of work already in some of these mines, and particularly in the small mines. The hon. Member must allow me to take the advice of others who are thoroughly conversant with the matter.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would further suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should also consider, between this and the Report, whether, in reference to Clause 66, he will include in that clause

  519
  some provision that it shall not overrule Clause 22, or meet it here by using some such words as these—"Any provision in Clause 66 notwithstanding."
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly; I will take care to do so. It was always meant that the manager should be made liable for the complete supervision and control of the mine, just as if there was no one else in it.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I wish to move an Amendment to provide that no first-class certificated manager shall have control at any one time of more than 2,500 men.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, after line 23, add—(3.) "That no first-class certificated manager should have control, at any one time, of more than two thousand five hundred men."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MATTHEWS: This Amendment involves a question which has already been discussed at considerable length; and I must confess that the Amendment itself is not very intelligible as it stands. It would follow, from the words of the Amendment, that a colliery with 2,501 men should have no management at all.
  MR. CHANCE: Not at all.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I presume the ton. Baronet means that a manager who has a colliery in his charge in which 2,500 men are employed, shall not be allowed to take any other mine under his care. But that is a matter which has already been discussed at great length.
  MR. CHANCE: I think the Amendment is perfectly clear. It does not limit the size of any colliery over which a manager is to have charge; but it says that no first class certificated manager shall have charge at one time of collieries at which more than 2,500 men are employed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The words moved by the hon. Member are—
  "That no first-class certificated manager shall have control, at any one time, of more than 2,500 men."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As the Amendment stands on the Paper, it is—
  "That no first-class certificated manager shall have control, at any one time, of collieries consisting of more than 6 drawing pits, or employing move than 2,500 men."
  520
  With the omission now made, the Amendment is quite inadmissible; because if 3,000 men were employed in a pit, it would be incumbent upon the owner to appoint a second manager, and bring about a divided responsibility.
  MR. CHANCE: The addition of the words "except in one colliery" would meet the difficulty.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I shall be glad to accept that Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to add at the end thereof the words "except in one colliery."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Original Amendment put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Contractor for mineral, & c, disqualified for post of manager or under manager) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Constitution of Board for appointing examiners for granting certificates of competency to managers and under managers).
  Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to move a portion of an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny (Mr. Marum)—
  "That for the purposes of this Act, holders of service certificates appointed managers since the 31st of December, 1875, shall he deemed second-class managers only."
  At present there are different kinds of certificated managers, who, having proved themselves competent and skilled workmen, have passed an examination, and have received certificates of competency. Some of them are the best men you have, and they are men who, before the passing of the Act of 1875, had had a certain amount of service.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member where he proposes that this Amendment should come in?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: At the end of line 30.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member for Morpeth has an Amendment on the Paper upon the same point which will come first.
  MR. BURT: I have to move an Amendment which provides that—
  "No person shall be entitled to a certificate under this Act unless he shall have had practical experience in a mine for at least five years."

  521
  While in favour of scientific training, I certainly attach equal importance to practical experience in mining, and I think that every man holding a certificate should have had such practical experience. Upon this subject I may mention that the coalowners are quite in agreement with the miners, and therefore it is unnecessary to say more in regard to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 30, after "trader manager," insert "but no person shall be entitled to a certificate under this Act unless he shall have had practical experience in a mine for at least live years."—(Mr. Burt.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have now to move an Amendment to provide that certificates of competency under the Act of 1872 shall be deemed to be first-class certificates, and that certificates of service under the same Act shall only be deemed to be second-class certificates. I do not think there is anybody who will be likely to challenge the principle involved in the Amendment. Those who have already obtained certificates of competency would remain first-class certificated managers; but those who obtained certificates from service only would be second-class certificated managers. That is in accordance with the scheme of the Bill itself, and it would secure that those men who at present have service certificates should receive second-class certificates only.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the clause to add the words "certificates of competency under the Coal Mines Act of 1872 shall be deemed to be first-class certificates, and certificates under the same Act shall be deemed to be second-class certificates."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I believe that some of the best managers we have are the service men, and therefore I hope the Amendment will not be adopted. The Act of 1872 for the first time introduced the principle of examination, and men who were managing collieries at that date, and are still managing them were allowed to have service certificates. I challenge any hon. Member to Bay that these managers are not among the best men we have.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. Will the hon. Member consider for a moment what he is proposing? He proposes to alter the statutory position of men who have obtained certificates of service under the Act of 1872 which made them first-class certificated managers, and to relegate them to another, and inferior position. This would inflict great injustice and hardship upon a very valuable class of men.
  MR. BARNES: I would also urge the withdrawal of the Amendment. The managers who have obtained service certificates are a very hard-working class.
  MR. BURT: When I first saw this Notice on the Paper I felt inclined to support it; but as it stood in the name of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny it was confined to Ireland, and I presumed that the Irish Members were best acquainted with their own affairs, and that was the ground upon which I should have been induced to support it. Now, however, it is intended to be applied to the whole country, and I certainly do not intend to support it. I entirely agree with the remarks which have been made that some of the managers who have service certificates are among the most competent men we have, and I, for one, should be very much disinclined to do anything, either directly or indirectly, to degrade or throw a stigma upon them. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: After the opinion my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth has expressed, I shall certainly not press the Amendment. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that it is absolutely necessary to provide some safeguard for the lives of the men employed in the mine; and we should insist, upon the highest qualifications being possessed by those who take upon themselves the responsibility of supervising the work. Many of the service managers are men who may have had a good deal of practice and experience, but are very often incompetent to deal with such questions as the ventilation of the mine. I do not say that there are not exceptionally able men among the holders of service certificates, and men of the highest efficiency, but a large number of the service certificate holders are not men who ought to be entrusted

  523
  with the responsible position of first-class certificated manager.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I have now to propose the insertion, in line 37, after "persons," the words "or three agents of any person." I move the Amendment in consequence of representations which have been made to me on behalf of the miners of Somersetshire and West Gloucestershire. The Amendment provides that examiners for granting certificates of competency to managers and under managers shall consist, among others, of three persons "or three agents of any persons" employed in or about any mine in any specified part of the United Kingdom not being owners' agents or managers of a mine.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 37, after the word "persons," insert the words "or throe agents of any persons."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The whole principle of the Board is that the working element should be represented upon it, and not the miners' agents. What I want is to bring to the practical knowledge of the working men what the subjects of examination are. All the various elements are to be represented —namely, the owners, the workmen, the agents, and one Inspector.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a passage from a letter written to me by the agent of the miners of Somersetshire and West Gloucestershire. He says that one reason for desiring the insertion of these words is that the persons employed in or about mines are not always free agents, and they may be liable to make mistakes. He therefore thinks it would be better that miners' agents, who are not subjected to Boycotting, should be upon the Board.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The clause, as I have said, already make provisions for the appointment of free agents—namely, owners, workmen, mining engineers, agents, managers or coal viewers, and one Inspector.
  MR. FENWICK: What objection could the
  524
  Home Secretary fairly have to secretaries of miners' unions acting as examiners on the Board? They are allowed to act in that capacity at present, and they form some of the most efficient examiners we have on these Boards. The remarks of the right hon. Gentlemen are, in my opinion, insulting to these men, and I hope he will withdraw them. If the miners are not to be allowed to elect men to be examiners on the Board in whom they have every confidence, who by their ability have forced their way to the head of their fellows, then I say the Board of Examiners will be a mere sham. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the remark he made in reference to the miners' agents.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I had no desire to say anything that was in the least degree offensive. Surely there can be nothing insulting to the secretary of a miners' union in desiring that working miners should be appointed on the Board. The clause provides that examiners shall be appointed by a Board consisting of certain persons selected from certain classes, and one of them is the working men. I did not say one word that could be offensive or insulting to the hon. Gentleman. All I wanted to point out was that among the valuable elements in the clause were the working men. The agent is the representative of the owner, and may not be a free agent; but in addition to mining engineers' agents, managers of mines, and coal viewers, there are to be agents of the working men. There is nothing in the clause to prevent the secretary of a workmen's union, if employed in a mine, from being nominated to the Board.
  MR. FENWICK: The secretaries of the miners' societies may not be actually working in the mine at present; but their have previously worked in a mine, and they are chosen by the miners for their trustworthiness and fitness to represent them. Such men ought not to be excluded because they are not actually working in a mine. Yet the right hon. Gentleman would exclude them because they are not actually, at the moment, working in a mine, although they may have had—and in all probability have had—considerable experience as working miners in a mine. That was the expression used by the right hon. Gentleman which I objected to.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I agree with a remark which fell from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I think the clause does not carry out the right hon. Gentleman's views. It ought to be "persons employed or having been employed in or about any mine." A miner's secretary is not working in a mine, and, howevor suitable, he would be ineligible. I do not think he would come under the words "mining agents." the agents of the mine are the agents of the owners. There are undoubtedly many men among the mining community who are well qualified to perform this function.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I will accept the words suggested by the hon. Baronet.
  MR. SEXTON: In that case I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 37, after "employed," insert "or who have been employed."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I wish to propose an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Bishop's Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton), although it seems to me that the words are only necessary for the purpose of making the words still clearer. The Amendment provides that the workmen's examiners shall be three persons employed "as workmen" in or about a mine.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 37, after "employed," insert "as workmen."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOMLINSON: The words are unnecessary, and I hope they will not be pressed.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: On the contrary, I believe that some words to this effect are necessary, and I had placed an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of securing that the workmen appointed upon the Board should be men of practical experience, so far as the underground working of a mine is concerned.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I am afraid that if you put in words of this kind you
  526
  may interfere with the object of the clause, which is to secure the services of the best men, and you might exclude such men as a deputy or overman. I think the negative form is better than a positive one.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: My own view is that the words are unnecessary, and after the opinion I have elicited, and the absence of any opinion from my hon. Friends below the Gangway, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I have now to move a small Amendment of which I have not given Notice. I think it is undesirable that the members of the Board should be a permanent body, and accordingly I propose, in the first line of page 12, to add the words—"The Members of the Board shall be appointed for three years." It will be observed that the Board is not to be elected, but is to be appointed, and may be removed by the Secretary of State. As there may be some members nominated by the miners, others by the owners, others by mining engineers, managers, or coal viewers, and one by the Inspector under the Act, there is a possibility that the members might not work well together, but would get into a ruck. I think it is desirable, therefore, that every three years there should be au opportunity of changing the constitution of the Board, and of infusing new blood into it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 1, after "appointed," insert "for three years."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I understand the object of the hon. Member to be the renewal of the Board from time to time; but that object is already attained, although it need not necessarily be enforced by the words of the clause as they stand, because they provide that—
  "The members of the Board shall be appointed and may be removed by a Secretary of State, and shall only hold office during his pleasure."
  Every three months, instead of three years, the Board may be renewed if it is thought desirable. Therefore, I do not think the Amendment is necessary. The Board can be renewed now more frequently than the adoption of those

  527
  words would compel them to be renewed.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: That is a technical answer to the Amendment; but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the words I propose would make a substantial difference. The indication would be that these were appointments during pleasure; but for all practical purposes they would be permanent, and I do not think it is desirable that that should be the case.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I would suggest that the object of my hon. Friend would be better expressed by providing that no person should be a member of the Board for more than three years.
  MR. PICKARD: I would support that suggestion. Unless something of the sort is done, I am afraid that, however objectionable a man may be, and however unfit to discharge the duties of the office, it may be found impossible to remove him. I know of one instance in which the person appointed on the Examination Board for the execution of the Act was the actual manager of a mine; but we could never get him removed from the Board, although more than one appeal was made to the Inspector.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Perhaps it might obviate the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman if the words "without re-appointment" were added.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Proceedings and powers of board for appointing examiners).
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The object of the Amendment I have to propose is to provide in the 2nd sub-section that the examiners, who are not to be members of the Board except with the consent of the Secretary of State, "shall be holders of first-class certificates under this Act." I think it is most desirable that the examiners appointed should be first-rate men, and to secure that they ought to be holders of first-class certificates. As a matter of fact, many of them are holders of first class certificates; but I do not think any harm will be done by inserting this requirement in the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 8, after "State," insert "who shall be holders of first-class certificates under this Act."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think that that object is already provided for by another Amendment, which proposes that any person, before he can obtain a first-class certificate, must have worked for five years underground.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I put down the Amendment with the view of providing that the examiners should be men who had a practical acquaintance with the working of a mine; but as the right hon. Gentleman has accepted another Amendment to provide that the men appointed shall have been working underground for five years, I beg to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Rules by Secretary of State as to examination).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It will be observed that in this clause reference is made to one of the Schedules at the end of the Bill. It says that the fees to be made by the applicants shall not exceed those specified in Schedule 2. Turning to Schedule 2, on page 47, I find that the fees are not specified for the second-class certificate. I will, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to insert for such fees, and also what steps he proposes to take to secure that examination shall be held with reasonable frequency? The reason why I ask these questions is that it has already been provided in Clause 21, Sub-section B, that—
  "If for any reasonable cause there is for the time being no manager of a mine qualified as required by this section, the owner or agent of the mine may appoint any competent person not holding a certificate under this Act to be manager for a period not exceeding two months or such longer period as may elapse before such person has an opportunity in, the district wherein the mine is situate of obtaining by examination a certificate under this Act, and shall send to the Inspector of the district a written notice of the manager's address, and of the reason for his appointment."
  That is to say, that the Bill already contemplates an indefinite period elapsing

  529
  before an examination is held in the district in which the mine is situated. Is it therefore intended that in every district there shall be examinations held in view of the possibility of prolonged vacancies and persons of imperfect qualification being in charge of the mine. I want to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in order to secure frequent examination?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The times of holding the examinations are regulated in the Bill, and the rules are perfectly clear and distinct. If the hon. Member will look at Schedule No. 1, which applies to the proceedings of Boards of Examination, he will see that the terms of the old Act are followed. The Board is made altogether independent of the Secretary of State; it has an independent authority outside the Home Office altogether; and the Home Secretary has no control over its proceedings. It is left to the Board to fix the examination and to settle the qualifications of candidates. I have heard no complaint whatever as to the examinations not having been held with sufficient frequency. The hon. Member appears to think that the words in the Bill are new; but that is not so, and I never heard of any delay in carrying out examinations in any district. All the Secretary of State can do is to inspect the minutes of the proceedings of the examiners, or to authorize some person to inspect and copy them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The examiners give their services gratuitously, and there is no inducement to them to take unnecessary trouble.
  MR. BURT: On this point I should like to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a complaint I received a few days ago from the neighbourhood of Leeds, which was quite new to me. A working man informed me that it was exceedingly difficult—indeed almost impossible—for a working miner to be examined for a manager's certificate. The impression seems to have got abroad that the person to be examined must be possessed of some official experience as a deputy or something of that kind. I would therefore ask if it is possible to insert words in the Bill to provide distinctly that a working miner may be examined for a certificate as manager?
  MR. PICKARD: I hope, on the Report, that the Home Secretary will put words into the Bill to make this matter as intelligible to the working miner as possible.
  MR. MATTHEWS: It has been the intention of the Government to provide that the examination should not be one that should depend upon scholarship, but confined to technical knowledge, skill, and efficiency, and I think it may be found desirable to add some words to this section. I will promise to introduce words to make it certain that the second-class certificate shall be one which working men may be able to obtain.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Perhaps the object would be best accomplished by a distinct rule.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Grant of certificates to applicants on passing examination) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Inquiry into competency of manager and cancellation of certificate in case of unfitness).
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I have to move an Amendment, in Sub-section 1, to leave out the words "Metropolitan Police Magistrate." The clause provides that the inquiry shall be public and shall be held at such place as the Secretary of State may appoint, by a County Court Judge, Metropolitan Police Magistrate, Stipendiary Magistrate or other person or persons, as may be directed by the Secretary of State, either alone or with the assistance of an assessor or assessors. The reason why I propose to exclude a Metropolitan Police Magistrate is that I think the most desirable person to conduct the inquiry is a man who has had some acquaintance with and experience of mining cases. Further than that, I think it is objectionable to remove the Metropolitan Magistrates from the performance of their ordinary duties. The Government have not always been happy in the persons they have sent down to conduct these inquiries, and they have undoubtedly in many cases appointed gentlemen who have given much dissatisfaction in the mining districts to which they have been sent. I think a Stipendiary Magistrate acting in a colliery district is the proper person to appoint, acting in conjunction with any other person the Home Secretary

  531
  may select. In the interests of the administration of justice in the mining districts, and in the interests of the inquiry itself, it is undesirable that a Metropolitan Police Magistrate should be sent down.
  Amendment proposed, page 13, line 3, leave out the words "Metropolitan Police Magistrate." — (Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot accept the Amendment, which would introduce a perfectly novel principle.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Then I will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to propose to insert, after the word "case," page 13, in line 11 —
  "The Inspector or other person who may make such representation as aforesaid may attend the inquiry by himself, counsel, or agent, and examine and cross-examine any witness."
  Every facility is afforded to a manager to cross-examine witnesses, and I apprehend to address the Court, but no such facilities are afforded to the person who makes a complaint, be he Inspector or otherwise. It is obviously undesirable that the only person who has the conduct of the case should be an official sent down by the Home Office; it is most desirable that the workmen should have an opportunity afforded them, if they are disposed to avail themselves of it, of instructing some person to represent them who would adequately put forward the grievances which they may have; and it is also desirable that the Inspector, if he takes up the case, should not be altogether identified with the Government official sent down, but that he should have the means afforded him of instructing, if he so pleases, counsel or an attorney to represent him. This is obviously fair, and I may say that other Acts of Parliament which deal with inquiries of a cognate nature contain provisions to this effect. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13,line 11, after the word "case," insert the words "the Inspector or other person who may make such representation as aforesaid may attend the inquiry by himself,
  532
  counsel, or agent, and examine and cross-examine any witness."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not quite sure I appreciate the hon. Member's object. Sub-section 3 provides that the Secretary of State may appoint some person to undertake the management of the case. I thought, at first, that the hon. Member's impression was that without express words the prosecutor should not have counsel or agent.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think it is most desirable that the person by whom the complaint shall be made shall, if he pleases, be able to instruct counsel.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Then I must object to the Amendment because I think this is a penal proceeding against the manager, and it is only intended to be instituted upon the authority of the Secretary of State.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: This is a question of procedure, and I suggest that when once an inquiry has been instituted on the mandate of the Secretary of State, it shall be open to the person who makes the complaint, and who is the actual prosecutor, to be represented by counsel, if he desires to be so represented.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Secretary of State is the actual prosecutor, and he acts upon information supplied to him, and takes upon himself the responsibility of saying that such and such a manager is grossly incompetent or negligent.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Amendment which stands in my name, having reference to the auditing of costs, or the fixing of costs in Scotland, is, as I am informed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), redundant to the extent of one word, the word "ordinary." I therefore propose to move the Amendment without the word "ordinary."
  Amendment proposed, in page 13. line 44, after "Courts," insert "or in Scotland to the Auditor of the Sheriff's Court."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  MR. F. S. POWELL: It seems to me that these words would be better inserted later on.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Subject to the Lord Advocate's opinion, I think these words would be better inserted in a subsequent clause. This Amendment applies to the Masters of the Superior Courts, but by Section 76, Sub-section 7, the hon. Member will find it provided that certain persons shall perform the duty of a Master of one of the Superior Courts.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If all these references were necessary to a Court—as in Scotland every Court has its Taxing Master or Auditor—the difficulty would be removed, but, as a matter of fact, the reference may be not to a Court, but to some other person or persons to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and, under these circumstances, it is necessary you should have a reference to some Auditor.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I think that the difficulty can be met by a readjustment of a subsequent clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The Amendment which stands in my name simply provides for the just treatment of a manager whose conduct has been impugned. It provides that in case the Court exonerates him from all blame, he should not be called upon to pay the costs attending the inquiry. It is not at all a new thing to give costs in a matter of this kind. In the Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, where power is given to the Board of Trade to provisionally detain a ship, costs can be allowed in cases of wrongful detention. Surely it is only fair that when the manager of a mine has been exonerated from blame, he should not be called upon to pay the costs of any inquiry which may have been held into his conduct..
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 14, line 2, after sub-section (9), add —" (10) If, in the opinion of the Court, the manager or under manager is not unfit to discharge his duties, or has not been grossly negligent or guilty of an offence against this Act, he shall be allowed all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by him in his defence, any question or dispute as to the amount thereof to be ascertained in the manner provided for in the last foregoing sub-section."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words, be there added."
  MR. FENWICK: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) that the effect of this Amendment would be to put a manager in a different position to a workman. The Amendment affords a manager special opportunities and advantages that are not afforded to the workmen, and that creates an impression in the minds of the workmen that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment.
  MR. TOMLINSON: This clause only applies to the manager; it does not apply to the workmen at all.
  MR. FENWICK: A charge maybe made against a workman which he is able to repel; but no facilities are to be afforded to him to do so. Whatever alteration is made in the Bill should be made in favour of the workmen and manager alike.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Amendment is quite inconsistent with Clause 29. Clause 29 leaves the costs of the inquiry at the discretion of the Court. There may be a case in which a man is only acquitted by the skin of his teeth, and therefore it is not necessary to give him costs.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Allow me to point out that this Amendment would make it imperative to give costs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Costs and expenses of inquiry).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This clause, in one respect, appears to be rather strangely worded. In Sub-section 2—
  "The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, pay to the person or persons constituting the Court, including any assessors, such remuneration as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint."
  But Sub-section 3 says—
  "Any costs and expenses ordered by the Court to be paid by a Secretary of State, and any remuneration paid in this section shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament."
  It appears, from one section, that the Secretary of State is to have discretion,

  535
  and, in the next section, it appears that the Secretary of State is merely to obey the orders of the Court.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member will see that Clause 29 is divided into three sections. According to the 1st section, the Court may make an order as to costs; the 2nd sub-section provides that the Secretary of State may remunerate the persons constituting the Court; and the 3rd sub-section provides that the Court may order the Secretary of State to pay certain monies. If the Secretary of State fails in his application, the Court may order him to pay the costs of the manager, and I trust he always will.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Record of cancellation of certificate; restoration in certain cases).
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton) I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 18, leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Atherley Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub section (2) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think it is very cruel.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I take that view myself, and therefore I think I may, on behalf of my hon. Friend, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Copy of certificate in. case of loss); Clause 32 (Expenses in relation to certificates, and application of fees); and Clause 33 (Penalty for forgery of, or false declaration as to certificate), severally agreed to.
  Returns, Plan, Notices, and Abandonment
  Clause 34 (Returns by owner, agent, or manager of mines).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to move the omission of the words from "and," in line 40, to the end of line 41. The object of this Amendment is to prevent the publication of individual Returns. There is no objection to the aggregate returns being published; but owners think it might be detrimental to
  536
  them, if individual Returns or any portion of them were published.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 40, leave out "and so much of any individual Return as does not relate to the quantity of mineral gotten or wrought."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think that on investigation my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) will find that by this clause we have not altered the law as it stands. If he will look at the 38th section of the Act of 1872, he will see that certain Returns are required to be made; but they are properly guarded. In the last paragraph but one of Section 38, it is enacted that individual Returns shall not be published without the consent of the person making them. There are also Returns required to be made according to Section 69 of the existing Act. Section 69 requires an owner to make a Return according to the form given in Schedule 4. That Return is not protected—it may be made public. The section of the present Bill preserves exactly that distinction. It does not authorize the Secretary of State to make public a Return he is not already authorized to make public in Section 69 of the existing Act. I think that is right. My hon. Friend will find that the clause as it stands does not enable the Secretary of State to make anything public which he cannot already make public; it is not intended to alter the existing law at all. But I am quite prepared, on Report, to take care that the clause repeats the existing law, and no more.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I think this is somewhat more stringent than the existing law.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think not. I intended to make it but a repetition of the existing section.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite followed the spirit of the Act of 1872. I have a recollection of the discussion upon the Bill of 1872, and it went to the effect that whatever Returns could properly be published should be published, and that the dealings of private individuals should be as much as possible kept in the background.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Upon the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will see that this section does not exceed the existing law on the subject, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The difference between the two cases is this—that by the Act of 1872 the Secretary of State is excluded from publishing an individual Return, whereas, in this Bill, he is restricted only in respect to the quantity of mineral gotten or wrought.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to move to insert after the word "State," in line 3—
  "Or any body of Commissioners incorporated by Act of Parliament for the drainage of mines, and authorised to assess and levy rates in respect of mineral gotten from such mines."
  This Amendment refers exclusively to South Staffordshire, as it cannot have any application to any other part of the country. The object of it I can state in one sentence. Some 15 years ago Parliament constituted a Board of Commissioners, partly nominated and partly elected, for the purpose of draining the mines of South Staffordshire, and it empowered that body to levy a rate of 1d. per ton for the purpose of paying for the draining of the surface of the mines. That Commission was empowered to receive Returns, and in the usual way I to levy this taxation. Now the discrepancies between the Returns to the Government and the Returns to the Commissioners represents a very large deficiency. The Returns made to the Government between 1872 and 1885, show a total output of something like 136,000,000 tons; whereas the amount of the returns to the Mines Commissioners is, I think, something like 47,000,000 tons. Of course, as a considerable portion of the area is not included in the drainage district, that will have to be deducted; but there can be no doubt that taking the figures of last year alone, 50 per cent of the output was not returned to the Commissioners. The Amendment I propose meets with the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. Hingley), who is one of the largest mineowners in South Staffordshire. I will not trouble the
  538
  Committee with any further details, as I apprehend there will be no opposition to my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 16, line 3, after "State," insert "or any body of Commissioners incorporated by Act of Parliament for the drainage of mines, and authorised to assess and levy rates in respect of mineral gotten from such mines."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I confess I have very much sympathy with the body of gentlemen of whom the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) speaks; but I think this Amendment is foreign to the Bill. It would certainly put the Department in a very disagreeable position to hand over the Returns it receives to persons who are going to tax the men who have made the Returns. The Committee will observe that there is no penalty upon not giving a Return at all, or upon not making an accurate Return. In my opinion the only result of this Amendment would be to vitiate the whole Returns.
  MR. HINGLEY: As a large colliery owner in South Staffordshire, I do not see what objection can be raised to this proposal. On the contrary, I think my right hon. Friend's provision would be a very useful one, and one which we know from experience to be eminently necessary. If the Returns are not used for any purpose, what good are they—why should they be called for at all? The Act of Parliament gives power to the Secretary of State to call for a Return, and certainly we think we ought to have access to the general Returns made. The Return is based on the quantity of mineral gotten, and, in my opinion, access ought to be had to the figures.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I trust the Government will not persist in their objection to this Amendment. Parliament has imposed a rate of 1d. per ton, and there is no one more interested in the collection of this rate than the Government. Let me tell the Committee that the principle creditors of these Mine Drainage Commissioners are the Government of the day. I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) in his place, because I desire to make an

  539
  appeal to him in regard to this matter, as I know his great Treasury instincts. The Treasury are the largest creditors of these Commissioners, and the Commissioners are, at the present moment, unable to pay the Treasury their instalments because they cannot obtain fair Returns. I think I can startle the Committee with reference to this matter. In 1883, the total Government Return for the district was 10,300,000 tons; the total Return to the Commissioners was 3,200,000. In 1884, the Government Return was 9,600,000, and the amount of the Return to the Commissioners 2,500,000 tons; and in 1885 the Government Return was 9,860,000 tons, and that to the Commissioners 2,420,000. Every million tons not returned to the Commissioners means just over £4,000 out of the pockets of the Treasury. Nobody is objecting to this Amendment; but one of the largest coal-masters in South Staffordshire is really advocating it. These drainage operations are of the greatest importance to the district, and no one can object to this Amendment except the men who are making dishonest Returns. I do not think the Government ought to throw their shield over these men.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment on the present occasion. I will undertake with my right hon. Friend to give attention to this subject between this and Report, by which time we shall be in a position to say whether it is desirable to introduce a proposal of this kind. The proposal comes upon us as an entirely new proposal so far as I am personally concerned, and I think also so far as the Secretary of State is concerned.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: This Amendment has been on the Paper for three months, and I had an interview, as a member of a deputation, with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) three months ago upon the point of lending money to these Drainage Commissioners, and one of the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman made was that there should be some such provision as this inserted in legislation in order to make the security good to the Government. What will be the effect of leaving
  540
  this question over until Report? This is the 15th of August, and we have not the faintest idea when the Bill will reach the Report stage, if it ever does. Unless the Government have some strong objection to my Amendment, they ought to accept it at once. The Committee is evidently in favour of it; certainly that portion of the Committee which represents masters and men. Those who represent the taxpayers certainly cannot throw any obstacle in the way of the Commissioners discharging the public duty imposed upon them.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioners have not got the power of surcharging the persons who are liable to pay this rate. If they have not such power, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should seek to enlarge the Commissioners' powers through the agency of a Coal Mines Regulation Bill. These Returns have always been regarded as confidential. Of course, if the House calls for their publication, the Government must submit; but, certainly, it will look very like a breach of confidence if we do this.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The Commissioners have the power of appeal—but it is very cumbersome. This is not a taxing clause; besides, you are putting in a clause which, so far as this Bill is concerned, is new legislation. You say that the Returns should not be shown to anybody; but I ask the Committee to make an exception in the case of the Commissioners who are appointed under Parliamentary authority, and empowered to levy rates in respect of minerals gotten from such mines. Upon the Government's head be the responsibility if they refuse this Amendment. I publicly inform the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that in resisting this Amendment he is acting against the wishes of the people of South Staffordshire, and, at the same time, subjecting the country to a heavy loss.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) say from whom he got the Returns he has quoted?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: From the mineowners themselves. They make one Return to the Government and another to the Commissioners. There is great discrepancy between the two sets of figures. This is a most reason-

  541
  able Amendment, and I shall certainly press it to a Division.
  Question put, and agreed, to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Plan of mine to kept at office).
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move to leave out the word "six," in line 11, and insert "three." The object of this Amendment is perfectly obvious. The practice is for the mineowner to have certain set* of plans made out from day to day in pencil. After a certain length of time, he makes them out in ink, and then returns them under the Act of 1872. Under the present Act, he is to have at his office plans for the inspection of the Inspector when he conies down to visit the mine. It seems desirable that there should be afforded full facilities to the Inspector and others for knowing what the state of the workings of the mine is for a somewhat more recent date than six months. Everyone knows the rapid progress which is made in mines—what a great transformation may take place in the workings of a mine in a comparatively short period. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he should accept with much willingness this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 11, leave out the word "six," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  MR MATTHEWS: It is difficult to deal with an Amendment of this sort, as there is no principle involved. The law has been that what the hon. Gentleman contemplates should be done every six months. I have made inquiries upon the point, and I have been told that to oblige a mineowner to have his plans brought up to three months would be extremely inconvenient to him. This, however, is a practical question, and I should be extremely glad to hear the opinion of practical men upon it.
  MR. BARNES: As a mineowner, I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. If my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) had ever made a survey of a mine, he would know that it takes a very considerable time indeed.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I fully appreciate the object of my hon. and learned Friend in seeking to provide that when an Inspector asks for a plan, that plan should be as accurate as possible. The whole question really depends upon the word "accurate." There are practical difficulties in the way of the Amendment, and therefore I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow the clause to stand as at present.
  MR. BURT: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who, I know, as a mineowner, holds very liberal views, is opposed to this Amendment. In my opinion it can be accepted without any practical inconvenience, and I shall vote with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) if he goes to a Division.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I cannot help thinking that it would be very undesirable to hurry a survey. The important thing is to keep the "working plan" close up to date at all important points.
  MR. MATTHEWS: May I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, (Mr. Burt) to the fact that the owner or manager must, at any time, show "the depth of the shaft with a section of the same," and shall at any time mark on the plan and section "the then state of the workings of the mine."
  MR. TOMLINSON: There is this other point to be considered, that six months is the time at which the rents are paid, and it is hardly a long period. There would be considerable inconvenience and expense without real benefit if plans were to be prepared as frequently as the hon. Gentleman proposes.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Tomlinson) might just as well have said that a year was the period within which reports are made. I should have thought the Government would have been perfectly ready to have consented to the introduction of the word "two" instead of "six." That would have been in accordance with Section 37, which provides that notice shall be given within two months of every kind of new working. If two months is the proper period for that, surely three months is a reasonable period within which plans

  543
  shall be made up. It is of great importance, when you come to investigate the circumstances of an accident, to know exactly in what state the plans really were—to know whether they were complete and available for immediate use under whatever circumstances might intervene. Six months is altogether too long a period.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) will press this Amendment to a Division. It is not a question of the Inspector only calling for the plans, but it is a question for the mineowner himself; and I am here to submit, that, so far as my experience goes, mineowners in South Wales have surveys taken once a month, and I hold they are quite right in that. I assert that if a correct position of the workings had been shown upon the plans at the end of every three months, instead of six months, the inundation which took place in the Rhondda Valley would not have taken place, and many valuable lives would not have been lost. It is of the greatest importance that the mineowner should know the condition of his workings, especially if he is approaching old workings, where water is. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite will see the reasonableness of this Amendment, and will accept it. If they do not, I trust my hon. and learned Friend will ascertain the opinion of the Committee by means of a Division.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The view we take of this Amendment is that it is quite unnecessary, so far as safety goes. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Abraham) say that it is a matter of the greatest importance that this Amendment should be adopted. My own opinion is that on the whole the work of a mine is more easily carried on if there are not too many of these arbitrary requirements. Six months is a very reasonable limit. At the same time, if any great reason could be shown, which I think has not been shown, I should not persist in the retention of the period of six months.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Allow me to point out to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that Sub-section 2 provides that—
  "The owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall, on request at any time of an Inspector
  544
  under this Act, produce to him at the office at the mine, such plan and section, and shall also, on the like request, made on such plan and section the then state of the workings of the mine."
  If any difficulty arises, the Inspector, under this sub-section, can order the plan to be made up to the then state of the mine.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I have given the Committee a case in point. Had the plans of the mine been made up to a reasonable date the inundation which occurred in the Rhondda Valley would never have happened. There is no going back from that fact, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary will accede to this Amendment.
  MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM: The taking of these plans very often cause considerable inconvenience. In many cases, the working of the pit is almost stopped for half-a-day, in which case the colliers lose half-a-day's pay. As was pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones), managers constantly mark in pencil on their plans the points at which the workings have arrived. That is quite sufficient for ordinary purposes, and therefore I hope the Committee will not assent to this Amendment.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: The observations which have fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) and the hon. Member for the Hyde Division of Cheshire (Mr. J. W. Sidebotham) show the remarkable high moral ground on which hon. Members opposite are disposed to treat these questions involving human life and human suffering. All I hope is, that if this Amendment is not conceded to us, the public outside will fully appreciate the motives which actuate hon. Members opposite.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: Allow me to repudiate in the most respectful language and spirit—but nevertheless strongly—the imputation cast upon the owners of mines. I have the honour of the acquaintance of many owners of mines, and I can bear testimony to the extreme anxiety which they have to conduct their mining operations in such a manner as may save life. Some reference was made a short time ago to the individual interests of the owners, and I cannot forget I have the honour of occu-

  545
  pying the seat in this House which was formerly occupied by my lamented Friend (Mr. Thomas Knowles), who once stated in the House of Commons that one accident cost him £100,000. That statement made a great impression upon the House. I venture to refer to that statement of my lamented Friend, in order that it may tend to prevent a repetition of these imputations which lend bitterness to the discussion, while in no way aiding the solution of the difficulties with which we have to contend.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Speaking with the experience of 40 years, I think that, for the general purposes of the colliery, a six months' limit is quite safe. When works are approaching water, however, I think that three months' limit is very much too long. In such cases, plans ought certainly to be made up every two or three weeks. What I would suggest is, that in all cases of dangerous workings — when water, for instance, is being approached—an Inspector should have power to order the plans to be made up oftener. [An hon. MEMBER: He has such power.]
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I think that this Amendment might very well be accepted. Personally, I should be very glad to have a little pressure brought to bear upon surveyors to keep the plans up properly. I see no difficulty in the acceptance of this Amendment. Procrastination is one of the worst possible vices, and, so far as I know, there is no plan of the collieries with which I am connected which is as far behind as three months. I always insist upon the date of the survey being marked upon the plan, and I am always able, by that means, to see the last time that the survey was made. If any lengthened interval exists, I express a strong opinion with regard to the matter. I cannot possibly see why any survey should be three months behind. This Amendment is a very fair one, and might without any danger or difficulty be accepted.
  SIR. JOSEPH PEASE: As a matter of fact, we are not dealing with the survey. If we were, I should certainly say that the survey ought to be made much oftener than six months.
  MR. HINGLEY: I think the case would be properly met, if, in Sub-section 2, the words "and the
  546
  like request" were omitted, so that the section should read "and shall mark on such plan and section the then state of the workings of the mine." What I require from the men in my employ is that the plan should be kept up every week—that the condition of every working should be marked every week.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I have not the least desire to insinuate that the owners are disregardful of their own interests in this matter; but I think that enough has been said on both sides of the House to prove that it is an easy matter to keep the plans frequently and accurately made up. Standing here as the Representative of the Rhondda Valley, where a number of lives were lost on account of accurate plans not being made up, I should not be doing my duty unless I divided the House upon this Amendment. I trust that hon. Members opposite will not throw upon themselves the onus of dividing upon such an important point as that which this Amendment raises.
  MR. WOOD: This Amendment is reasonable, and, in fact, is already generally adopted by colliery owners at the present time. I trust that the Government will accept it, and we may proceed with further Business.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I have no wish to persist in my opposition to this Amendment, if there is any object to be gained by its acceptance.
  MR. MATTHEWS: On behalf of the Government, I have not the slightest desire to resist this Amendment. Personally, I have always thought that a correct survey ought to be taken very frequently. I never could see that any colliery owner would omit to have the state of his workings ascertained often. I assent to the substitution of the word "three" for "six."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'three' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the last words of Sub-section 2—namely, "and the Inspector shall be entitled to examine the plan and section, but not to make a copy of any part thereof respectively." Now what I wish to submit is that it may be very important that an Inspector should

  547
  take a copy of the plan and section sometimes, especially if he should think that the plan is incomplete, faulty, or misleading. The possibility of its so being is contemplated in the very next section of the clause, which is in these words—
  "If the owner, agent, or manager of any mine fails to keep, or wilfully refuses to produce or allow to be examined, the plan and section aforesaid, or wilfully withholds any portion thereof, or wilfully refuses, on request, to mark thereon that state of the workings of the mine, or conceals any part of these workings, or produces an imperfect or inaccurate plan or section, he shall (unless he shows that he was ignorant of the concealment, imperfection, or inaccuracy) be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  It will therefore be seen that this very clause contemplates the possibility of the plans produced being imperfect, misleading, and therefore dangerous. Under such circumstances, it may be of great importance that the Inspector should be in a position, if he thinks fit, to take a copy of the plan or any part of it. I therefore propose to leave out from "but," in line 20, to the end of the subsection.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 20, to leave out "but not to make a copy of any part there of respectively." —(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I must protest once for all against the sort of assumption which the hon. Gentleman makes, that the colliery proprietors have any desire or interest in not carrying on their collieries with due regard to safety. I am not quite sure what the reasons were for putting in the words which the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out; but off-hand, without having an opportunity of considering the matter carefully, I certainly cannot consent to the words being struck out.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Let me say that I do not desire to cast any reflection upon mineowners with regard to this question. I merely take the clause as it stands, and in Sub-section 3 it is seen that the Government themselves, both in this Bill and in the Act of 1872, recognized the possibility of these plans being imperfect, incomplete, misleading, and dangerous. When an accident occurs, it may be of great
  548
  consequence that the Inspector should be able to produce the plans, and say— "This or that 18 what the owner showed to me as representing the real condition of the working of the pit on the occasion of my last visit." It may be possible to prove that the plan was not in accordance with the facts of the case—that the accident resulted from the stopping up of an air course from imperfect ventilation. Therefore, I say, it is of great importance that an Inspector should be allowed at his discretion to take a copy of any plan or portion of a plan. I shall certainly press my Amendment to a division.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: For my part, I do not think any objection can be raised to an Inspector taking a copy of the whole plan.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: There have been several cases before the Courts of Law, in which persons sueing neighbouring owners for wrongfully taking coal have charged the defendant with keeping false plans of workings.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am perfectly indifferent in this matter. I know, however, that when the Act of 1872 was passed, great jealousy existed as to an Inspector taking a copy of any mining plan. I would rather take no part in the discussion; but it does seem to me that the hon. Gentleman would have been dealing much more fairly with those who are interested in this matter if he had given Notice of his Amendment.
  MR. HINGLEY: If any copy of the plan is allowed to be taken, it should be understood that it is for the Inspector's own use, and not for publication.
  MR. WARMINGTON: If we were to strike out the words "but not to make a copy of any part thereof respectively," we should leave the Inspector without any power at all, and I do not think that under the law he would be entitled, without special power, to make a copy of a plan.
  R. HANDEL COSSHAM: I have never known of the refusal on the part of the proprietor of a mine to allow an Inspector to take a copy of the plan. Personally, I have frequently furnished Inspectors with copies of plans. What, however, ought to be guarded against is the danger of these

  549
  copies of plans being used for the purposes of assisting landowners in any contest they may have with proprietors. If an Inspector had power to step in and furnish plans to litigants, great mischief would result from this Amendment.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: I think the views of hon. Gentlemen would be attained if it were provided that an Inspector should be allowed to take a copy of a plan "for official purposes only."
  MR. S. MASON: I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. Hingley) would meet all difficulty—namely, that the Inspector should be allowed to make a copy of the plan, or any part thereof, except for his own use.
  MR. TOMLINSON: It might meet the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hingley's) own case; but we ought to be allowed the opportunity of considering whether we have any objection either to the words as they stand, or as they are proposed to be amended. It would only be fair and proper that this discussion should be postponed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If there were the least difficulty in the matter, I should have no hesitation in complying with the desire of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson); but even the hon. and learned Member cannot pretend he is not able with this short notice to understand the drift and the meaning and the reach of the Amendment. I believe that this is a very important question. I believe that the plans ought to be checked, or to be susceptible of being checked, as occasion arises, and it is because it may possibly involve the safety of a large number of men that I raise this question. If I withdraw this Amendment, will it be competent for any hon. Member to move to add the words after the word "section?" [Cries of "No!"] Then I adhere to my Motion to leave out the words.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I beg to move, in line 20, to insert, after the word "section," the words "and for official purposes to make a copy of any part thereof."
  Amendment proposed, in page 16' line 20, after "section," insert "and for official purposes to make a copy of any part thereof."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Notice to be given of accidents in mines).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not move the first of my Amendments —namely, on page 17, line 19, after "Inspector," to insert "within twenty-four hours after such explosion or accident." I, however, move my second Amendment—namely, in the same place, to insert "within twenty-four hours after the receipt of such notice as aforesaid of such explosion or accident." I think it is only fair that this interval of 24 hours should be allowed for the attendance of the Inspector. I do not think it would be in the least inconvenient that this regulation should be laid down, and therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 17, line 19, after the word "Inspector," to insert the words "within twenty-four hours after the receipt of such notice as aforesaid of such explosion or accident."—Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The effect of these words might very possibly be to afford just that amount of time which is so useful in cases of certain accidents to enable those interested in concealing the cause of the disaster, to remove every trace and indication of such cause. Of course, I am putting myself in the way of having it said——
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): According to the section, the place where the explosion or accident occurs is to be left as it was immediately after the explosion or accident.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes, but the Amendment says "within, twenty-four hours after the Inspector has read the notice." It might happen that the Inspector could not get to the colliery or scene of the accident within 24 hours. Over and over again accidents have occurred in collieries, and

  551
  everything has been put straight and cleared up before the Inspector arrived, there being no trace left of the real cause of the accident. Things may be removed which would not look well in the eyes of the Inspector, or things may be supplied which before were wanting. You may have something that will explain an explosion by reason of the accumulation of gas above an archway, which, if you only allow those who are responsible for the bad condition of the mine to have time to put it straight, they would have filled up so as to make the faulty place incapable of admitting the presence of explosive gas. There are a hundred things that may be done to prevent the Inspector, when he does come, from ascertaining where the responsibility lies, and where blame ought to be attached. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to think that this Amendment works in the direction of safety. To my mind it does the very reverse. Although at first, perhaps, it may appear to be in the interests of safety, I think that, when it is examined, it will be found to have a precisely opposite effect.
  MR. FENWICK: The next Amendment on the Paper, which appears in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), seems to me to be preferable to this one.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I am moving the second Amendment.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg pardon, I was not aware of the fact. This Amendment then, it seems to me, is exactly similar to the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and which, as I understand it, has been practically agreed to by the coal miners and several Members representing mining constituencies. If the Committee force the Amendment to a Division, under the circumstances, I should feel myself bound to support it.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I would suggest that, if the view of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is carried out, in the case of a serious accident hundreds of lives might be sacrificed which, under existing arrangements, are now saved. Men might be entombed for hours if you have to find the place in the condition in which it may happen to be after an accident during whatever
  552
  period may elapse between the occurrence of the accident and the arrival of the Inspector. Hundreds of lives might be lost. The first thing to be done in the case of an explosion is to restore the ventilation, and the adoption of the hon. Member's view would render it illegal to take means for the purpose of effecting that object until, probably, a considerable time had elapsed.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to move in page 17, line 21, to leave out the words "or would impede the working of the mine." I did not insist upon my objection to the last Amendment when it was put from the Chair. I allowed it to go without challenge, because of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) to the effect that, if I had pressed my objection, it might have involved the loss of many lives. Of course, it is reasonable to suppose that if that would have been the result of my proposal, hon. Members would have been reluctant to support it. This, however, is an Amendment which contemplates a different thing—namely, the profit of those on whose property the accident occurs. It does appear to me that, if an accident has occurred involving the loss of human lives, it is not much to ask that, at any rate, the working of the mine shall be stopped until a complete investigation shall have been made by the responsible authorities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 21, leave out the words "or would impede the working of the mine."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think it would be desirable to omit these words. The hon. Member talks about the profit of the owners; but there are some hon. Members who sit beside the hon. Gentleman who know perfectly well that the working of a mine, which, does not always mean profit to the owner, but which may even mean the reverse of profit to him, at the same time always means wages to the miners. Therefore, except in case of grave necessity, I do not think

  553
  anyone should desire to stop the working of a mine. Accidents in mines are of all kinds. Supposing there should be one in a small part of the roof. There may be no particular advantage in leaving the mine as it was immediately after the accident until the arrival of the Inspector, and it may have the effect of stopping the ventilation. I contend that, under those circumstances, it would be desirable that the authorities in the mine should have power to set about remedying the defect at once. I do not suppose, ordinarily speaking, that the question of making profit would operate at all in the minds of the colliery owners where there was a question of the safety of human life, and I do not suppose that in many cases the reasons I have urged for retaining these words would operate, but occasions may arise when it would be extremely inconvenient to allow the mine to continue in the state in which it was immediately after an accident.
  MR. BURT: In ordinary cases I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment that a working place should not be interfered with at all after an accident has occurred. I think it would rarely happen that it would be desirable to interfere with it, but if an accident happens in a main roadway which affects the working of the mine and the consequent employment of the whole of the men, it surely would appear desirable that the defect should be rectified without delay. I certainly could not support the elimination of these words, because I think it would lead to great hardship to the miners, and injury to the working of the mines.
  MR. MATTHEWS: This clause requires some looking at. Let me point out why it is that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur Connor), who seems to take to himself the sole credit for the desire to protect colliers from injury, should not object to the retention of these words. The section affects all accidents which involve the loss of life. Well, let us suppose that something falls down the shaft, or falls from the roof, and kills a man, the hon. Member wishes that the man who has met with the accident, and the cause of the accident, whatever it may be, should remain undisturbed, pending the arrival of the Inspector. Well, that might
  554
  necessitate leaving an obstruction at the bottom of the shaft, or in the workings of the mine—an obstruction which might probably throw no light whatever on the question as to who was responsible for the accident. Such an obstruction might even prevent the cage being sent down into the pit. Let us suppose another case. Suppose a man gets in the way of a tram, and is run over and killed; is the body to remain on the spot where the accident occurred, it may be at the mouth of the pit, until the Inspector arrives, or during a period of 24 hours? Is the working of the mine to be impeded for that period—is the working of the tramway to be entirely stopped? I cannot understand that such a thing as that would be at all convenient. Of course, if there is nothing in the condition of the mine to render such a course inconvenient, and if it were nesessary to leave things untouched in order to give some idea of the causes which led to the accident, nothing would be touched. It would be desirable to leave everything as much as possible in the position in which it was; but what I have stated I think shows the difficulty of laying down a regulation of a general character, such as that the hon. Member proposes.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: There is one aspect of this question which does not appear to have occurred to the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), and that is that a great deal of the difficulty which exists as to the inspection of places that are the scenes of accidents arises from the paucity of Inspectors. You have a very small staff of Inspectors—you ought to have a great many more of these gentlemen. My hope was that if the working of the mine was to be impeded until the Inspector's visit was secured, then the owners of the mines themselves would be as interested as the miners in having an efficient and sufficient staff of Inspectors. The possibility of delay I considered would probably load the owners to support the application of the men that there should be a sufficient staff of Inspectors. If you had a sufficient staff you would have no difficulty in getting the scene of the accident inspected. You ought to have an Inspector on the scene of an accident within 12 hours of the occurrence of the accident. His whereabouts

  555
  should be known—it should be possible to communicate with him by telegraph, You should be able to communicate with the Inspector, if not the Chief Inspector of the district at any rate an Assistant Inspector. The loss to the owner, or those interested in the matter, consequent upon adopting such an arrangement as I propose would be very trifling.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: The object of all mine Inspectors should be this—to secure the maximum safety with the minimum of interference with the working of the mine. I see inconveniences of this sort in the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal—that is to say, a man may be killed at a remote part of the mine; well, as this section will apply wherever there is loss of life the adoption of this Amendment, in the event of a man being so killed, might render it necessary to stop the whole working of the mine, if things had to be left in the condition in which they were at the time of the accident. If you did this you might stop the whole mining operations of the country. No doubt you should allow the Inspector to see all that has been done, but in the case of an accident where the cause is palpable I cannot believe that it would always be necessary to leave things as they were until his arrival. To stop the whole working of a mine because a man has been killed in some remote part of it, would be to adopt a system which would work very badly.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BURT: I beg to move to leave out from this sub-section the words "or unless an Inspector informs the owner, agent, or manager, that he considers a visit unnecessary." I would point out in recommending this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman opposite——
  MR. MATTHEWS: Agreed, agreed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 21, after "mine" leave out to the end of sub-section.—(Mr. Burt.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have upon the Paper an Amendment which would come in after the word "unneces-
  556
  sary"—namely, to insert the words, "and the Inspector shall at once visit the place of such explosion or accident." The Committee will see that this Amendment is in accord with, what I was saying just now as to my object in endeavouring to enlist the interest of the mineowner in the efficiency and sufficiency of the staff of Inspectors. At present, the Inspector very often cannot visit the place where an accident has happened, just as he is unable at certain periods to inspect the mines under his care. Take the case of one Inspector in the East of Scotland Division who has 400 or 500 mines in his district. Allowing that he works every day, even on Sundays, he would not be able to inspect all the mines of his district in a year. He has an enormous amount of work to do, for besides the work of inspection he has reports to make and inquiries to hold. Well, now if this Amendment is inserted, it will ensure the strengthening of the staff of Inspectors, and that is one of the objects which I think is shared by myself and a very large number of the Committee even on the Government side of the House.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 21, to leave out from "or," to end of sub-section, and insert "and the Inspector shall at once visit the place of such explosion or accident."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, I have no objection to the Inspector coming to the scene of the accident as soon as possible after an accident has occurred. The sooner the better. So far as my experience goes, Inspectors do make it a point to attend upon the scene of an accident with all reasonable speed —even where the accident is a trivial one. The hon. Member opposite does not seem to understand how the Inspectors do their work. I happened to be talking to a mine engineer at a colliery some time ago. There had been a trivial accident—a man through his own fault had injured himself in some way or other, and the Inspector hearing of it what did he do? Why he went to the colliery, he looked round about it, and, having made an inspection he went for the purposes of inspection to a neighbouring mine. The Inspectors work in

  557
  this way —a mail who knows his duty and is anxious to do it well, will make his visits fit in this way. He will make his visit to the scene of an accident fit in with his inspection of other mines. By this Amendment you would interfere with the discharge of very onerous duties on the part of the Inspectors. As I say, I have no objection to Inspectors coming as soon as possible, but I would not insist upon an Inspector at once visiting the scene of a trivial accident.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must object to this Amendment, as I believe it would in all probability throw upon Inspectors most unnecessary work. With regard to necessary inspection, so far as I know, when anything has happened which scorns to indicate that all is not right, and that blame is to be attached some where or other, the Inspector does no delay in visiting the mine. They are promptly on the scene of the accidents, but the hon. Member wishes to oblige an Inspector to at once visit the scene of an accident whether or not any mismanagement has taken place. Of course, there are many instances in which accidents occur that are pure accidents, and for which obviously no one can be held to blame Take the case I mentioned just now, a man gets in front of a tram or tumbles over a pick which may be in his way and breaks his leg. If the Inspector gets notice of this, he would have, according to the hon. Member's proposal to visit the scone of the accident at once. Under this Amendment you would compel him to go into a mine, however faraway he may be at the time of the accident. Such a proposal appears to me altogether absurd.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: It is difficult to understand this clause unless some such principle as that proposed by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is adopted. The mineowners can make no objection to this Amendment. With regard to the Inspectors, I know that they are doing their duty to the best of their ability, but at the present moment this matter of visiting the scenes of accidents is left to their discretion. All we ask is, that we should insist upon the work they are expected to do being done. The Amendment would cause no inconvenience to anybody, and I trust that it will be accepted.
  MR. PICKARD: The sub-section, in one part of it, reads "until visited by an inspector." Therefore, I take it that if an accident occurs, those who are working in the mine are entitled to have the scene of the accident inspected. Those who are in charge also have a right to have an Inspector—they must be justified by somebody or other; therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would do well to accept the Amendment. It could not do harm, and might do a great deal of good. I am sure that Inspectors will at once visit the spot in cases where a serious accident occurs.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: This section says that where loss of life or serious personal injury has immediately resulted from an explosion or accident, Certain things shall be done. Well, it is evident that, under such circumstances, an Inspector would lose no time in visiting the scene of the accident. But discretion must be left to him to discriminate between serious and trivial accidents. It would be absurd to require an Inspector who has a great deal of work to do to rush off to examine into an occurrence which is indisputably a pure accident, where obviously no one is to blame, when possibly he may have important work to attend to at a distant part of his district.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: The section deals with cases in which there has been loss of life or serious personal injury resulting from an accident. That refers to serious personal injury of any kind whatever, and obviously will cover cases in which inspection would be entirely uunecessary. I must say there is a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said on this subject. Under the 1st sub-section, the owner, agent, or manager of a mine is required within 24 hours after an explosion or accident to send notice of it and of the loss of life or personal injury occasioned thereby, to the Inspector of the district. He is reqired to state in writing how the accident came about; and it appears to me that there are many cases in which it would be perfectly idle to bring down an Inspector, who might be engaged upon most im-

  559
  portent duties some distance away, to inspect an accident of an ordinary kind —for instance, where a miner has been trampled, upon, or run over by a tram, and killed, or seriously injured. Some discretion ought to be loft to him, seeing that under the section he will receive full particulars of the way in which the accident was brought about. There cannot be the least doubt in the world that an Inspector who believes that a serious accident has taken place will not delay proceeding to the scene of it in order to find out for himself what has happened. The Inspector, under this section, is to receive notice from the owner, agent, or manager of a mine of loss of life or any personal injury whatever to any person employed in or about the mine, by reason of any accident. Well, accidents will vary very much in degree and significance. Some may be merely common casualties, such as might occur in any employment; and in respect to these it will be for the Inspector, in the exercise of his discretion, to determine whether any further inquiry is necessary. On the other hand, where there has been loss of life on a large scale, and all the circumstances are of an unusual nature, the Inspector will not only make an inquiry, but will put himself into communication with the Secretary of State. Does the Committee intend to insist upon an Inspector visiting the scenes of accidents which are to be described merely as common casualties, such as might happen in any employment?
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Notice to be given of opening and abandonment of mine).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to submit to the Committee that it is desirable, in line 33, to leave out the words "or a seam." I do not think it necessary that notice should be given to an Inspector when a new seam is opened or abandoned. I quite grant that when a new shaft is opened or a new colliery is commenced, notice should be given to the Inspector; but it does seem to me unnecessary that where even for a matter of temporary convenience, a new seam may be abandoned—a matter which is of every day occurrence—the management of the business should be taken out of the hands of the colliery manager to the
  560
  extent of his being required to give notice to the Inspector. It may be a very common event in the ordinary management of the mine. I beg to move to omit the words "or a seam."
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 33, to leave out the words "or a seam." —(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I think it will be necessary for the Committee to retain these words here, and in the subsequent lines—for the hon. and learned Member proposes to leave them out of several parts of the Bill. I think that where a new seam is opened, the new opening should be communicated to the Inspector.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think it necessary that notice should be given where the working of a shaft or seam is recommenced after any abandonment or discontinuance for a period of two months. I think the period should be extended to six months, as a seam may be idle for more than two months under the ordinary regulations of the colliery. There may be no market in the summer, and it may be unnecessary to work the seam.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 35, after "discontinued," to insert the words "for a period of six months." —(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. FENWICK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept the period of two months instead of six months? I think that the period of two months is a very proper period, indeed we find it in this clause in Sub-section 3.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will abide by the terms contained in Sub-section 3. In the district I am acquainted with, this period is a matter of the greatest importance. There are a number of seams in the

  561
  mines there of a most dangerous character, and if they are opened after having been abandoned for some time, to my mind it is highly essential that the Inspector should be informed of it.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not wish to press this Amendment. I only thought it desirable to submit it to the Committee—I did not think it desirable to hamper the Bill with too many restrictions of a narrow kind.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to say that the significance of this matter is not in the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member, but in the fact that immediately he made it the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who evidently did not see the consequences of the alteration turned round and said— "Agreed, I accept it."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Fencing in case of abandoned mines).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall)— namely, in line 23 after "be," to insert "liable to any damages for, or be." The Amendment is merely a clerical one, and there is one following it in my own name, which is of the same character.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 23, after the word "be," to insert the words "liable to any damages for, or be."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am afraid that those words will not do. I do not think it would be right to say that no person shall be liable to any damages for doing such acts as may be considered necessary to comply with the section; but I think we might safely say that no person shall be precluded by any agreement for doing, or be liable under any contract to any penalty or
  562
  forfeiture for doing, such acts as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the section. I see no objection to that.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Then I will put my own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 24, after the second "any," insert "damages."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question, "That the word 'damages' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Plan of abandoned mine or seam to be sent to Secretary of State) agreed to.
  Inspection.
  Clause 40 (Appointment of Inspectors of mines).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) moves the Amendment standing in his name, I beg to move an Amendment on the first line. The section says—
  "The Secretary of State may from time to time appoint any fit persons to Le Inspectors (under whatever title he may from time to time fix) of mines, and assign them their duties, and may award thorn such, salaries as the Treasury may approve, and may remove any such Inspector."
  Well, this wording leaves the matter to that initiative, and to the discretion of the Secretary of State, which means, of course, the Home Secretary. "Well, Sir—and I say it with all possible respect—I must decline in this matter to trust to the discretion or energy of the Homo Secretary. In reply to a Question with regard to the staff of Inspectors of Coal Mines, the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, many months ago, stated that in his opinion the staff was overworked, and was inadequate for the numerous and onerous duties which it had to discharge. Well, that state of things has gone on from that day to this, the right hon. Gentleman remaining Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has been in such a position as enabled him to bring pressure to bear, if such were necessary, upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon the Head of Her Majesty's Government, in order to obtain the necessary funds to obtain a sufficient staff of Inspectors. But the right hon. Gentleman has not

  563
  done so, and I believe that however long he remains in Office he will not do so. I have seen nothing in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's administration to lead me to suppose that he will do as Home Secretary anything which he can possibly avoid doing. This Bill itself is an indication of the same sort of thing. What is the Bill? It is hardly anything more than a servile transcript of the Bill which he found in the pigeon holes of the Home Office left there by his Predecessor. That Bill was the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench below me—I do not mean to say who is sitting there now, but who usually occupies the seat upon that Bench. It was the Bill of a late Member of the Government. I have checked the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with the Bill to which I refer, from beginning to end, and I find that it is almost word for word a reproduction of the Bill of the late Government——
  MR. TOMLINSON: I wish, Sir, as a matter of Order, to ask you whether it is competent for the hon. Member, upon an Amendment of which he has not told us the nature, to discuss the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and also the whole policy of this Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say, for I do not yet know what the Amendment is.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Amendment will come in after the words "a Secretary of State." I propose to leave out the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall," and I propose afterwards to insert "from time to time appoint a sufficient number of fit persons to be Inspectors." I say that there is nothing in the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary which should lead us to suppose that he is at all likely, on his own initiative, or that he is likely, under any circumstances, unless immense pressure is brought to bear upon him, to take the trouble to appoint a sufficient staff of Inspectors. Where he has altered the Bill of his Predecessor, as he found it in the pigeon holes of the Home Office, has only been in such places as have been made the subject of pressure from one quarter or another. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly prepared to receive deputations of mineowners; he
  564
  receives them, he listens to what they have to say, he gives them some honeyed words, and bows thorn out. The pit-brow women interview him; he receives them, he gives them fair words, and bows them out.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment the hon. Member has given Notice of refers to any Secretary of State?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think, therefore, he must proceed to the general substantial question with which he wishes to deal.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes; but this Bill will be passed at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary is in Office, and it will fall to his lot to put the powers under it into operation. Well, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary will put that pressure on his Colleagues, and upon the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will be necessary in order to provide sufficient inspection for the adequate safeguarding of the lives and interests of hundreds of thousands of our working men of this country. Therefore, I wish to furnish a certain amount of statutory support for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I propose to take away from him the power of saying that he is not compelled by Act of Parliament to give the inspecting staff the strength which is needed, according to his own admission, to do the work with which they are charged. I beg, therefore, to move, in the first instance, in line 26, the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may."
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 26, leave out the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall."— (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  MR.WARMINGTON: I must say the argument the hon. Member uses in favour of the insertion of the word "shall" appears to me to apply to a Home Secretary such as we do not now possess. I do not at all agree with the hon. Member's animadversions

  565
  upon the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, because I think we are very much indebted to him for what he has done. If an alteration such as the hon. Member proposes is required at all in this clause it certainly is not necessary in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary. It may apply to his Successors.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to move, in line 27, after "persons," to insert "holding first-class certificates under this Act." I have no doubt that under existing circumstances Home Secretaries will always consider that the holding of first class certificates shall be a necessary qualification for Inspectors; but there may come a time when we may have some Secretaries of a more sanguine temperament, who may consider that such a qualification is not essential in the case of Inspectors. In order to guard against such a possibility I beg to move this Amendment, which will preclude the appointment of Inspectors who are not qualified in the way I propose. The reason for inserting this Amendment is rather strengthened by the addition we have made in the Bill providing that under managers shall be certificated.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 27, after "persons," insert "holding first-class certificates under this Act."— (Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. I cannot see the consistency of hon. Gentlemen who have been advocating a second-class certificate for managers, and who have been telling the House that which no doubt is true, that among the managers that now hold certificates for service the best of them have been those who have been drawn from the ranks of practical men—I say I cannot understand the consistency of those hon. Members who, having taken up that position, contend that Inspectors should be required to hold first-class certificates. If practical second-class certificate-holders make the best managers, surely they will also make
  566
  the best Inspectors. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I beg to support the Amendment. I feel sure that it would be a great mistake to appoint anyone as Inspector who did not hold a first-lass certificate, or who did not obtain one within a very short period of his appointment. I trust this Amendment will be accepted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I must say I cannot accept this Amendment, and for two reasons; first, because the best Inspectors are not always first-class certificated men; and secondly, because, if you insist upon Inspectors having first-class certificates, you will exclude practical men from the position of Inspectors who would be most useful in that capacity.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I hope it will not be supposed that I wish to exclude from the position of Inspectors any class of men or any individual who may have ability enough for the duty of inspection; but I must say that the work of inspecting mines is a work of the greatest responsibility and of the greatest difficulty. It is one of the most difficult duties which a man can be engaged on. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorgan, I would point out that no new manager can be appointed who has not obtained a first-class certificate, and that those possessing service certificates are rapidly diminishing. As to second-class certificates, I have not the least wish to see second-class supersede the first. We know there are many duties which can be performed by persons under a second-class certificate which depend more upon practical knowledge than theoretical knowledge; but I think, in the case of Inspectors, that those men should have practical knowledge, and should have theoretical knowledge as well. If the Inspectors are not qualified in that way I fail to see how they can perform their duties. I think it is essential, for the due inspection of mines, that the minimum qualification for an Inspector should be as high as that of a person whose work he has to supervise.
  MR. PICKARD: the hon. and learned Member

  567
  need not be alarmed in this matter. "We know this—that several working men who are qualified to pass examinations have made application to be examined, and as yet the Home Office have never accepted any of their applications, or allowed them to be examined for the position of mining Inspector.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. FENWICK: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Mid Division of Durham (Mr. W. Crawford) I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, in line 27, after "Inspectors," to leave out "under whatever title he may from time to time fix." The object of this Amendment is to prevent any appointment being made of what may take the character of a Chief Inspector of mines. We take it that the words "under whatever title he may from time to time fix" will cover a Chief Inspector. We therefore prefer that if there is to be a Head Inspector he shall be a Minister of Mines, with a seat in this House, to whom all questions affecting the working of mines can be properly and directly addressed, and from whom we may expect to have a direct answer. Therefore, I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is an Amendment which we believe has been accepted by the colliery owners, who are also Members of this House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 97, after "Inspectors," leave out" under whatever title he may from time to time fix."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those words on the Bill have no relation whatever to the appointment of a Chief Inspector. No such idea was in our minds. They were put in in consequence of two difficulties under which Assistant Inspectors labour. An Inspector of mines has under an order in Council seven years added on to his service for superannuation purposes. That is not only the case with Inspectors of Mines, but it is the ease with all public servants who are required
  568
  to bring certain qualifications into their offices which they have not acquired in the service. But it is only Inspectors who are mentioned in the order in Council and not "Assistant Inspectors," and it is a question whether, legally speaking, Assistant Inspectors are on-titled to those privileges.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Issue a new Warrant.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member for East Donegal says that a new Warrant would enable us to surmount the difficulty. Of course it would; but then there are a series of instances in which the competitive examination ordinarily required is dispensed with in consideration of the qualifications and the nature of the employment of the applicant. Well, it is a question again whether Assistant Inspectors are examined in these cases in the same way as Inspectors. The object with which these words were inserted is to relieve the Assistant Inspectors from this double disability, or at any rate, ambiguity. That is the whole reason why it was thought desirable to insert words of that kind. I will undertake that steps shall be taken to prevent a difficulty of the kind referred to by the hon. Member opposite arising.
  MR. W. CRAWFORD: I think the right hon. Gentleman's object would be much more satisfactorily secured if he adopted the words—" may appoint any fit persons to be Inspectors or Assistant Inspectors." If the only difficulties which arise in this matter are those which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to—namely, the difficulty of seven years addition in case of superannuation, and the difficulty of dispensing with examination, I think the right hon. Gentleman would effect his purpose by the adoption of those words—those words, or words of a similar nature; such, words are quite common in Acts of Parliament of this kind. The difficulty which occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland did not occur to me; but at the same time, persons reading Acts of Parliament may be struck with the peculiarity of the words—"under whatever title he may from time to time fix." These words do not appear to have any apparent purpose, and if they are to give the Treasury power to give Assistant Inspectors an allowance of

  569
  seven years in considering superannuation, that object would be equally effected by the words I propose.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The words the hon. Gentleman proposes would not in the least meet the difficulty as the Order in Council refers to Inspectors only, and not to Assistant Inspectors. The object in view is to give Assistant Inspectors, who are not called "Inspectors," the benefit of the superannuation warrant, and also to provide that they shall not be under the ordinary regulations and requirements in regard to competitive examinations. To adopt the words proposed by the hon. Member would not have the effect of bringing those persons under the head of Inspectors mentioned in the Treasury Warrant.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What is the meaning of the words lower down?—
  "Every such Inspector is referred to in this Act as an Inspector, and the Inspector of the district means the Inspector who is for the time being assigned to the district or portion of the United Kingdom with reference to which the term is used."
  MR. MATTHEWS: They are all Inspectors, but the insertion of the words in the clause to which exception is taken is put in in order that no assistant master may be regarded as an Inspector. Though his title may be only Assistant Inspector, yet he is virtually an Inspector, and should have the privileges of such.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it meant that the word "Inspector" remaining alone on the Bill will give the Home Secretary power to appoint any number of different classes of officials who will be able to act as Inspectors?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly; it is intended to give such officials the same privileges as to pensions.
  MR. PICKARD: That being so, I hope the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division will withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. FENWICK: I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: In the absence of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, after "Inspector," insert—
  "Provided, o person shall be appointed to act as Inspector of mines in Wales and
  570
  Monmouthshire, who is not thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language."
  This Amendment is evidently justifiable, and is essentially necessary to enable an Inspector to discharge his duties in these two important districts in question. The necessity for the Amendment is so palpable that I take it that it is unnecessary for me to go further into the matter than simply to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 19, line 3, after "Inspector" insert—" Provided that no person shall he appointed to act as Inspector of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire, who is not thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language."—(Mr. W. Abraham.)
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot accept this Amendment— [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] Well, let the hon. Member consider what he is asking. We have in Wales, I think, two districts, if my memory serves me right. Well, under this Amendment no Inspector can be appointed to either of these districts, unless thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language. In that way he would disturb the whole system of Inspectors, preventing the flow of promotion, or the changing of Inspectors from England and other parts of Great Britain to Wales. At present, there is only one system for the whole of the United Kingdom; there is a flow throughout the system, and if there is a vacancy in one part of it, it can be filled up from another part without difficulty. The hon. Member wishes the Principality to be a close preserve not only for his own countrymen, but for a class of his own countrymen — namely, those who are thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language. The hon. Member desires that Welsh Inspectorships shall be shot out from the ordinary course of the Service, and reserved to a special class of candidates who are conversant with the Welsh language. Well, I, as Secretary of State, should be unable to carry out the object of the hon. Member. I am incapable of forming a correct opinion as to whether or not a man is conversant with the Welsh language, and in order to ascertain whether or not a candidate had such qualification, I should be obliged to appoint a body of examiners. I do appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. We have suffered enough already from

  571
  questions of nationality. Is there any remedy for crystallizing nationality in an Act of Parliament in this manner? I would earnestly appeal to hon. Gentlemen to leave this matter to the discretion of those who have to carry out the appointments. For my own part, I aim as much as I can at getting Welsh speaking Inspectors for Wales. From ray own experience I can say that it is very often almost impossible to secure men as Inspectors who have the qualification of a thorough knowledge of the Welsh, language.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am bound to say that I do not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on this claim of the Welsh for consideration is either conclusive or satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman appears to consider this appeal entirely as a question of feeling and of national jealousy on the part of the Welsh. Well, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is nothing of the kind. If I were to draw a moral by referring to another case altogether, in order to show the danger of deciding matters upon the testimony of those who do not speak your language, I would draw attention to the Lipski trial, which is now under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to make more than a passing reference to that case, but I think it will show you the importance of having in connection with mines Inspectors properly qualified to speak the language of the country. I would urge this consideration upon the Committee that where the lives of our fellow subjects are concerned, and it is necessary to make investigations after accidents have happened, it appears to be above all things essential that the Inspectors and others who have to decide upon the liability or where blame for negligence is at all, should be, at any rate, as conversant with the Welsh language as to be able to form something like a correct opinion from the statements presented to them by persons who can speak only Welsh. The Amendment now under consideration provides that no person shall be appointed to act as Inspector of Mines in Wales and Monmouthshire who is not thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for
  572
  Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham) to withdraw the word "thoroughly." I think that if that word were struck out it would go a long way toward lessening the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to this proposal, because, while no doubt it would be difficult to find persons "thoroughly" conversant with the Welsh language to fulfil these duties, I do not think, from what I know, that it will be difficult to find persons who are sufficiently conversant with that language to perform, the duties of Inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary mentioned, in the course of his argument, that he himself had experienced great difficulty in finding a man to fill one of these posts who could speak, or, rather, was conversant with the Welsh language. Now, I do not know whether that was an Inspectorship connected with the Welsh quarries which was recently filled up, but all I can say is that I had something to do with the recommending of a gentleman for that post. I do not think that the gentleman I recommended obtained the post, but he was a Welshman, and he had a thoroughly familiar knowledge with the Welsh language. Of course I do not know the reasons which may have weighed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in refusing to appoint the gentleman I recommended, but I am quite sure that it was not because of his want of acquaintance with the Welsh language. This gentleman was only one of a good number who knew quite enough about the Welsh language, at any rate, to be competent to perform the duties of an Inspector, and who were fit persons to be appointed. And, again, I do not think there is anything in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the promotion of Assistant Inspectors from other parts of the country. Surely you can appoint Welshmen as Assistant Inspectors, and promote them in due course, but whether you do so or not there is no question of excluding Welsh Inspectors from the line of promotion in other parts of the country. As I understand it, you only want Inspectors for two districts in Wales. It does not appear to me that the extension of the field for the promotion of Assistant Inspectors throughout the country should do away with the desirability of appoint-

  573
  ing as Chief Inspectors in Wales those who have a knowledge of the Welsh language. I think the interesting scene which has taken place in London within the last few days in connection with the Welsh Eisteddfod goes far to prove that the Welsh language is neither so difficult to learn, nor to speak, nor so impossible to understand as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine. The arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has used are like other arguments of Toryism—somewhat exploded and inadequate.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I think this is an Amendment which the Government might very reasonably accept. This is not a sentimental Amendment, but an eminently practical one. It appears to me that the duty of an Inspector, especially in coal mines, is very important indeed, and should an Inspector not be able to speak the language of those about him he must be to a certain extent, though not entirely, dependent upon interpreters. In receiving evidence, or in hearing evidence given before inquiries, also in regard to getting information from the miners underground and aboveground, it is absolutely impossible an Inspector can understand all the men wish to indicate to him unless he is able to speak their language, and to understand it thoroughly. I am perfectly well aware that should the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to-morrow morning be called upon to fill up a vacancy in the Welsh districts it would be difficult for him to find a suitable candidate with a knowledge of the Welsh tongue, but I do hone that in future Inspectorships will be given to Welsh speaking candidates, or, at any rate, that preference will be given to such candidates. Men will qualify in that which will be by no means the least important part of the education they ought to possess.
  MR. A. J WILLIAMS: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been in the House during the delivery of the short but effective speech we have just listened to be would have been disposed to accept this Amendment, at all events, with the qualification I intend to suggest. That qualification is, that no person should be appointed as Inspector of Welsh mines who is not thoroughly conversant with the Welsh tongue, when
  574
  a properly qualified person possessing this qualification can be obtained. Such a form of words, I think, would meet one of the difficulties suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I quite admit there may be a difficulty at times in obtaining the services of a Welshman speaking the Welsh tongue. [At this point the right hon. Gentleman entered, and took his seat.] Now, that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to his place, let me earnestly repeat my hope that with the modification this Amendment may be accepted. The modification I suggest is, that the appointment to Inspectorships of mines in Wales shall only be given to Welshmen, if a properly qualified Welsh speaking man can be obtained. As a Welshman, I am ashamed to say that I do not thoroughly know Welsh, but living as I have done for many years in Wales, and having been present in Courts of Justice, places of all others where one can realize all the objections to work being done by men who are not familiar with the language, I can speak from personal knowledge of the absolute and essential importance of having Inspectors of mines, if possible, who can understand the Welsh colliers, both above and under ground. There is one fact which has a very important bearing upon this question. I have stated in public—and I repeat here—that the Welsh people have been for centuries a subservient race, and the effect of that is—I do not mean to state it in an offensive sense at all—the dominating race in Wales has been the English, and it has created naturally a feeling of diffidence on the part of the people in expressing themselves as it were in a foreign tongue. I think it is essential that if we are to carry out properly the system of inspection of Welsh collieries, we should do all we can to get Welsh speaking Inspectors. It only shows how strange is the ignorance which exists in this country of the Welsh people that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should suppose we are pressing this Amendment in a purely national spirit, from a narrow and selfish feeling for Welsh nationality. It is really because we feel that the coal industry, one of the largest industries in the Kingdom, and which is so largely developed in my county and in Wales generally, is not being properly dealt with, when you have an English-speaking

  575
  man occupying such a responsible position as that of Inspector of mines I do not desire to occupy the time of the Committee unduly, therefore, I will conclude by expressing an earnest hope that the Government will accept this very reasonable and proper Amendment.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Let me remind the Committee of a very recent case in which this House gave effect to a national wish of this kind. In the course of the passing of the Crofters Bill through the House last year, an Amendment was proposed and accepted that one of the three Crofter Commissioners should be conversant with the Gaelic tongue. It seems that anyone going about among miners with the object of obtaining information should possess among his other qualifications that of speaking the language of the miners, always assuming that persons capable of performing the duties of the position, and speaking the language of the men, can be found.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I represent in this House the largest collieries in South Wales, and I think I am entitled to form an opinion as to having Inspectors who know the Welsh tongue. Now, as a matter of fact the colliers in our collieries in South Wales are not Welshmen. They are principally Yorkshiremen, and men who come from the North generally, from Cumberland and other places. We did at one time adopt the principle of only employing Welsh Inspectors and overseers, but we found that the system was impracticable simply because there was a prevading feeling that the speaking of Welsh was merely a pastime which Welshmen like to keep up, simply to maintain their nationality.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: What part of Wales is that in?
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I think the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorgan (Mr. W. Abraham) knows as well as anybody that I represent the largest collieries in South Wales — [Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Monmouthshire.]—and he knows also that the people there do not speak Welsh. I maintain further that Welsh is not the language of the country. If Welsh were the language of the country, of course we should insist upon Welsh being spoken; but English is the
  576
  language of the country. Will you tell me what we should do if we had to rely upon Welsh colliers? What should we do in Wales if we could not go to places outside of Wales for our men? Why the pits would stop, for we should not be able to work them. I appeal to the testimony of one great man who did more for South Wales than any other man—namely, Mr. Crawshaw Bailey. He brought all his colliers from Westmoreland; they did not know a single word of Welsh, and yet they managed to get on. I maintain that the feeling that Welsh should only be employed is merely a matter of Welsh sentiment and Welsh nationality which has lately sprung up. I can assure the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division that he is not doing his countrymen a service in advocating the employment of only Welsh speaking Inspectors, because he must know that the majority of the colliers in Wales do not understand Welsh. We should be doing these men an injustice if we employed men speaking only Welsh. I shall oppose the Amendment which has been made by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to be a party to the advocacy of anything so absurd as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stepney Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Isaacson) supposes. He imagines that it is proposed that an Inspector of Welsh mines is to understand Welsh and no other language. No such proposal has ever been made.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I may tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stepney Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Isaacson) that I have always thought that I represented the Monmouthshire colliery valley, and I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that in the Monmouthshire Valley the Welsh language is not spoken, or that there are not many men who are employed in the mines there who can speak the Welsh language and speak that language only.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: There are some I admit who can only speak Welsh.
  MR. WARMINGTON: This is not a question of national jealousy. It is nothing more than a practical question, and it is only as a business and practical question that I venture to press it upon

  577
  the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. There are many men engaged in the Welsh mines, especially in those in the Rhondda Valley and in my own constituency, who speak Welsh, and who speak that language only, and they desire that there shall be an Inspector appointed with whom they can directly converse, and who shall not be obliged to employ an interpreter. If that applies in Monmouthshire, it applies with very much more force throughout some of the divisions of Glamorganshire. I, however, am only speaking now of Monmouthshire and South Wales, and, with submission to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I cannot believe that it is a difficult thing to find men not only conversant with the Welsh tongue, but having such an acquaintance with mining as to make them fit and proper Inspectors. I know—and so does the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary know—that there have been many Welsh-speaking men who have been anxious to be appointed Inspectors, and who have produced before him, and also before his Predecessors, certificates of qualification and efficiency, which I should have thought were sufficient to show that they were eminently fitted to act as Inspectors. This Amendment is necessary in order to ensure that the men shall have confidence in the Inspectors; and surely the men are those who are mostly interested in this question. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this reasonable Amendment.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: Mr. Courtney, I must confess I was electrified by the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stepney Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Isaacson), who thinks he represents the largest Welsh colliery. I recommend him to spend a little time in that district and to inform himself rather more closely as to the condition of his own mine, because I am quite certain that if he does he will find that a very large majority of those he employs even in Monmouthshire speak Welsh as their native tongue. I can assure him and the Committee that the Welsh language has, instead of decreasing in the hills of Glamorganshire, increased. I represented the county of Glamorganshire for 27 years, and I perfectly remember that when I first went
  578
  to the Rhondda Valley there was no road up that valley and the population was purely Welsh speaking. I have constantly visited the Rhondda Valley since, and I always thought I should find the Welsh language dying out and the English language increasing; but the contrary is the fact. [Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Clwych, clwych.] The very last time I had the honour of addressing an audience in the Rhondda Valley I found that the Welsh language had in no way decreased. The immigration into the Rhondda Valley and into the colliery districts of Glamorganshire is an almost purely Welsh immigration, and it comes from districts which are more entirely Welsh speaking than perhaps any portion of Glamorganshire itself—that is to say, immigration into these districts is from Cardiganshire and Brecknockshire and other portions of Wales which are purely Welsh speaking; and therefore I can vouch for it that no change has taken place in regard to the nationality of the great bulk of the mining population in Glamorganshire during the last 30 years. I venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the importance of accepting this Amendment, because he must bear in mind that the duty of an Inspector is not only to inspect a mine as anyone could inspect a mine who is acquainted with mining, but he is also to be in touch with the men. He ought to sympathize with the feelings of the men, and the men ought to be able to turn to him as a man to whom they can regularly communicate, and communicate in their native tongue. This cannot be the case if the Inspector is simply an Englishman. There is a very strong and very proper national feeling. I am not advocating Wales for the Welsh, but I am advocating the Welsh for the world. I do not advocate this in a narrow national sense at all. I advocate it simply that a man who has to perform the delicate duties of an Inspector and to ascertain what may be wrong in collieries should, as far as possible, be within touch of the people, and it is upon this ground I think it is desirable that the Inspector of Welsh collieries should be a Welsh-speaking Inspector. As to the difficulty of obtaining Welsh-speaking Inspectors, I think there is none. I have never found any I difficulty in obtaining an agent who I speaks Welsh; and I am quite sure that

  579
  if it were known that a Welsh-speaking Inspector would be appointed you would have as competent men applying for that situation as you would have if it was known that the appointment was open to the whole of the mining community. Depend upon it there are quite as good colliers in Wales as in England, and that no practical difficulty would arise in obtaining the services of first-class men speaking Welsh to act as Inspectors. I therefore do very strongly urge that this Amendment, which, I think, is a most reasonable one, should he accepted.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): If hon. Gentlemen opposite could promise that if we accept this Amendment there would at once be forthcoming a large supply of gentlemen speaking Welsh competent to act as Inspectors it would be difficult to gainsay them. With regard to the appointment of Inspectors of Welsh mines, we have to consider not only knowledge of the language, but also the efficiency of the Inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), when Home Secretary, justified in this House the non-appointment of a Welsh-speaking Inspector, because, as he said, the South Wales district is the most dangerous of all, and requires for its supervision great experience. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the ability to speak Welsh, especially when the two assistants could do so, was not the most important qualification for an Inspector. The right hon. Gentleman in respect to the same case, also reminded the House that there was another very important consideration, and that was the safety of the men employed. The question is, whether you should have a hard and fast inflexible rule which should prevent you promoting to the position men who are most deserving and who may possess every qualification save that of being able to speak Welsh.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I can see the force of some of the observations which have fallen from the Treasury Bench; but I must confess I have been most impressed with the fact that they desire more than anything else to keep the Welsh colliery districts open for the promotion of English Inspectors.
  580
  That, I understand, is the proposition which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has just laid down. The hon. Gentleman referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) who, he said, in the case of a specific appointment, appointed a Gentleman who was unable to speak Welsh; but who was the most competent person he could select.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman's justification for the appointment he made was that the superiority of the Gentleman's attainments outweighed his inability to speak Welsh.
  SIR EDWARD REED: No one on this side of the House desires to have any incompetent person appointed, and we repudiate altogether the proposition that there is any connection between this Amendment and the appointment of inefficient persons. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department added that the safety of the miners must be considered. Is it to be presumed that the Welsh Representatives are indifferent to the safety of the miners in proposing this Amendment? On the contrary, this Amendment is proposed in the interests of the safety of the miners. I must confess I was very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary putting this forward as if it were a question of mere national sentiment. It is one of the most practical questions that can possibly be brought before the House. What is the situation? The Welsh Representatives ask that the persons appointed to Inspectorships of Welsh mines may be able to speak to and be able to be spoken to by the people working in the mines. That is the proposition. What is the answer of the Government? The first answer is that if you give the Welsh miners Inspectors who can talk Welsh, you will, to a certain extent, cut off the Welsh mines from the field of promotion of English Inspectors. That is no answer at all; it cannot be accepted for a moment. We contend, and, I think, rightly, that the well-being and the satisfaction of the mining population in Wales, in a matter like the safety of the population, is the primary consideration. What is the state of feeling in Wales upon this point? The idea of the Government

  581
  seems to be that there is some sentimental desire to keep the Welsh language alive. That is not the case. I speak as an Englishman knowing little of Welsh; but as one who is more or less acquainted with the Welsh-speaking districts, and I say that this Amendment is the outcome of a strong conviction on the part of the Welsh miners that it is an act of justice to them that their Inspectors should be able to speak their language. I admit that the Amendment in its present form would impose upon the Government absolutely the appointment of a Welsh-speaking Inspector to every Welsh mine. I quite see the hardship and fastness of that line, and I know that official persons naturally and most reasonably shrink from these hard and fast prescriptions. I quite understand that; but, at the same time, unless the Government are prepared to propose some change which will give the miners of Wales satisfaction on this point, I say that feeling on the part of the Government must give way to the desire of the people of Wales in this matter. I do not know whether the Committee would be at all safe in trusting even to some modification of this Amendment. I myself have tried during the evening to modify this Amendment so as to meet the difficulty I know the Government is in; but I have not been able to do so. I hope this discussion will result in some promise from the Government that they will reconsider the question and see whether they cannot on Report give us such an Amendment that will satisfy the natural and most reasonable desire of the Welsh-speaking miners to have persons inspecting mines to whom they can speak and who can speak to them.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I should like to offer a few words in explanation of what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea District(Sir Hussey Vivian) has just said. The greater number of our Inspectors are not Welshmen—two-thirds are not Welshmen— and yet they manage to get on with the colliers extremely well, simply because the colliers do not happen to be Welshmen. Not more than one-third of the colliers on our large property speak Welsh. The remainder speak English. I should like to know what would be said if Scotch colliers demanded that the Inspectors of Scotch mines should be able
  582
  to speak the ancient language of Scotland. Of course, that would be quite inadmissible. Why should it apply to Wales? The collieries with which I am connected have given great proof that it is not necessary. I shall certainly vote against this Amendment.
  MR. TOMLINSON: There is a desire on every side of the House that whatever duties Inspectors have to perform they shall be competent to perform. I have given proof of my desire for that because I have given Notice of an Amendment which would require a knowledge of mining on the part of Inspectors. I think a knowledge of the Welsh language would be desirable if it were possible, and perhaps I might suggest that it would be advantageous to put the present proposal in this form—
  "Provided that on the appointment of an Inspector a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be taken into consideration."
  That might meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not know why if Irish miners only spoke Irish they should not have an Irish-speaking Inspector. I do not know why if a large proportion of Scotch miners only spoke Gaelic they should not have a Scotch Inspector to inspect their mines. The duty of an Inspector is to inspect, to look about him, and to find out what ought to be found out from the men. An inspector going into a large place like a coal mine and setting about ascertaining whether anything is wrong, cannot have a better means at his disposal than easy communication with the men who are in the mine. The men know every trick of the managers and those under whom they are working. But if the Inspector cannot speak the language of the men amongst whom he goes, and if the miners cannot speak his language, how can he get into communication with them? "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse," and if the Inspector cannot speak the language of the men in the mine, who will give him the nod or the wink? He may very often miss the point he ought to find out. There are very many cases in which miners who are afraid of their manager or their oversmen, or owners, or agents, would only be too glad to get an opportunity of conveying information to the Inspectors if they could only do it sotto

  583
  roce. How is the Inspector then able to acquire this information if he is notable to understand the dialect in which the information is conveyed, or sought to be conveyed? It is of the very greatest importance that the Inspector should be not only able to speak the miner's language, but speak it colloquially and with famialiarity in dealing with the men he may have to come in contact with in the course of his inquiry. An hon. Gentleman who represents a constituency in the East of London where, I believe, there are no mines, talks about the miners of Monmouthshire as if they had no representatives in this House, and he seems to think that it is altogether an unreasonable thing that the operatives and industrials referred to should seek to have men representing them speaking their own language.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I would inform the hon. Member that though not representing a mining constituency, I represent the largest coal mining interest in South Wales—not politically, but commercially.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: We are supposed to represent things political in this House, and we are supposed to be considering what good for the community, and not what is good for our own personal interests. I do not know what the language of the hon. Member may be, but if coal miners who speak the language in which he is so eloquent —if English miners were told that it was not, at all necessary that the Inspectors who go down to inspect the mines in which they have to work should speak their language, I should like to know what they would think of it. They would consider it a rather extraordinary proceeding. If you had a Swiss or Polish Inspector ignorant of English, and said to the miners— "Oh, it is not at all necessary that the Inspectors should speak English," the absurdity of the thing would be apparant even to the hon. Gentleman himself, and yet that is exactly what he would say to the Welsh-speaking miners. Many of these miners are unable to speak any language but Welsh, and though able to make important communications to the Inspectors in that language, if the Inspectors do not understand it, will be unable altogether to communicate their views. We are told that a large number of second-class certificated managers are amongst
  584
  the best men for discharging functions of this kind. I was told by a mineowner only half-an-hour ago that his managers were a great deal sharper than the Inspectors, and could laugh at them. If that is so, and if the practical second-class certificated men as regards the details of colliery administration, are better than the theoretical first-class certificated men, surely the mere speaking of the Welsh language should not be taken as an indication that the man is wanting in the qualification of a miner. I know that amongst the Romans, according to Cicero, the knowledge of Greek that a man possessed was generally in proportion to his own reputation as a scoundrel, but I never heard before to-night that because a man was qualified by a knowledge of the Welsh language, in precisely the same proportion there was danger of the inspection which he might have to carry out suffering from his want of qualification in other things. [Cries of "No, no !"] Well, that was what we gathered from the words of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. It certainly seemed to me to mean that if you looked for the qualification of speaking Welsh on the part of an Inspector, in all probability you would diminish the chance of getting a man well qualified in other respects. I do not see why speaking Welsh should be a presumptive proof of a man's nonqualification. I am sure that if in Ireland we could secure Irish-speaking Inspectors, not only in Irish coal mines, but in everything else, we should only be too glad to have them; and we have heard to-night of the unreasonableness of the appointments of some of the officials who have to deal with the crofters in Scotland in consequence of their inability to understand the dialect of the people. The unreasonableness of these appointments has been admitted; why, then, should not a similar position be taken up with regard to this question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am glad to recognize the national sentiment of hon. Members. I think, by way of compromise, I might suggest these words in lieu of the Amendment if the hon. Member will withdraw it—
  "Provided always that in the appointment of Inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire among candidates otherwise equally qualified, those having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall he preferred,"

  585
  I would propose the substitution of those words; I do not know whether hon. Members will agree to them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Rhondda withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. BURT: I appeal to the hon. Member for Rhondda to withdraw his Amendment, because I think these words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would very well meet the case. I would only say that, having mixed a good deal with the Welsh miners, I know that they feel very strongly on this matter. Over and over again, at Conferences where the miners of that part of the country have been represented, resolutions to this effect have been passed. I think it would be very satisfactory if the Amendment suggested by the Government were accepted.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: Where will these words come in?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In the same place.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would move the insertion of these words.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 19, line 30, after "Inspector," insert—" Provided always, that in the appointment of an Inspector of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire among candidates, otherwise equally qualified persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred."— (Mr. Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I am not sure that on Report I shall not have to move that persons having a knowledge of the Cumberland dialect should not be preferred in appointments as mining Inspectors for the Cumberland district. The dialect of Cumberland would be quite as unintelligible to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) as would the dialect of the Welsh miners to an English-speaking Inspector.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have had the honour of addressing several audiences in Cumberland, and I have
  586
  never experienced any difficulty in making myself understood.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CONYBEARE: There is a difficulty about having a certain number of practical miners on the list of Inspectors appointed. I do not wish to move an Amendment; but I think we might have an understanding as to the appointment of practical men. It is open to the Secretary of State to appoint any persons he chooses provided they are fit for the appointment. Well, there are plenty of persons who have been working miners, and there is a strong desire on the part of miners themselves that there should be some Inspectors, at all events, appointed from amongst their numbers. I hope this matter will be taken into consideration when the appointments are made.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Secretary of State for the Home Department, he laid it down as a rule that seven of the Inspectors should be taken from the working class of miners. It fell to my lot to select six of the seven for the approval of the Secretary of State. Those men were of course taken from the ranks of the miners. I should very much deprecate any departure on the part of the Home Office from that rule. It would be a distinct breach of faith if there were not seven mining Inspectors taken from the ranks of the working miners. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby is not present, as he would have stated all that took place on this subject when he was in Office.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I hope they had obtained certificates from the Boards of Examiners.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Certainly.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I understand that this Bill is a codification of the existing law, as well as a Bill introducing new provisions. In consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, I should like to be assured by him whether the rules which have hitherto applied, and which I think

  587
  he referred lo, find a place in this new measure—what guarantee have we that the rule as to the appointment of practical men will not be departed from?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the instructions he issues to Inspectors, to which he has already referred, he will make arrangements by which the presence of the Inspector will be made known to the men working in the mine. I have had letters from more than one quarter in this country pointing out that very often men have learnt to their astonishment that an Inspector had been down the mine, and they have not known it until after the Inspector had left, and so had no opportunity of getting into conversation with him. There is nothing distinctive about an Inspector. He wears no badge nor uniform. He goes down the mine with the manager, or agent, or owner, and for what the miner can tell he may be a visitor or a partner in the firm. The men have no means of ascertaining who the Inspector is. If they did know that a certain individual coming down the mine was an Inspector probably, in certain case, they would be able to convey to him certain information, such as he ought to possess, and which, if he did possess, would enable him to make requisitions which would have the effect of obviating danger and saving human life. I have not been able to frame an Amendment which would secure the object I have in view; but I have had communications from men in three different places, who say that they feel it a blot upon this Bill that it does not provide for any means by which the miners may recognize an Inspector when he goes down the mine.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not want to be at all importunate, but I do want to have a satisfactory answer to the point I have raised. I cannot find anything in the Bill referring to the appointment of working men as Inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who endorsed what I said, referred to an understanding or precedent laid down in the Home Office on the subject. I may be mistaken, but I understood his statement to be to the effect that under the existing law there should be a certain number of practical men on the list of Inspectors. [Mr.
  588
  HENRY H. FOWLER: NO, no!] Very well, then, I do not expect to find it in the Bill, which is merely a codification of the existing law; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) shook his head when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) stated what was the rule laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary does or does not endorse what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton? I should like to know whether he will see that the custom laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will be continued, or whether he means to pursue a course exactly the reverse? If he means exactly the reverse I am afraid I should have to bring up an Amendment upon this matter myself.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I did not shake my head. I have not made the slightest change in the system, whatever it was that was laid down by my Predecessor. I have adhered to it strictly.
  MR. CONYBEARE: And will do so?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and will do so.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered me as to the men being enabled to recognize the Inspector when he goes down into the mine.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can hardly understand the men failing to recognize an Inspector when he goes down the mine. I can hardly imagine an Inspector going into a colliery without being known.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Inspectors are few and far between.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should think there are very few collieries indeed where it is not known generally who the Inspector is and when he makes his visits. However, I will turn the matter over in my mind, and see whether it is desirable and possible to make any arrangement to meet the possibility of a difficulty such as the hon. Member suggests arising.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: The names of the Inspectors are always pub-

  589
  lished at the top of the mines so that everyone has access to them.
  MR. PICKARD: Very few miners, as a matter of fact, know the Inspectors. In most of the collieries you never have an Inspector at the time the men are about the mines.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not say that there is any necessity for the Inspector to wear a badge. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members seem to be impatient, but whether they are or not I can assure the Committee that I mean to do what I can for men who, I think, require assistance in this matter. I shall do what I conceive to be my duty, however impatient the House of Commons may be. The right hon. Gentleman implied by his tone, if not by his words, that I was putting before the Committee a purely imaginary point. But I repeat to him what I have already said, that I have received three different communications from working colliers to the effect that they have not known, and do not know, the Inspectors when they go down into the mine. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will promise on Report to bring up a clause or an Amendment which will meet this difficulty? I do not ask him to put a uniform on the Inspectors. The men themselves do not ask for that. All they want is that they shall receive information of the facts that the Inspector is in the mine in order that if they have any desire to communicate with him they may find an opportunity for doing so. It is all very well to say that the name of the Inspector is at the head of the pit, and that the colliers can communicate with him. These men are not given to writing letters. It is a very serious undertaking for most of them to read letters on the most important subjects. All they want is to know when the Inspector is in the colliery so that they may tell him what they have to complain of.
  MR. BURT: What I have heard generally complained of by the working men is that notice is given to the owners of the visit of the Inspector, and to the owners only. What they want is that if notice is given to the owners or the managers it should also be given to the workmen, who would be able to find somebody to accompany the Inspector. So far as I know the men do not object to the Inspector visiting the mine with-
  590
  out giving notice at all. They would, in fact, prefer that he should do so, so that the managers may not be prepared for him. With regard to the appointment of working men as Inspectors of Mines the law does not prohibit that, and it is not necessary to embody such a provision in this Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had appointed several men from the ranks of the workmen to act as Inspectors. I do not think that the present Home Secretary has followed his wholesome example in that respect to any extent, at least not to my knowledge. I do not think, however, that any provision of this kind is required in this Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Disqualification of persona as Inspectors).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to move the Amendment which stands in my name; in page 20, line 2, after "mine, "to insert" or is a miner's agent." This Amendment, if accented, will make the clause read that any person who is a miner's agent should not act as Inspector of mines under this measure.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 2, after the word "mine," to insert the words "or is a miner's agent."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have no objection to those words, if the words "or mineowner" are added.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I will agree to add those words.
  Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, after the word "agent," to insert the words "or mineowner."— (Mr. Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Before this Amendment is put I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would reconsider his decision as to the acceptance of this

  591
  Amendment in the form he has referred to. Very few mineowners would seek the appointment of Inspector, but it is very possible that a large number of miner's agents would not only be eligible, but desirous of seeking such appointments. This is a very invidious Amendment, and one which I sincerely trust the hon. and learned Member for Preston will not press. We know that under the Factory Acts and other Acts of Parliament it is not at all unusual to appoint persons who have been employés in the various manufacturing industries to positions under those Acts; and it appears to me that a miner's agent, a man who has had large experience, and who is trusted by those with whom he is associated, is essentially a very proper person to become a candidate for this post. I cannot conceive, in connection with mines, any individual who would be more eligible for this appointment than one who has been trusted by his follow workmen to such an extent as to obtain the position of agent to one of their powerful societies. I think myself that no grievance would accrue to the mineowners from such an appointment. Undoubtedly, if a miner's agent were appointed to that position, the exigencies of his office would require that he should at once resign his position as miner's agent; but, so far as the terms of the hon. Member's Amendment goes, it would render the miner's agent ineligible to become a candidate, however determined he may be to resign his position as miner's agent. [Mr. TOMLINSON: No, no!] If that be not so, and if that interpretation is not put upon the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is a distinguished lawyer, I shall be perfectly willing to accept it, and shall say no more.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The object of the Amendment is simply to prevent a miner's agent from acting in both capacities.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Then I accept it.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I think it would be better to frame the clause in this way—to say that no person appointed as an Inspector shall practice as a miner's agent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  MR. MASON: I desire to add certain words at the end of this clause to cover the extension of it, which we require against Inspectors being partners in collieries and mines. I think this provision is especially necessary, now that we have the Limited Liability Act in operation. I will not trouble the Committee with many reasons why this Amendment should be adopted, but simply say that there are Inspectors of Mines who hold shares in undertakings of this kind, and that is a reason why, in my opinion, no Inspector ought to be allowed either directly or indirectly to have an interest in any mine or colliery within the district under his charge.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, line 4, to add at the end—"No Inspector shall be a partner or have any interest directly or indirectly in any mine or colliery within the district under his charge." —(Mr. Mason.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WARMINGTON: I wish to say that I do not quite approve the words, "directly or indirectly," in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. I should prefer words such as—"Shareholder or having a share in the mines and collieries in the district under his control."
  MR. MASON: My wish is to make the clause very expressive of my meaning—that no Inspector shall have any interest directly or indirectly. I think, on consideration, the hon. Member will, perhaps, see that this is a better wording for that purpose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Powers of Inspectors).
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I rise to propose the Amendment standing in my name, which raises no contentious matter whatever; and it is one which I think will appeal to all hon. Members. Probably there are few Members of this House who do not own a horse, and, rightly or wrongly, the feeling has got abroad that horses in mines are not kindly treated. I do not intend to bring forward any case for the purpose of harrowing the feelings of hon. Members of this House, whose enlightened sympathies I feel sure I

  593
  shall carry with me; but if it were necessary, I could bring the evidence of persons to show that within their knowledge cases have occurred in which horses in mines have died through thirst.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 19, after "thereto," to insert "including the care and treatment of the horses and other animals used in the mine."—(Mr. Cunninghame Graham.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman in principle; but I would suggest a slight alteration in order to make it practical. I would substitute the words "or relating to the care or treatment of the horses for "including the care and treatment of the horses."
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I have such a high opinion of the noble animal which I desire to protect, that I shall be glad to make the change which the right hon. Gentleman refers to in my Amendment. I was already aware that the Amendment was somewhat badly drawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "including the care and treatment of the horses," in order to insert "or relating to the care or treatment of the horses." — (Mr. Matthews.)
  Question, "That those words be there substituted," put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Notice by Inspector of causes of danger not expressly provided against).
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: The Amendment which I rise to move is very simple in its object. It deals with the time to be allowed to the owner before he sends notice of objection in case the Inspector of the mine or colliery has condemned anything in the mine as dangerous or defective or tending in that direction. The question is—how long should the owner take before he sends in notice of appeal? The clause says it shall be 20 days, but I am of opinion that that period is too long;
  594
  and I propose by this Amendment to say that seven days shall be allowed to the owner to consider whether he will send in notice or not.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 41, after "within," leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. A. 11. Dyke Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I think that 20 days named in the clause is not too long for the purpose of sending in notice, and I think some reason should be given why that period should be reduced before the clause is altered.
  MR. BURT: This Amendment deals with cases of real danger in mines, and I hope the Government will consent to an alteration of the clause. It is quite possible that during the time that the owner is considering whether he shall send in notice a terrible accident may happen; and therefore I think that 20 days is too long a period to be allowed for the purpose of considering whether he shall send in a notice or not.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am myself of opinion that 20 days specified in the clause is, perhaps, too long a time. I have followed the existing Act in this case; but I was going to suggest that 10 days should be substituted. I am prepared to accept the principle of the hon. Member's Amendment without alteration.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'ten' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 6; after the word "within," leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "seven." — (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: Here, as the hon. Member will observe, I have again followed the wording of the existing Act. With regard to the time to be allowed in case of an award, I propose to leave the time to be fixed by the arbitrator, because, as the hon. Member will be aware, although one award may be a very easy matter, another may be very

  595
  difficult, and might occupy even months. Therefore, as far as the time goes in this ease, I think it would be better to leave the arbitrator to say how much should be allowed; but with regard to notices in respect of which no objection is made, I am bound to say that I think seven days would be rather a short time. Perhaps here also the hon. Member will be willing to compromise, and agree to 14 days, which I am prepared to assent to, and the time in the case of award to be left, as I have pointed out, to be determined by the arbitrator.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat under a misapprehension as to the character and scope of the matter to be dealt with under this clause. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the initial words of the clause on page 20 he will see that it is only a matter of detail which can be brought under the operation of the section; it is not a matter involved in any work that can extend over a period of three months, and it is, therefore, not a matter requiring a very long notice. I suppose in every case that the thing complained of could be immediately dealt with in accordance with the request of the Inspector. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to think that the Inspector under this clause may require a manager or owner to make some fundamental change in the way of working his colliery. But that is not the case; it is to provide only for a matter of detail in every day practice, and therefore his unwillingness to accept seven days appears to me to be without any reasonable foundation. There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should appeal to the hon. Member behind me to compromise the matter as between 20 and some other number of days. Seven days, in my opinion, is sufficient both with regard to the notice and for compliance with the award after the matter has been brought to the attention of the manager. Looking at the facts of the case, I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman has taken an exaggerated view of it.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think it can be said that seven days is sufficient both for the notice and compliance with the award. There are many cases in which it is conceivable that this would
  596
  be wholly insufficient, and that being so I think it is not unreasonable to expect that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend should be accepted.
  MR. FENWICK: Under the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department the obligation of the owner to rectify defects which exist does not begin until after he has had 10 days' notice. Sub-section 3 goes on the assumption that the arbitrators have declared in their award that certain dangers exist, and now the proposal of the Government is, that, if the owner refuses to remedy defects and forces the complainant to go to the arbitrator, the period within which those defects are to be remedied is to be further lengthened. In my opinion, seven days is quite long enough for the purpose we have in view, after reference is made to an arbitrator, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will abide by his Amendment.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I think that where reasonable diligence is shown the period of 10 days would be short enough, and that we might accept the alteration of my Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
  MR. MATTHEWS: We have to deal with two cases—one where the owner fails to comply with the requisition or notice, and the other where the case goes to arbitration. In the former, I am willing to agree to a period of seven days, but with regard to the latter I think it should be left to the arbitrator to fix the time. The time fixed will not be necessarily a long one, it may be two or three days, or even a shorter time.
  MR. FENWICK: But I point out that the case only goes to the arbitrator after the owner has refused to comply. Here is the case in which actual danger exists, and although the owner has refused to comply with the representation of the Inspector, you still seek to length on out the time notwithstanding as I have said dangers have been proved to exist, and the owner has resisted the notice given to him in the first case.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that the refusal on the part of the owner may arise on a question of principle. The question might for, instance be, one of electric lighting, and it is quite possible that the owner may have an arguable case as

  597
  to whether the system of lighting carried on is not preferable to that proposed to be substituted for it. I do not think we should proceed in this Bill in such a manner as to check enterprise in the direction of scientific discovery.
  MR. BURT: If I am correct in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the period of 10 days I think my hon. Friends will do well to agree to that proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 6, after "within" leave out "twenty" and insert "ten." — (Mr. Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is a little difficulty in the wording of this Clause, and I suggest that after having made the alteration of substituting "ten" for "twenty" we should modify the wording slightly on Report.
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to point out that, although there is power given to the arbitrators to decide whether a certain thing is or is not dangerous, I do not see anything in this clause to require the owner to do anything within a specific time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, That the word 'ten' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Annual reports of inspection).
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: This clause, as it stands, is one which imposes no duty on the Inspector of inspecting the collieries in his district. It says that every Inspector of a district under this Act shall make an annual report of his proceedings during the preceding year to a Secretary of State, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. There is not a word in the Bill or any existing Act of Parliament which says the Inspector is ever to inspect the pits at all, and the only way in which that duty is deduced from the Act is from, some words in the previous clause. Now, if that Act had worked well in practice I should not have been inclined to raise any difficulty on this ground; but I can only say that, in the part of Scotland which I re-
  598
  present, there is a great deal of complaint that the inspections are exceedingly inefficient, and it remains to be Been whether that feeling exists in other parts of the country. In Lanarkshire it often happens that a pit is not inspected for three years. Now, under this Bill the Inspector plays a very considerable part, a great deal of responsibility rests upon him, and a very important duty is expected to be done by him with regard to the safety of the colliers. If you say there shall be inspection, if by the scheme of the Act you trust to inspection, but that inspection does not take place, there is great danger. Now, I propose that some degree of precision should be given to the injunctions laid upon the Inspector, and the limit I propose is, that he should visit all the collieries at least four times a-year. I am not bigotted in respect of the particular limit I propose. Some of my hon. Friends think four inspections too small, and others that it is too large a number. I believe myself that if my proposal as it stands were accepted, it would probably involve some addition to the staff of Inspectors. We are all aware, however, of the great importance of colliery inspection, and I think when we are dealing with a subject connected with the safety of life—and safety of life is regarded throughout the Bill as of primary consideration—we ought not to profess that we are affording security, while, at the same time, we have a staff of Inspectors so small as to be inefficient.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 21, line 21, after "shall," insert (a) "thoroughly inspect every colliery within his district at least four times every year; and (b)." (Mr. Donald Crawford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I think there ought, undoubtedly, to be an annual inspection of collieries in addition to the occasional visit, in order that the Inspectors may have a thorough grasp of all that goes on in their districts. The State ought to be made aware of any avoidable waste or loss of coal which takes place.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: If you say that the Inspector is to visit every colliery four times a-year, as the necessity for inspection varies in the case of some

  599
  collieries as compared with others, then those collieries which require a very small amount of inspection may get double what they need, and those which require more than the Amendment gives them will be left with less than they ought to have, because the Inspector would say very justly, I have been to the colliery four times as the Act requires. We should remember that the great object is to have frequent inspection of dangerous mines. I doubt very much that the Amendment would do what is desired in this respect, although I have no objection to it if it meets with the approval of the Committee. There will, of course, have to be an increase of the staff of Inspectors if all collieries are to be inspected four times a-year.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I confess that I do not think it would be wise to take the responsibility off the owners of mines, which I think would be one result of this Amendment. It is quite true that it is the duty of the Inspector to criticize the operations of the manager or owner, and to make requisitions in case of need: but when you once take responsibility off the shoulders of the owners you increase the danger to the men. It is the duty of the Inspector to visit mines on invitation and complaint of the men, and inasmuch as it is felt that miners may shrink from making complaint it is provided that he may attend to anonymous applications. These are called casual inspections, and the system seems to me a better one than that of periodical inspection to take place at certain times. For these reasons I do not think it desirable the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member should be adopted.
  MR. MASON: I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman that a hard-and-fast line would not be desirable in dealing with this matter of inspection. But I desire to see a proper inspection of mines in Lanarkshire, as well as elsewhere. I know, from having been in contact with the men in that district, that the mines there are not by any means thoroughly inspected. So impressed am I with the necessity of having the mines of my own district inspected, that I believe there are some mines there which it would not be too much to cause to be inspected once a month, although there may be some
  600
  mines where inspection is not necessary more than once a-year. In that part of Scotland the staff of Inspectors is by no means adequate to the proper inspection of the mines. Although I do not want this Amendment now before the Committee to be pressed to a Division, I desire to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the absolute necessity there is for something being done to ensure frequent inspection in Lanarkshire.
  MR. FENWICK: Without pledging myself to the Amendment in its present form I must say that I have very considerable sympathy with the object which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark has in view—namely, that of frequent inspection of mines. This is a matter which it has been sought to impress on various Home Secretaries. We are fully aware that with the present staff of Inspectors it is almost impossible to increase the amount of inspection, or to have anything like a thorough and complete system. Now, as soon as this question of increasing the staff of Inspectors is raised we are always met by the Home Secretary for the time being with the statement that there are difficulties in the way at the Treasury. But when the First Lord of the Admiralty says he wants money for ammunitions of war the case is very different, and this House immediately votes large sums of money. There is no difficulty about getting money for destructive purposes, but when we ask for funds for the purpose of protecting the lives of our people, we are at once met with the answer that huge difficulties stand in the way. I do not know that it is desirable that mines should be inspected once a quarter, and I will not pledge myself to that principle, but I can inform the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the inspection we have now is a mere farce, and unless the staff of inspection is very considerably increased, I am afraid the work will continue to be very ineffectually performed. As a local Inspector I have had experience of this work, and I can say that in a very ordinary colliery it has taken my colleague and myself four days to go over all the parts of the mine. If the Inspector is only to get into conversation with the manager, and then descend to the

  601
  bottom of the shaft—if that is to be considered inspection, then I can tell the Committee that we should be better without any inspection at all. I admit that periodical inspection may, to some extent, remove responsibility from the manager and owner. But I would point out to hon. Members that even when the manager knows that the Inspector is coming everything in the mine, as far as can be, is put into fair and proper order; and when local Inspectors are appointed we find the pits are attended to periodically. There is, in this way, a check upon the managers, and they endeavour to keep all the roadways and fireways clean. But if we are to have effectual inspection I say we must be prepared considerably to increase the staff of Inspectors, and although it will involve a considerable amount of expenditure we had better incur that expenditure in our endeavours to protect life, than spend so much on huge armaments, purely for destructive purposes. I support this Amendment, which provides for increased inspection, without pledging myself to the exact wording, and I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark say that he was not bound absolutely to the number of inspections which the Amendment provides for. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to accept the principle of the Amendment, which is in the direction of securing an increased amount of inspection.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I hope it will not go forth that owners look upon what the hon. Member has described as a substantial inspection. Colliery proprietors have no objection to the proper inspection of their mines, although they do not want the management of them taken out of their own hands. I believe that inspection ought not to be carried beyond a fair limit, and certainly not to the extent of reducing the responsibility of the manager. For my part, I do not see that there is any necessity for the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark proposes, and I venture to hope it will not be pressed.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: In moving this Amendment I stated that I was not bound to the number of inspections, and I am quite prepared to substitute the word "twice" for "four
  602
  times," if the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept the Amendment in that form. I desire to protest against the view of the right hon. Gentleman that this is a question of the State accepting the whole responsibility for the good management of the mine, as against its being left to those whose duty and interest it is to take care that the mine is properly conducted. The question is not that, but whether we are to have a real inspection or a nominal and inefficient inspection. I allege that the inspection at present supplied is inefficient and illusory. Why should we pay for an inspection that is not effective? If the whole responsibility is to be taken by private persons and not by the State, then let us do away with inspection altogether. I am quite ready to press this Amendment to a Division if I receive the support of hon. Members on this side.
  MR. HOZIER: In support of the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved this Amendment (Mr. Donald Crawford) I wish to express my strong opinion that there ought to be a large increase in the number of Inspectors.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am of opinion that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford).is absolutely impracticable. If all the mines in Durham are to be inspected four times a-year you will have to increase the number of Inspectors to an enormous extent. Of course it would be an advantage to increase the number of Inspectors, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might give us an assurance to that effect, and then I think my hon. and learned Friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think we make a great mistake when we attempt to lay down hard-and-fast lines in matters of this kind. Under the clauses of this Bill the Home Secretary has to assign to these Inspectors their duties. Parliament has invested him with ample powers in this respect. I say, if the management of the mine is carried on improperly, let proper representation be made to the Home Secretary, and then, if the Home Secretary refuses to answer the application, he is responsible to this House. I

  603
  think the position is a perfectly clear one. Let the Inspector have all the powers he ought to possess, throw on the manager and owner all the responsibility they ought to bear, incase of need apply to the Home Secretary, and, if they do not do their duty, let the matter be brought before Parliament.
  MR. ARTHUR. O'CONNOR: The worst of the wording of this Act is, that it is the same as in the Act of 1872. This responsibility has been thrown on the Home Secretary for 15 years, and with, what effect? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admits that the staff of Inspectors is inadequate, and yet he refuses to increase that staff, because such increase would involve an application to the Treasury. If that is the state of things, it is obviously necessary that the Home Secretary should be strengthened by this House. It is admitted that the inspection is imperfect. I have a letter saying that within the radius of two miles there are 35 pits, and the writer has known as much as two days to be spent on one of them; and he says that each Inspector has three or four pits under supervision. It is perfectly impossible for these Inspectors to inspect the pits which are now in operation, and therefore you must have a considerable increase of the existing staff. You do not want to increase your first-class Inspectors; what is required is a considerable increase of the practical working Inspectors, men who know exactly the points to look at, and who will carry out their work with an amount of shrewdness which your first-class Inspectors do not possess. The increase of staff will involve outlay to a certain extent, but not very much. The increase on one item in the Admiralty Vote for testing a gun would be more than enough to pay twice over for what we ask you to secure in the interest of the mining population of the country. It does seem a monstrous thing that £40,000 or £50,000 can be voted for the trials of a new gun or the armourplating of a ship, while the Home Secretary, with all the responsibility that is cast upon him, cannot apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for £20,000 for the proper inspection of mines.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think that an Amendment of this kind has been brought forward
  604
  owing to the general feeling which exists among miners that inspection is, to a great extent, very inefficient. I have had a great deal of talk with miners in Cornwall and in other parts of the country, and I can give numerous instances of men who have been working 10 or 15 years in mines, and who have never seen an Inspector in any part of the mine, and are perfectly certain that no Inspector has ever been there. It is one of the demands of the miners of the county of Cornwall that there should be more rapid and more efficient inspection of the mines. Many of the men complain with justice, I think, that the Inspectors only come on the scene after some very bad accident has taken place, and then they come in company with the managers and others who are well primed as to what they ought to look at; and in that way the inspection is rendered worthless. As the number of mines increase the number of Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors becomes less sufficient. You must be prepared to go on increasing the number, and this adds point to the remark I made a little time back as to the necessity of appointing working men as Inspectors. You should appoint working men as Assistant Inspectors, and these you can get from among a class of men who would do their work well for a comparatively small salary, say, £200 a-year, whereas, I believe, the Government Inspectors at present get £600 or £700 a-year. I do not say that there ought to be a hard-and-fast rule, that each colliery should be inspected four times a-year, because such a rule would not necessarily work well; but, it is absolutely necessary that we should take our stand upon the ground that inspection should be more regular, more frequent, and more efficient than it is at the present time.
  MR. PICKARD: There are in my district 170 mines for each Inspector to examine, and I know, from the conversation I have had with the Chief Inspector, that the work or correspondence alone is quite sufficient to keep him employed; indeed, I may say that he is almost overworked in that respect. We consider that we have not sufficient inspection, and my suggestion is that seven Sub-inspectors should be appointed to aid the Chief Inspector in his work, and

  605
  that I believe would give us very much better inspection. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he will take some steps to bring about that most desirable result.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: It appears to me that it would be far better that we should avoid in this Bill any severe regulations as to the number of inspections. What we have to consider is how far and in what manner pressure should be applied to the Government in order to induce them to increase the number of Inspectors, because it seems to me to be the common feeling that the inspection staff should be increased. I think after the remark made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, that a hard-and-fast line might be less in favour with the miners than some other action on the part of the Government; but, admitting that increased inspection is desirable, I think the Bill should be elastic and not rigid.
  MR. BARNES: I know a case of an Inspector in the Midland District, a considerable portion of whose time is occupied in correspondence. It is a monstrous thing that a man whose duties are essentially of a practical and most responsible character should have his time taken up in this way. I am of opinion that every first-class Inspector should have a clerk to look after his correspondence. That would undoubtedly afford him great assistance, and enable him to get through his work more effectually than he can under the present arrangements.
  MR. JOICEY: There is no doubt that, since 1882, the number of mines has greatly, increased; and not only that, but they have become larger and more dangerous to work. At that time we were working the upper seams, and so much ventilation was not necessary; but having got now into the lower seams, the mines stand in need of a much greater amount of attention, and it is impossible that the present staff of Inspectors can do the work required of them in consequence, I shall, therefore, cordially support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark (Mr., Donald Crawford). The frequent inspection of mines appears to me desirable, because, without interfering with the management of the mines, they give
  606
  confidence to those who are employed in them.
  MR. MASON: I rise to suggest that the Committee should not be content with one inspection a-year; and, rather than admit that into the Bill, I would prefer to leave out altogether any reference to inspection. I would suggest that these words should be inserted—
  "Every Inspector of a district under this Act shall thoroughly inspect the collieries and mines in that district, and make an annual Report of his proceedings during the year to the Home Secretary, which Report shall be laid before Parliament."
  I think that could not be said to tie the Inspectors down to a hard-and-fast line.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: If my interpretation of my hon. Friend's Amendment is correct—that is to say, that there should not be less than one inspection a-year—I should be quite willing to accept it. I am sorry to have to take up the time of the Committee so often; but I remind hon. Members that I we have as yet received no assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of any intention to increase the number of Inspectors; and, with all due regard to economy, I take the Committee to witness that we are all agreed that an increase is absolutely necessary.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark that I fully recognize the importance of this question. I will undertake that some additional strength is supplied where it is found that the inspecting staff is insufficient. It is an idea which I have had for some time that a class of Inspectors might be appointed—working men who would not shrink from going into the inmost recesses of the mine. I think that by this plan we might get at points which could not be reached by the higher class of Inspectors. There are, no doubt, some difficulties in the way; but those, I think, may be overcome. The class of men I have in my mind are such as would be content with smaller salaries than the present Inspectors. I may mention, however, that on consulting the Inspectors, and asking them whether they want additional inspection, their answer is always "No." I must say that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), quite

  607
  unintentionally, of course, misrepresented the speech I made last Saturday. All that I said was that if inspection was to be carried out in the manner which the hon. Member wanted, there would be required five or 10 times the number of Inspectors we have at present. I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, who has spoken with such admirable good sense, is deserving of every consideration; and I repeat that wherever inspection is found to be insufficient everything shall be done, as far as I am able, to make it efficient.
  MR. BURT: I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to understand that this complaint with regard to insufficiency of inspection is not confined to the North of Scotland alone, but is general. More than once I have had occasion to represent the inadequacy of inspection before the House of Commons, and it is only fair to admit that during the last few years a considerable increase has been made to the number of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors; in fact, it has been nearly doubled. But I may mention to the right hon. Gentleman that even 10 or 12 years ago, when Inspectors were asked, they said, as they say now, that their number was sufficient to do all the inspection that was necessary. No doubt these gentlemen have a voracious appetite for work, and no doubt they do their work admirably; but everyone who knows what mining inspection means, and knows how many mines there are to inspect, will be aware that there are some mines which, require five or 10 days for their inspection, and that it is physically impossible to carry out such an Amendment as that which is now before the Committee with the present number of Inspectors. I confess that I have some disinclination to advocate a hard-and-fast rule with regard to inspection, even to make it once a-year, because I fear that in such a case the impression would be that once a-year would be quite sufficient. Now, there are mines which would require several inspections in the course of a year, and there are others which may be very well left until the attention of the Inspector is called to them. A great deal has been done by authorizing even anonymous letters to be attended to by the Inspectors, and I have no doubt that from that arrangement considerable improvement
  608
  has resulted. But I desire thoroughly to endorse the remarks that have been made with regard to the large amount of clerical work that has to be done by the Inspectors, and I think that clerks should be assigned to them for the purpose of relieving thorn from that portion of the work. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in his later remarks, has rather weakened the assurance he has already given; but we have the general assurance that the Home Secretary will increase the number of Inspectors, and in my opinion, therefore, my hon. and learned Friend would do well to be satisfied with the good that has resulted from his moving the Amendment, and not insist on periodical inspection.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It is clear, I think, that in reference to this matter a hard-and-fast line is undesirable. The circumstances of the different districts are so varying and characters of the mines so different that you may have in one district a necessity for very frequent inspection and in an adjoining district scarcely any necessity at all for it. You may have, also, in the same district, and even in the same colliery, mines which are fiery and others which are not. Now, fiery mines require a large amount of inspection, and there are, on the other hand, mines which require to be inspected only once a-year. The question of management and the question of inspection are the two most important points in the Bill. When last year I brought in a Coal Mines Regulation Act I introduced a clause which provided for inspection once a-month. Once a-month may seem to allow a very short interval to take place between the inspections; but in connection with that proposal, I received a very large number of communications from England and Scotland, in which this was declared to be not only feasible, but of the first consequence that it should be carried out. I should be sorry if the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) were content with having raised a discussion on this point only. I think, in the interest of the mining population, he ought to secure some definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in order that we may be able to tell the people whom we represent; that something practical has been done in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman

  609
  the Home Secretary says where it is shown that further inspection or increase of staff is necessary, that there he will undertake to have an increased staff. The view of the Inspectors is that they are adequate to the requirements of the case; but the view of those who work in the mines is quite different, and those are the men who feel that at any time their lives may be scarcely worth a day's purchase. A certain barometric pressure will indicate that there is an outbreak of gas which at any moment may be fatal; the danger from this source is unmistakable, and inspection of the mine is frequently one of the best preservatives of life that we can resort to. However obstructive we may appear to be in this matter, it is of the utmost importance that we should persist until we get a definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on this subject.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I have certainly no desire to prolong this discussion; but I do desire that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some further assurance that he will make provision for a more efficient inspection of mines throughout the country. To say that he will have regard to particular districts is not sufficient. I am not of the number of those who think it necessary to lay down a hard-and-fast line, and I do not think that would be necessary for the purpose of securing the object we have in view. From my own experience, I have nothing to allege against the Inspectors in our district. I know of no body of men who work harder than the Mining Inspectors in that district; and it is unreasonable to expect them, or any class of men, to do more than they are able to perform. I find by the last Return that there are 350 mines in South Wales; and that is a reduction on the number there were a few years ago. I am speaking of the four counties of Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, and Monmouthshire; and I say that owing to the size of the collieries and the distances between them, it is impossible to make an inspection of these collieries, which, on the average, will allow less than two days for each inspection. There are 365 days in the year, and if you deduct from that number Sundays, half-holidays, and days on which the Inspectors have to attend examinations, Courts of
  610
  Summary Jurisdiction, inquests, and so forth, the number of working days is reduced to 200, and by a little further calculation the Committee will see that throughout this dangerous district, with the present staff of Inspectors, inspection cannot be made even once in 12 months. The Inspectors are a body of men against whom I have nothing to say; they are most hard-working; but their present number does not admit of their achieving the impossible, or even doing justice to the important district in which they are engaged.
  MR. BROADHURST: I feel that we have made great progress this evening with regard to the increase of inspection. This subject is of such importance that I think it would be well not to press the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to make any definite statement to-night as to the extent of the increase to be made. My reason for that is that he might, perhaps, under pressure, make it less than it would be if he were left to consider the question, and to consult his Colleagues in a matter of so much importance. I think it will be discovered by the right hon. Gentleman, on investigation and consultation with his Colleagues and Friends, that the increase of expenditure which would be involved in this case would meet with general approval throughout the country; especially when it is considered that the lives of more men than there are in the Army and Navy are at stake. What we want is that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the increase of inspection with reference not to any particular locality, but to the country as a whole. That is the chief object in view, and I think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement at a later stage of the Bill, which would allow him ample time to consult his Colleagues. This, I think, would greatly facilitate progress with the remaining parts of the Bill which remain to be considered, and which are secondary to that of the great question of inspection.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can assure the Committee that I do not wish to confine the increase that may be found necessary to any particular part of the country. I certainly meant to convey that in all those districts where inspection was deficient I would do my utmost to secure better inspection.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: After the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and the expression of opinion which has conic from my hon. Friends, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. But I wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman might have shortened this discussion if he had not made such particular reference to Lanarkshire. The right hon. Gentleman will find that England, Wales, and Scotland intend to hold together on this matter. This is not the time to endeavour to isolate any portion of the Kingdom, so far as this question is concerned; and I beg him to understand that my hon. Friends and myself are not bound by the result of the hole-and-corner meetings to which neither Scotch Members nor others were invited. I will now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of inspection is one of general application to the whole country, and applies not only to collieries, but to the particular class of mining which goes on in that part of the country which I have the honour to represent. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consult with the Parliamentary Representatives of each district, and that he should take powers for the appointment of such additional Inspectors as may be necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ROWNTREE, in moving to insert, after "Parliament," the words—
  "Together with the aggregate results of the Returns under Sub-section 3, Section 34, on or before the first of May in each year,"
  said, his object was to provide that the annual Reports of the Inspectors should be presented to Parliament by a definite date.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 21, line 2–1, after "Parliament," add "together with the aggregate results of the Returns under Sub-section (3), Section 34, on or before the 1st day of May in each year."— (Mr. Rowntree.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. The HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The Reports of the Inspectors, I am informed, are not actually made until the month, of April, and a
  612
  certain time must be allowed for getting proofs corrected, and passing the Reports through the Press. I will undertake that the utmost endeavour shall be made to get the Reports out as early as possible. I do not propose to make the Reports a separate Parliamentary Paper; but I shall be happy to send abstracts to those who wish to have them.
  MR. BROADHURST: I would point out that there is considerable delay, not only with reference to these Reports, but to many other similar documents. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make a statement on that subject also.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Special Reports of Inspectors).
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 26, after the word "person," to insert the words "or special examination of a mine."—(Mr. Pickard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): There is some want of clearness in the Amendment which the hon. Member proposes; and I suggest that it should be left over to the Report stage. I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by "separate examination." I do not recognize the phrase in this connection.
  MR. PICKARD: I would point out that after explosion there is very often an accumulation of gas in a mine. Our workmen have sometimes complained four or five times in a week, and the Inspectors have gone in and made an examination. I want these examinations to be reported in the same sense as other examinations.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Where it appears on behalf of the men an application is made for special examination of a mine, and that examination takes place, their desire for a Report of the Inspector who makes the special examination should be complied with, and the Report rendered in precisely the same way as any other Report that is made.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Probably the hon. Gen-

  613
  tleman will move the Amendment on Report. He must see that the object he desires to obtain would not be obtained by the Amendment he proposes, and on Report there will be every desire to meet the hon. Member.
  MR. PICKARD: I only wish to say it was suggested to me that this was the proper place in which to put these words; but I will accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Formal investigation when directed by Secretary of State).
  MR. J. W.LOWTHER: I am not sure that the Amendment of which I have given Notice is exactly necessary, as I assume in any case where special investigation is made it would not be made by the Inspector of the mine; but in order to obtain the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on this question I will formally move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 34, after the word "person," to insert the words "not being an Inspector under this Act."—(Mr. James William Lowther.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): The existing law compels us to appoint an Inspector to hold these inquiries, and I am bound to say that in 19 cases out of 20 the Inspector is the proper person to do so. The Act of 1886—it is only the legislation of last year, the 49th & 50th of the Queen, Section 40—says the Secretary of State may appoint the Inspector to make the inquiry. It did occur to me it should not be the Inspector, and I left the Secretary of State free to choose any competent person to hold the inquiry, the reason being in case the Inspector might be implicated.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Would the Assistant Inspectors be competent to hold the inquiry?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly, if competent; it says "any competent person," and we should accept the most experienced person available.
  MR. TOMLINSON: There is nothing in the Bill to make it necessary to appoint the Inspector. There may be cases in which it would be right
  614
  that the Inspector should make the inquiry, and I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
  MA. J. W. LOWTHER: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg now to move the omission of the words "unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State."
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, Sub-section 2, lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words "unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State."— (Mr. Pickard.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I only adopted the words of the Act of last year, and I imagine that the reason why those words were there inserted was that probably where criminal consequences and a criminal trial might result from the circumstances of the explosion or accident, it would be very undesirable to prejudice that criminal trial beforehand by taking evidence in an open investigation of this sort which would be beyond private control. I imagine that is the reason why the words were put in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) will be able to assist me in this, as he was a party to it, it being contained in his draft Bill.
  MR. CHILDERS: If my memory does not fail me, the words were in the Act of last year (Lord Cross's), and I made no change in the Bill I introduced.
  MR. MATTHEWS(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to say: It would be extremely awkward if the words were struck out, as it would prevent such an investigation taking place in case of a criminal charge, because, if there was to be a criminal charge, the public investigation would have to be postponed until after the trial of the charge.
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not attach much value to the words, as there would be a Coroner's inquest.
  MR. TOMLINSON: That would be a very exceptional case.
  MR. CHILDERS: I should not have expressed any opinion but for the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. I

  615
  am bound to say I do not feel competent to advise the Committee, having given a very cursory attention to the subject last year; but if the right hon. Gentleman says that with a view to criminal proceedings the words ought to be inserted in order to give him a discretion, I will make no objection.
  MR. MATTHEWS: It would be extremely awkward not to have this discretion, as otherwise it might prejudice any subsequent inquiry. For instance, if any Secretary of State saw that a charge of manslaughter might be brought, it would not be advisable to hold the inquiry until the charge of manslaughter was disposed of, otherwise it might very much prejudice a man who was going to be tried in connection, with any accident.
  MR. CHILDEES: I am bound to say I think there is that objection to it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The words may appear to be very unimportant; but if anyone will look at the character of the Court established by this section he will see it is a very serious matter to allow the Court, under any circumstances, secret jurisdiction. This Court is to have, for the purpose of investigation, all the powers of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; it is to have the power to enter and inspect places and buildings; it is to have the power to summon persons and to examine them on oath; it is to have power to require any person examined to make a declaration; it is to have power to compel the production of books and documents, and so forth; in point of fact, this Court has all the powers conferred in the case of other Courts, including the power of secrecy. Altogether, you are setting up a tribunal of an altogether abnormal and exceptional character if you allow it to be conducted under the veil of secrecy. Before the Committee assents to anything of the kind I think it does require serious consideration, because in England we have not got coercion. It is all very well to do this in Ireland, where we have coercion; but where you are inquiring into the cause of an explosion in Durham, or South Wales, or South Staffordshire, I do not see what earthly object there is in secrecy, and you had far better do without it.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal
  616
  (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); and I think that in all the inquiries you make you should have them public. It is of the greatest importance, when an explosion occurs, that the whole country should be allowed to know all that takes place in the inquiry which follows.
  MR. TOMLINSON(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to say: No Secretary of State would direct a secret inquiry unless it was absolutely necessary, and not to have this power might prevent the investigation being held.
  MR. BURT: I did not hear all that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken or his Predecessor; neither did I hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh; but I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to disavow the authorship of this particular clause; and I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh not to approve of it himself. Under these circumstances, and as the provision is entirely new——
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; it is in the existing law.
  MR. BURT: I have not noticed it in the existing Act of Parliament; and I think, without very much stronger reasons than have yet been given, it would not be advisable to retain these words. As I am strongly opposed to secret inquiries of any sort I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: It certainly seems to me these words would be better left out, unless there is something that I do not understand with regard to the Criminal. Law. The great advantage of omitting these words would be that the cause of an accident would be known, and this might result in similar accidents in the future being prevented. There is also a general feeling that all these inquiries in Court should be open, as it is a great means of bringing forward public reprobation of anything like carelessness, which operates most beneficially; and, at the same time, all of us have a great prejudice in favour of open inquiry, unless there was some very particular reason against it on account of someone being charged under the Act. I, for

  617
  one, am very much in favour of these inquiries being perfectly open.
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) asks me about this clause. I find that my memory is quite correct. This clause was introduced into Lord Cross's Act of last year; and the words in this clause are copied exactly from that clause. I was not responsible for the Act of last year; nor was my Predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). There was no lengthened discussion on this clause, though it was considered; but I only remember so much, that the advantage of this form of preliminary inquiry was approved, both by those who represent the miners and those who represent the owners, and I think that we have not had sufficient experience to warrant us in altering the provision. I am inclined to believe, speaking from knowledge of one case that took place last year—I cannot remember its name—that it would be to the advantage of the public that the Secretary of State should have power to institute this inquiry, which is the Secretary of State's inquiry, for his own purposes, to enable him to consider what steps he should take, and that in certain cases he should have the power of instituting this inquiry secretly, so that he may consider, upon the receipt of the Report of the inquiry, what further steps he should take; and the ends of justice may be defeated if it is put out of his power to order, in certain cases, that this inquiry should be taken with closed doors. As the Act was only passed last year, I could not, under the circumstances, advise the House to repeal an Act the experience of which is so short.
  MR. MATTHEWS: May I add that Coroners sometimes close their doors.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) who has just spoken, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not be well advised to take any additional powers. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has properly carried out all the powers which he already possesses with regard to the interference with the operations of law, and I certainly think it is most undesirable that he should have by this Act the invi-
  618
  dious power of ordering a secret investigation. I hope the Committee will not sanction such a principle, and will accept the Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should have thought the history of the Star Chamber in England would have been quite sufficient to knock on the head any inquiry of this sort that is proposed. With all due respect to the greater experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) the question is whether this is a bad and an unconstitutional principle, and not whether it has worked well in the few months it has been in existence, and which bears upon it the stamp of the other House. I maintain that we ought to express our opinion with regard to it, even to the point of a Division. If we consider this is an essentially bad principle it ought not to find its way into an Act of Parliament. The reference the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made just now to the Coroner was a very unfortunate one, for the right hon. Gentleman must know that great dissatisfaction has recently been expressed in that very case of a Coroner closing his Court to the public. It is altogether foreign to the common sense and feeling of the public in this country, and if for no other reason I should strongly oppose the introduction of these words, because wherever the right hon. Gentleman or any other Secretary who was at the Home Office should put the power into force it would be certain to raise so much disapprobation and suspicion in the minds of the public generally, that more injury would be done by that very fact than by any amount of miscarriage of justice which might possibly result from this power being taken away. Talking about miscarriage of justice, I believe that would result from this power being put into the hands of the Secretary of State, and being used by him. It is most impolitic that any individual should have power to conduct such a judicial inquiry, and I would remind my hon. Friends behind me that upon a similar provision to this in the earlier portion of this very Bill the Government were defeated, and that I not many weeks ago. It was Section 13, in which were the words "unless the mine is excepted by order of the Secretary of State," and those words

  619
  were struck out, and far more ought these words to be struck out. I would only add that one of the greatest jurists of this country, or in any other, Jeremy Bentham, gave utterance to the expression that "publicity is the soul of justice."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Only one argument has been used in favour of the retention of these words, and that is that they were in Lord Cross's Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh did not tell the Committee the date upon which it was passed; but—I am speaking from recollection—it was one of the very last Acts passed into law last Session. I remember that the Bill of Sir Richard Cross was introduced at the same time as the one I introduced, and, on the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh, I kept my Bill back in order that the House might see what were to be the provisions embodied in the Bill of the Government, and both Sir Richard Cross's Bill and my own were kept on the Orders of the House. I find that the Government measure when it was introduced—and it is almost a verbatim copy of the one we are now considering—contained this clause. But Sir Richard Cross's Bill that contained this clause was passed at the fag-end of the Session, when there was no time to discuss anything adequately. It was accepted as something to be passed into law, not because it was in the best possible shape or contained all the provisions anyone would wish, but because Sir Richard Cross had set his heart very much on something being passed, and out of compliment to him it was allowed to pass.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I desire to oppose these words remaining in the Act, because they give a power to the Secretary of State that is given to no one else. I think they might as well be placed in his hands as in the hands of anyone else, if they are to be given, and I do not think these personalities are going to help our cause. Still I hope they will be struck out, because the principle is a bad one, and if they are left in I am sure they will produce considerable irritation in the minds of the men, and defeat the object of this most important clause. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentle
  620
  man will see his way to have them struck out.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I hope these words will be struck out, as I think that all these inquiries should be made public. If the Court assembles, and the evidence is taken privately, some garbled and inaccurate report would be certain to appear, and it would, therefore, be far better that the Court should be held publicly, rather than misleading accounts should be given.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 85: Majority 28.— (Div. List, No. 377.) [12.30 A.M.]
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, after line 19, to insert the following sub-section:—" (e.) The owner, agent, manager, or under manager of a mine in which any explosion or accident has occurred, or any person injured, or the relatives of any person killed by any such explosion or accident, shall be at liberty to attend the Court in person or by counsel or solicitor, and to cross-examine any witness, and may themselves give evidence as witnesses, or call witnesses to give evidence."— (Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. These inquiries are in the nature of a Commission of Inquiry. When the Royal Commission sat to make inquiries into the Belfast riots, with a view to inform the mind of the Secretary of State as to what should be done, Mr. Justice Day laid it down that although he was delighted to have the assistance of counsel representing various interests, they had no right to appear or to force on any examination which the Commissioners did not think conducive to the proper conduct of the inquiry. If the owner of a mine, or any person injured, or a relative of any person killed, has anything important to say, they will, no doubt, be allowed to say it, either by themselves or by counsel; but if you give people a right to appear by counsel you let in endless difficulties. It must be recollected that no one is charged on one of those inquiries. The inquiry is merely to inform the mind of the Secretary of State, and I think, therefore, that it is light to leave the conduct of the inquiry to the person who is appointed to undertake it.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I will not press the Amendment if the general feeling of the Committee is against it. This is a new procedure, and it is not easy at the outset to see what would be the best way to conduct it.
  MR. FENWICK: If the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) would agree to a slight amendment of his Amendment we should have no difficulty in supporting it. If, after the word "injured" in his Amendment, he would agree to the addition of the words "or any of the workmen," as I hope he will do, we shall then be in a position to support him. I will, therefore, move to amend the Amendment by inserting in the second line, after the word "injured," the words "or any of the workmen."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after word "injured," to insert the words "or any of the workmen."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I think the words can hardly be properly inserted at the point in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. FENWICK: In that ease I would propose to insert my Amendment after the word "occurred" in the second line.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "occurred," in the second line, the words "or any of the workmen."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I must express my surprise at what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It appears to me that this Amendment is an absolutely indispensable Amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We must first dispose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment before discussing the Amendment itself.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I would suggest that the proposed Amendment would come in best after the words
  622
  "under manager" in the first line, so as to make the sub-section read—"The owner, agent, manager, or under manager, or any of the workmen of a mine." &c.
  MR. GEDGE: This is only a preliminary inquiry for the information of the Secretary of State. To give the workmen power——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will the hon. Member (Mr. Fenwick) withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. FENWICKassented, and intimated that he would afterwards propose to insert it at the point in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope).
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FENWICKthen proposed to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting the words "or any of the workmen" after the words "under manager" in line 7.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the words "under manager," to insert the words "or any of the workmen."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR.TOMLINSON: Perhaps it would, after all, be better to leave the matter as it stands in the Bill. I, therefore, propose to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The question is whether the workmen should be treated on an equal footing with the owners of a mine. The hon. and learned Member for Preston proposes that only the owners and others should have certain rights. Who are these "others?" the managers, under managers, agents of a mine, any persons injured, or the relatives of any persons killed. These persons are to be entitled to attend the Court in person, or by counsel or solicitor, and to give evidence. Well, if persons in a position of authority or persons actually injured or the relatives of those killed are thus to be entitled to appear before the Court either in person or by counsel, why should not workmen, other than those injured, have the same right or privilege? That is the whole question raised by the Amendment to the Amendment, and I cannot see how the hon. and learned Member for Preston can object to it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Without the addition of the proposed words the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Preston is one-sided and we cannot consent to it. Now that you have given power to the Secretary of State to make this a private and secret inquiry, it is essential that this Amendment should be inserted.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question put, as amended,
  "That the words 'The owner, agent, manager, or under manager, or any of the workmen of a mine in which any explosion or accident has occurred, or any person injured, or the relatives of any person killed by any such explosion or accident, shall be at liberty to attend the Court in person, or by counsel or solicitor, and to cross-examine any witness, and may themselves give evidence as witnesses, or call witnesses to give evidence,' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 109: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 378.) [12.40. A.M.]
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 30, after "make" to insert— "And the Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be reasonably practicable after the receipt by him of such Report, cause a printed copy of the same to be made public, either by posting it in a conspicuous place on the premises of the mine, or by such other means as he may direct." —(Mr. Llewellyn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): My hon. Friend will, I think, see that the object of this Amendment will be sufficiently provided for by Clause 47, which enacts that—
  "The Secretary of State may cause any special Report of an Inspector or any Report of a Court under this part of this Act to be made public at such time and in such manner as he may think fit."
  These Reports will, or, at all events, may be, very voluminous. When printed they sometimes run to 20 or 30 pages. It would, therefore, be difficult, if not impossible, to publish them in the manner proposed.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: My object in proposing this Amendment is to prevent the publication of the Report of any inquiry under this section from being delayed for six months or more. Last year there was a case of an explosion in which persons were killed. This hap
  624
  pened in June. I applied for a copy of the Report of the inquiry on that explosion in the January of the present year; but I did not get it until February or March. There was naturally a great desire that the Report of that inquiry should be made public as soon as possible, and there was great dissatisfaction at the delay which took place. My object is that a Report of one of these inquiries should be published as soon as possible, and my idea in proposing that it should be posted up in a conspicuous place on the premises of the mine was to enable the workmen to see it as soon as possible. But I admit that in some cases the Report may be too voluminous for this mode of publication; and, therefore, I have proposed that the Secretary of State should be authorized to have it published in any other manner he may direct.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The object of this Amendment is, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), not attained by Clause 47. That clause provides that it shall be in the discretion of the Secretary of State to cause the Report to be published. But this Amendment would reader it obligatory on the Secretary of State to publish the Report, though it would leave him a discretion as to the time when and the manner in which the Report should be issued. It says that the Report shall be published "as soon as may be reasonably practicable" after its receipt by him, and. that it shall be published either by posting on the premises of the mine, "or by such other means as he may direct." Under Clause 17, on the other hand, it would, as I have already said, be discretionary with the Secretary of State to publish or to withhold the Report.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We have already provided that these inquiries may be held in private. Now, he proposes to make it compulsory that the result of the inquiry should be published as soon as may be reasonably practicable. Surely that is inconsistent with the previous provision. He may rely on it that in every case when a Report can be made public it will be made public. But to press this Amendment would be inconsistent with what the Committee has already determined.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: My object was to prevent delay in the publication of these Reports. If I am assured that the Secretary of State will publish them I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 47 (Publication of Reports) agreed to.
  Arbitration.
  Clause 48 (Provisions as to arbitrations).
  MR. CONYBEARE: I hope the Government will now agree to report Progress. We are about to commence a totally new subject. [Cries of "Go on !"] I think we ought to report Progress; but if my hon. Friends wish to go on I will give way to them.
  MR. PICKARD: I think it is time that we reported Progress, and I will give a reason for saying so. When we had our last meeting upstairs discussing this particular clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) gave a promise that he would look through the clause and formulate a new one in its place. I would like to ask him whether or not he has given the clause his consideration, or whether he would like further time to do so?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have no doubt we mean the same thing; but my recollection of what passed between the hon. Member and myself was this. He told me that the workmen frequently felt objection to this system of arbitration, inasmuch as it generally turned out that the arbitrators on both sides were connected with the mine-owning interest, and I told him I would consider whether I could substitute some other method of appointing the arbitrators. I have turned over various methods, and I do not know what I could suggest except a sole arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. After considering that, I have come to the conclusion that it would be less satisfactory to the persons concerned than that which is provided by the Bill —namely, an arbitrator appointed by each side. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Pickard) could suggest something better. I have thought of the Board of
  626
  Trade, of the Quarter Sessions, of the magistrates, of the Petty Sessions; but I do not think that any one of these would be satisfactory, and therefore, upon the whole, although I think that these arbitration sections are very cumbrous, and although the inquiry by arbitration is very expensive and very dilatory, I do not believe anything better could be substituted.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move to report Progress, and I do so for this reason. There are 62 Orders upon the Paper. Some of them certainly are opposed, and I believe it is proposed, to proceed with some of the others to-night. It is past 1 o'clock now, and if the Report of last Saturday's Committee of Supply is to come on, besides the Revenue Bill, we ought to be allowed some little time in which to discuss them. I mention Report of Supply, because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) will remember that last Saturday I waived my right to bring forward certain matters upon the Education Estimates on the distinct understanding that I should do so on Report.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sure that the Committee are anxious to make progress with this Bill. A great number of those who have watched the progress of the Bill in Committee, and have taken part in the discussions, have shown a very great desire that the Bill should pass; but I must point out that this is the 15th of August, and that a special arrangement has been made to give up these two days — Monday and Tuesday—in order that we may, if possible, get through the Bill. Under the circumstances, I must appeal to hon. Members to sit a little longer, and to make as much progress as possible this evening. I propose that we should to-night finish Part I. of the Bill, and then when we come to Part II. report Progress. I am quite sure it is in the interest of this subject of coal mines' regulations, as well as in the interest of Parliament, that we should spend a little more time upon this Bill. With re-

  627
  gard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, (Mr. Conybeare), I may inform him that I was in another part of the House when he made his remarks respecting the Education Estimates on Saturday. I may state that the Revenue Bill will not be taken this evening, and I hope we shall be allowed to go on.
  MR. FENWICK: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of Treasury that we have already made very considerable progress We have gone through 26 clauses. The next two clauses, 49 and 50, which finish the first part of the Bill, are two very important sections indeed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I admit that very considerable progress has been made; but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that, considering the number of Amendments on the Paper, there is very little hope of passing the Bill, unless we can get through more of them than we have done this evening. The time of the Session is such that I really must appeal to hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the matter to do the best to make progress.
  MR. JOICEY: I must support the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in his appeal, and I really do hope that we shall endeavour to make some more progress. I feel that unless we make considerable progress during tonight and to-morrow, there is very great, danger of the abandonment of the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name— namely, in page 23, line 13, after "State," to add "and workmen." I do this on the ground that I think we should have one-third of the appointment of this arbitration. By the clause as it stands, the Court will be composed, first, of a colliery owner or a mining engineer; secondly, of a mining engineer; and, thirdly, of a mining engineer or colliery owner, to be appointed by the two as umpire. As the workmen are as interested in the safe working of the mine as the colliery owners, we consider that they should be directly represented in the Court. I wish to say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secre-
  628
  tary (Mr. Matthews) will promise to formulate and insert in the clause on he Report stage something which will meet our desires I have no wish now to press this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 13, after the word "State," to add the words "and workmen."—(Pickard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have always felt myself that the Inspector, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, is the champion of the workmen. [Mr. PICKARD dissented.] The hon. Member for the Norman ton Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Pickard) shakes his head. Will he just consider what are the occasions which give rise to this arbitration? They are occasions under Section 43. That section relates to cases in which an Inspector finds a mine, or any part thereof, or anything connected with it to be dangerous or defective so as, in his opinion, to tend to the bodily injury of any person. In cases of that kind, the Inspector is to give notice to the owner, and if the owner objects to remedy the defect or guard against the danger there is to be arbitration. On whose behalf then does the Inspector act? Does the hon. Member consider that the interests of the State alone are considered? Certainly not. The Inspector takes action in order to guard against the bodily injury of the workmen, and therefore he really acts as the champion of the workmen. The groundwork of the thing is this—the Inspector tells the owner that there is something defective in the mine, and the owner denies that this is the fact. The Inspector and the owner are, therefore, the parties to the dispute. Clearly, on the arbitration one of the parties must be the owner, and the only other proper party is the State. It would be intolerable to lay down as a matter of absolute right that any private persons—even the workmen on whose behalf the Inspector's action is taken—are entitled to be represented specially at the inquiry. As I have said before, the Inspector is the champion of the workmen. And lot the hon. Member (Mr. Pickard) also consider this—to say that the Inspector acts on behalf of the workman is to make the Inspector the servant of the workmen, instead of the servant of the

  629
  State Of course, the Inspector is the servant of the State and not of any particular class of men. It is only because danger or wrong is threatened to the workmen that the arbitration is to be hold. That seems to be the obvious policy of the Act, and the obvious intention of the section.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickard) that the effect of the Amendment would be that there would be three arbitrators appointed, because under one of the subsections of the clause each of the parties is empowered to appoint an arbitrator within 21 days of the result of the reference. That would give rise to a considerable amount of inconvenience, to say the least of it. I entirely agree with the sentiment of my hon. Friend's Amendment; but I hope that, under the circumstances, the proposal will be withdrawn.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard) will not proceed with his Amendment. My reason for expressing this hope is this. In each of the two cases in which arbitration is provided by the Bill—namely, under Sections 43 and 54—one party is the owner or manager, and the other party is the Secretary of State, or the Inspector as representing him. Now, there being only two possible parties, I do not see how any improvement could possibly be made in the interests of the workmen by this Amendment. An Amendment in favour of constituting the workmen a separate party might be relevant and very proper; but, as the Bill stands, I do not think that any advantage would be gained by the introduction of these words.
  MR. PICKARD: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could carry out the idea he suggested himself. If we had the County Court Judges in the various districts constituted umpires in all these cases, and if in every event such matters should be settled by them, that would meet our view altogether. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will try to carry out that suggestion.
  MR. BURT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will see his way to carry out the: idea he expressed in the interview up stairs. I would point out to him that under this clause the arbitrators are limited to mining engineers. Now, we want a thoroughly impartial as well as a competent tribunal, and it is very desirable, I think, that we should have the present system altered. If that could be done, I think my hon. Friend might withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton), I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert "seven." I feel sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not concur in the precise number of days specified by the Amendment he will agree to make some alteration. It is clear that the term of 21 days is not only too long, but is absolutely unprecedented in all matters of a cognate nature.
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 15, to leave out the word "twenty-one," and insert the word "seven." —(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  MR. MATTHEWS: Say 14 days.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I withdraw my Amendment, then.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to propose, in page 23, line 15, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert "fourteen."
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 15, to leave out the words "twenty-one," and insert the word "fourteen." (Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. FENWICK: If we adopted that Amendment, it would be inconsistent with what was done in Clause 43, in which we have already agreed that the number of days should be reduced from 20 to 10.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The two things relate to two totally different objects, Under Clause 43, a delay of 10 days is

  631
  to be given to the owner to see whether he will comply with what the Inspector has said must be done. The present clause relates to the time which is to be allowed for the appointment of an arbitrator, if the owner decides that he will not comply with the Inspector's demands. The hon. Member knows very well that a mining engineer is very much engaged, and it may be difficult to find a man who will undertake the arbitration, and carry it out in a proper manner. Twenty-one days is too long to allow for the appointment of an arbitrator; but I do not think that 14 days is an unreasonable time.
  MR. FENWICK: In that case it will be 34 days before proper machinery can be put in motion to remedy a defect in a mine. You give 10 days' notice in the first instance; then you give the owner other 10 days' notice respecting arbitration, and then you give other 14 days for the appointment of an arbitrator.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; the hon. Member is wrong. He only gets the second 10 days if there is no arbitration. If he intends to arbitrate, we give him 14 days to appoint an arbitrator.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'fourteen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved, in page 23, line 28, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert "fourteen."
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 28, leave out the words "twenty-one," and insert the word "fourteen." —(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'fourteen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move, in line 34, to leave out the word "fourteen," and insert the word seven."
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 34, leave out the word "fourteen," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES MR. ATHERLEY-JONES moved, in line 37, to leave out the word "fourteen," and insert the word "seven."
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 37, leave out the word "fourteen." and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GEDGE: I regret that I have not known long enough beforehand what the exact proposal of the Government would be, in order that I might prepare an elaborate Amendment; but I will put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he is not willing so to alter the scheme of arbitration as to render it unnecessary to have always two trials? I am sure we are all agreed that it is desirable to be able to get decisions which will be binding at the least possible expense. It is proposed to have two arbitrators, and that if they differ the whole question shall be heard over again before the umpire, who is not to sit with them. All the expenses of the witnesses and the counsel will consequently have to be paid a second time over. I have had great experience during the last 30 years in connection with arbitrations, both as assessor and as acting for one of the disputants, and that experience has shown me that in 99 cases out of 100 the arbitrators on the different sides are more like advocates than arbitrators. They think that it is their duty to differ. The result is that the matter has to go before the umpire, who very often does not arrive at as sound a decision as he would otherwise do because he has no arbitrators sitting with him. Now, if the three men were to sit together, and the award of any two of them were to be taken as binding great advantages would result. Very often a fair compromise would be arrived at, and, at all events, the thing would have to be done only once instead of twice. As I have said, I have not had time to prepare a detailed Amendment; but, in order to bring the matter formally before the Committee, I beg to propose that we should take part of two lines from Sub-section 10, and insert, after "referred to them," these words

  633
  —"The arbitrators shall appoint by writing under their hands an umpire."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 23, lines 12 and 13, to leave out from "before" to "umpire," both inclusive, in order to insert the words "the arbitrators shall appoint by writing under their hands an umpire."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: As I understand the hon. Member's object, he desires that this Sub-section 10 shall come out. The words are contained in Sub-section 10. He would have an umpire appointed at once, and he should sit at once before the arbitrators enter on the matter. Well, I have no objection to that proceeding, but I took the clause as it stands, and left it as in the present law. My own strong objection to arbitration is that it is dilatory, expensive, and inconvenient, and the arbitrators view the matter as representatives of two antagonistic parties.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view—and I do not agree with him—then he might as well do away with arbitrators, and appoint an umpire at once. But this will be a question of engineering mechanics as to proper precautions being taken in a mine, and two practical engineers meet, the one on behalf of the owners, and the other on behalf of the workmen and public, and there is no reason why they should not arrive at a mutual arrangement as to the wisest thing to be done. If on any point they hopelessly differ they call in an umpire, and if, in the first instance, they find themselves hopelessly at variance, they call in an umpire at once; but if you accept the Amendment you add to expense and delay, and complicate the whole matter.
  MR. TOMLINSON: What ever is done, I hope the matter will not be left to the decision of an umpire sitting alone.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I cordially agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. It is an extremely common thing in trade disputes of all kinds to appoint two arbitrators who endeavour to set matters right, and on the rare occasions when they cannot come to an agreement they refer to an umpire. If
  634
  you have two arbitrators sitting with an umpire, obviously what happens is that the arbitrators regard themselves merely in the light of advocates. That is the practical result that will come about. The original idea is, I think, the right one.
  MR. GEDGE: I was not referring to one class of arbitration only; but I may refer to the case of two Railway Companies desiring to come to an arrangement for the joint use of a rail way station, or of working powers or matters of that kind, questions very similar to those that would arise under this Bill. How the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton can say you increase the expense by holding one inquiry instead of two I do not understand. Under the Bill you have the first arbitration with the hearing of witnesses and counsel, and then if the arbitrators differ you have the whole thing to go over again. I want one inquiry and one expense. Of course, I will place myself in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and will withdraw the Amendment if he desires me to do so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I may observe that the adoption of the Amendment will require the reconstruction of the clause.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should be loth to submit the clause to reconstruction. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOMLINSON: My Amendment standing next is of a verbal character, merely to substitute "any shaft" for the words "the greater portion."
  MR. MATTHEWS: In anticipation of that Amendment, let me point out that in the 23rd line the word "shall "must be altered to "may."
  Amendment proposed, in line 23, to omit "shall," and insert the word "may."—(Mr. Matthews.)
  Question, "That the word proposed be there substituted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 25, to omit the words "the greater portion," and insert "any shaft."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the greater portion' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What is the object of this Amendment? Surely, if the greater portion is within the jurisdiction of a certain Quarter Sessions, it is reasonable that application shall be made to that Bench. If you substitute "any shaft," it simply means that the question will be raised by those in a position to raise it.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I will explain if you will sit down.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Well, that is not the ordinary way of conducting our discussions; but I will yield to the hon. and learned Gentleman's impatience.
  MR.TOMLINSON: It is simply this—that it may be difficult to find out where the larger portion of the mine is.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But how about your plans?
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'any shaft' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 49 (Provisions as to Coroner's inquests on deaths from accidents in mines).
  MR. J. E. SPENCER: The Amendment I have to move is in the interest of the follow-workmen of any person who may have been killed by an accident, to allow such workmen to be represented. I do not see why a privilege extended to owners and managers should be withheld from the men. It is a widespread desire among the men that has suggested this Amendment, and I hope it will be acceded to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 26, line 13, after the word "relative," to insert the words, "and any person appointed by the order in writing of the majority of the fellow-workmen."—(Mr. J. E. Spencer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I cannot help pointing out to my hon. Friend that his Amendment would be very difficult to work. A Coroner is, of course, a public officer, and he is controlled by Act of Parliament in the ordinary exercise of his duty, and his duty in holding an in
  636
  quest on a death in a colliery ought not to be different from his duty else where. His duty is to ascertain the cause of death. How is he to know that a majority of the men depute one person as their representative? Are their signatures to be proved? How is the Coroner to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures of a majority of 400 or 500 men? Must he call witnesses to prove the signatures? Must all this take place before the Coroner to establish the right of the majority to appear? I might point out that the fellow-workmen, unless they are relatives of the deceased, have not an interest in the inquiry before the Coroner. His inquiry is into the cause of the death of the particular man, and who is responsible, not into the management of the mine, not into the conduct of the owners unconnected with the death. It is really only the relatives who are interested, and such an Amendment will throw difficulties in the way of the Coroner discharging his duty, and protract the inquiry to an unlimited extent.
  MR. FENWICK: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has already, in a former part of this Bill, accepted a similar Amendment giving the workmen power to act by majority in reference to the appointment of a check-weighman? The decision of the men is arrived at by ballot, and no objection was urged to that course. The right hon. Gentleman did not then point out that it would be necessary to test the signatures of the workmen. I would also point out that it is not the relatives who may be interested in the cause of death; the workmen employed in the mine may be equally interested, as being subject to similar risks. This is why they ask to have a representation in the Coroner's Court; and there is a very widespread desire among workmen that they should have a locus standi there in connection with a matter that may nearly affect their own safety.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: As I have had considerable experience in reference to this point, I may be allowed a word or two. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, so far as I gathered his meaning, that probably in 99 cases out of 100 the interest of the relatives, represented through their counsel or

  637
  solicitor, is also the interest of the great I body of workmen. I have never known a case in which the locus standi of a counsel was questioned as representing the interest of the workmen generally employed. But undoubtedly a case might arise where, on the occurrence of an isolated death, there might be no relatives, or they might not instruct counsel, and a highly technical objection might be raised by some—for instance, by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) — who might maintain that no locus standi was possessed by counsel, who were substantially instructed by the fellow-workmen, or by a miners' association. Therefore. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might accept the Amendment. With regard to the question whether the person appearing really represented the majority of the workmen, I do not think the Coroner would be required to enter into an inquisitorial examination of that kind; it would only be necessary for a person or persons to say that at a meeting of the lodge or of workmen it was determined that such a counsel should represent them. It is really a small matter, and I cannot see that the insertion of the words in any case would do any harm.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I can testify to the strong feeling existing among workmen in favour of their interests being represented at Coroners' inquests. When you consider that the great majority of deaths are due to single accidents—the fall of a portion of the roof, or similar casualties —and that the men are interested in seeing that what has been the cause of the death of one of their fellows may not occasion other accidents, I think if we can possibly devise some moans by which the men maybe fairly represented, without interfering with the proper administration of the Court, it ought to be inserted. As to the question whether I the person represents the majority of the workmen, I may say the names of all the men appear on the pay bill, and any dispute may be tested by a reference to this list of the men. I would very much impress on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, if this can be done by any possible means in the way suggested by the hon. Member, or by any other way, it will give the
  638
  greatest amount of satisfaction to those interested.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that, as a matter of reading, the words should come in after the word "occurred," in page 26, line 7.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment inserted after the word "occurred," in page 26, line 7.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: In moving my Amendment for the omission of the words "subject nevertheless to the order of the Coroner," in page 26, lines 18 and 19, I am quite aware that the words are not a novelty, though I do not understand their importance. It is perfectly understood that a Coroner does not require the words to insure proper decorum and order in the procedure of his Court, and in 99 cases out of 100 no difficulty would arise with or without these words; but the insertion of the words seems to suggest, and might be held by a fastidious Coroner to mean, that he could refuse to allow the authority of persons who are otherwise authorized as representatives. I have in my mind the instance of an eccentric Coroner in Yorkshire, who, I believe, absolutely refused to allow the authority of a counsel sent down to represent the Home Office, and said the matter was one in which the Court would allow no interference whatever, and, I believe, actually prevented examination and cross-examination of witnesses. I had myself some experience of this Coroner's Court, and I confess there was considerable friction in the proceedings. For all reasonable purposes, in the conduct of the proceedings in Court, the words are unnecessary, while they may be understood to suggest to the Coroner that he has a right to intervene and prevent the appearance of parties by counsel, and this, I am sure, is not what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intends.
  Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 18, to leave out the words "subject nevertheless to the order of the Coroner." —(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. and learned Member forgets that the

  639
  words are only adopted from the existing Act. He will find it in Section 2 of the Act of last year, where the power to attend with counsel and witnesses is given, subject to this qualification. The words simply retain the power vested in the Coroner. The right to appear by counsel before a Coroner is a novel right, for this ancient Court is self-constituted and self-sustaining, and does not require the presence of counsel. Last year, when this House gave the right to counsel to appear, it was thought right to add this Proviso, that the Coroner had, nevertheless, the right he had always enjoyed. It was thought right to do this when establishing a variation in the procedure of the Court. I admit, though, that it is not very important one way or the other, and if the Committee show any desire for it I will not insist on the point, and let the words go.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am sorry to say the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me. I really do think that to say that you may have a person representing certain others before the Coroner, and then to give the Coroner the power of forbidding this being done, is useless.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 62: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 379.) [1.50 A.M.]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to move the following Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 26, after line 21, insert:—"In Scotland it shall be the duty of the Procurator Fiscal of the district within which an explosion, or accident, causing death has occurred, to hold a public inquiry, before the Sheriff of the county, on the body of every person who may be killed by such explosion or accident. The Sheriff shall take the same position, and exercise the same powers, as a Coroner in England, as set forth in the previous portions of this section." — (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is more appropriate to the 76th clause.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it not also appropriate to this? I think it would probably be in accordance with the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H.
  640
  Smith) that it should be disposed of now. He is anxious that as much should be got rid of to-night as possible. As the Committee was informed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham, the miners attach very great importance to these Coroners' inquests, and to all inquiries as to the cause of deaths in mines from explosions or other accidents. He is right in saying that most of the accidents are simple accidents resulting from a fall of roof or of side; but these things occur in Scotland as well as in England, and the Scotch on these subjects feel very much the same as the English do. When you tickle them they laugh, and when their relatives are hurt they like an inquiry into the cause of death. But then, Sir, there is no system of Coroners' inquests at all, and if a person is killed in a mine the local police make some kind of inquiry; they send to the Inspector, who in turn communicates with the Procurator Fiscal, and some informal inquiry goes on. There are no Coroners in Scotland. It would appear that the proper officer to hold an inquiry of this kind is the Sheriff, at any rate if it is not I should be glad to learn who it is, and of course I should be pleased to alter my Amendment if necessary. As I say, I believe the Sheriff is the proper officer to hold the inquiry. He would be directed by the Procurator Fiscal to hold it in case of a fatal accident, and he would, in fact, discharge the duties which are discharged by Coroners in England, in order that the objects which are obtained by Coroners' inquests in England should be obtained in Scotland. It does not follow that those who vote for this Amendment at all commit themselves to the introduction of "Crowners' quests" in Scotland. The people of Scotland may not have a very high opinion of Coroners' inquests. No doubt -in many cases inquiries are held in England which are not at all necessary; but in the case of colliery accidents there is a distinct reason why they should be held when there is the least doubt as to the cause of death. That reason exists, and is as forcible in Scotland as in England, and it does seem unreasonable that so much importance should be attached to inquiries in the Southern part of the Island, and that no such inquiries should be held in the Northern part.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H.A. (MACDONALD): I have no wish whatever to say one word against "Crowner's quests" in England, but we in Scotland do not quite understand them, and so far as I have been able to observe them they do not always prove the most efficient mode of making inquiries into the cause of death. It seems also to us a hard thing that some inquiry should not be made in cases where a man is injured, but does not happen to die. Now, Sir, in Scotland, when an accident occurs in a pit by which any person is seriously injured— and still more so if the accident be one by which a person is killed—there is an inquiry instantly set on foot. We do not wait for a death to occur in order to make an inquiry, but immediately a serious accident is known of it is the duty of the Sheriff to make inquiry, and I can give a personal assurance that the number of inquiries in the case of death, where there is a doubt as to whether the cause of death was by natural means, is far larger in proportion in Scotland than it is in England. These investigations are made with real care, by a surgeon on the spot, and if it is an important case two surgeons make an examination of the body and a report is sent in to the Crown Counsel. In reference to this sub-section proposed by the hon. Member, I would point out that it is scarcely a proper provision to add to this Bill. This is a Bill called the Coal Mines Regulation Bill; it is not intended by it to alter the general law in either country. It is quite right and proper that as you have Coroner's inquests in England, some rules should be provided as to the mode in which they are to be conducted in the cases of death in coal mines through accident. If anything requires correction in the mode of inquiry in Scotland we shall not object to anything being added to this Bill which may improve that inquiry. But this is a proposal involving a complete change, and the Amendment of the hon. Member would not work. It proposes that the Sheriff shall take the same position, and exercise the same powers as the Coroner in England does. The Coroner in England acts with a jury; it is his duty to see that the inquiry is properly conducted, and the evidence properly adduced, and he has to charge the
  642
  jury as to the legal bearing of that evidence. But we have no machinery for carrying out anything of that kind in Scotland at present, and the scheme would consequently require to be elaborated and adjusted. Who is to exercise in Scotland the same power as Coroner in England? We have no law there under which it could be exercised. By merely saying that it shall be exercised, you do not provide that the officials of Scotland would be sufficiently instructed. The first part of the subsection is taken from a certain class of inquiry, which is of an entirely exceptional nature. Some years ago it was thought wise to introduce an exceptional inquiry in the case of persons dying in prison, but I think that that is wholly inapplicable in this case, believing as I do that our system in Scotland is an admirable one, and it would have a bad effect in a direction which my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour) opposite will understand. Take for instance the case of a serious accident happening in which there has been a considerable loss of life, and a great deal of injury to persons and property. The moment it happens the Procurator Fiscal of the district will be busily engaged in making full inquiry into the circumstances. It is his duty to make that inquiry, but he will be seriously hampered in that duty if he is to simultaneously conduct another inquiry under another official. The mode of inquiry would be different—he would be practically carrying on two important inquiries at the same time. I think that it would be altogether undesirable that an alteration in the general law of Scotland should be made to apply to cases of sudden death. I strongly deprecate any alteration in the mode of inquiring into deaths by injuries, and I think it would be more satisfactory if the hon. Member accepts the fact that these inquiries are at present well and completely conducted.
  MR. CHANCE: I think there are some few points on which we should like to have an explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. He has not told us whether these inquiries are conducted on oath, whether the relatives of the person injured or killed can be represented and can give and call evidence, and whether the result is made public.

  643
  As far as I can understand the position is this. The inquiries are held privately and not on oath, and the result is merely communicated privately to the Crown Counsel for the purpose of enabling him to decide whether or not a prosecution shall be instituted. Surely it will be admitted that that is in no way analogous to the Coroner's inquiry in England. It wants publicity; it wants the evidence taken on oath; it wants the binding force which the Coroner's jury gives the inquiry in England. I think that no case has been made out against the Amendment. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will answer the questions I have put to him.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do not think the inquiry by a Coroner's jury would be binding. It would not be so on me if I thought their finding a wrong one. As to what is done in Scotland, the evidence may be taken on oath. Every witness called by the relatives, any person named by the relatives, or any relative, may be examined, and no person who wishes to make a statement on the case is prevented from doing so.
  MR. CHANCE: But he has no locus standi.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Everybody in Scotland has a locus standi, and I should be very much astonished if the Procurator Fiscal—in the case of a relative or any person coming forward to give evidence—refused to hear him. It is his duty to examine the matter thoroughly, to sift it thoroughly from beginning to end. The whole matter is before him, he must examine every witness appearing, and it must be a full and complete inquiry. If it were not the Procurator Fiscal would get a rap over the knuckles from Crown Counsel.
  DR. CAMERON: I cannot allow the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to the very satisfactory nature of these inquiries to pass without dissent. I think that these are most unsatisfactory, and I know that that is the opinion of workmen engaged in coal mines and other industries. Let me point out that the relatives get no word as to the result of the inquiry; that result is kept a profound secret; it is an official secret. I have asked questions in this House for the satisfaction of the relatives of persons who have been killed, and I have
  644
  been refused all information on the subject. But I do not think that this Amendment would work. I think it would be better to hold the matter over until we reach Clause 67 with a view to try and formulate a more practicable and workable Amendment, for this certainly would not work. The investigation of these colliery accidents is but a branch of a very much broader subject. I entirely disagree with what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has said with regard to the desirability of introducing into Scotland public inquiries in the case of death through accident. I think that the whole subject should be dealt with, that we should have a public inquiry, that it should be entrusted to the Procurator Fiscal, and that the public should know the result arrived at by him. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, but that he will bring it up at a later stage and in a form in which it would be more workable.
  MR. BURT: I think I may testify from my own knowledge to the fact that the Scottish miners especially are very dissatisfied with the existing method of inquiry into accidents in mines. I have heard the subject brought forward at Trades Union Congresses, and I have heard a strong desire expressed that some change should be brought about. I heartily support the Amendment.
  MR. MASON: I do not rise to prolong the discussion; but I wish to make a suggestion which, I think, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate may very well accept, and thereby meet the views of hon. Members on this side of the House. Let him leave out all the words after the words "the accident," with reference to the Coroner's inquisition. It would be a great satisfaction to the miners, and to the relatives of those killed in mines, to know that a public inquiry would be held. They are not satisfied with the present system and with what the Procurator Fiscal does, and it would give great satisfaction I know if this Amendment were accepted by the Government. I do not see any great difficulty in it as far as the law is concerned, and if you agree to it there would be great satisfaction felt in Scotland.
  MR. BROADHURST: In the case of all organized asso

  645
  ciations I know the opinion is in direct variance with the views which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has given utterance to. They are all in favour of a public inquiry in cases of accidental death. That is the opinion amongst Scotch working men as far as have come in contact with thorn. If the right hon. Gentleman will confer with my hon. Friends on this subject I can assure him he will find there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotch societies in regard to the present system.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am not particularly wedded to the exact phraseology of the Amendment. I do not think it is a matter which so much concerns the law of Scotland. From a very short dip into the law of Scotland, I can say I did not like it, and I would rather not interfere with it; but this I know, there is a marked difference between the circumstances of England and of Scotland in regard to inquiries into cases of sudden and unexplained deaths, and the miners of Scotland feel that this is not only a grievous difference, but that it is u grievous disadvantage, and a wrong done to them. They are not satisfied with what purports to be a public inquiry into the cause of deaths of this character in Scotland. They do not feel that they are properly protected, that they have the same amount of protection as their fellows in England have, and they ask for some alteration of the law. If the Government will accede to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) I shall be glad to limit my Amendment as suggested, and to omit the words—
  "The Sheriff shall take the same position and exercise Die same powers as a Coroner in England, as set forth in the previous portions of these sections."
  If desired I shall be willing to bring the matter up again at a later stage of the Bill.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I cannot accept that proposal for the reason that this is a matter of general policy. It is possible that in both countries there may be dissatisfaction on the part of miners and a feeling that their interests are not sufficiently looked after. But there are more prosecutions in Criminal Courts in Scotland against persons for causing accidents in mines, and more convictions in proportion to the number
  646
  of such, accidents occurring in Scotland than there are in England.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.

    [BILL, 353.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. CALDWELL: I have an Amendment on the Paper and some new clauses to propose, but in view of the fact that this Bill has been framed to meet certain contingencies, and as the whole subject is to be reconsidered next year by a Select Committee, I do not propose to move the new clauses standing in my name.
    Clause 8 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vict., c. 60., s. 29, as to registration of branches).
    DR. CAMERON: I beg to move to omit Clause 8. The clause is very similar to one which stands on the Paper, but which has not been moved. I move to omit it because it was inserted in the idea that it had the support, and was desired by the Friendly Societies. But it has since transpired that that is not so. Deputations have come up from the principal societies and shown that they are exceedingly hostile to it. As the whole matter is to be dealt with next Session, I think it would be much better for all controversal matter to be left out of the Bill and to be dealt with on that occasion, leaving this Bill to meet only the special exigencies for which it was framed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): When I accepted this clause, I did so on the distinct understanding that it was desired by the societies and that there would be no opposition to it. But since then I have received deputations stating that there is very great opposition to it, and therefore I am willing to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause omitted.
    Clause 10 (Construction and printing of principal Acts).
    On Motion of Mr. JACKSON, the following Amendment made: — In page 3, line 37, ofter "1879" insert "1882."
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolution [13th August] reported.
  "That a sum not exceeding £1,658,807, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st 1888, for Public Education in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London."
  MR. CONYBEAEE: I do not want to detain the House at this hour; but on Saturday, when the Education Estimates were under discussion in Committee, I intimated to the Government that I had some matters of importance in which I was interested to bring forward in connection with education, but I then waived my right to bring these matters forward owing to the strong desire expressed by the Government to take the Vote, and proceed with the Scotch Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) suggested I should have an opportunity on Report to bring forward the matter; but I am willing—seeing that it is now so late—either to put my few points briefly or, if it is more convenient, I will communicate with him privately, and perhaps he will give me the information I desire.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I think I intimated on Saturday that I purposely avoided alluding to the questions the hon. Gentleman wished to raise, because they are most of them of a rather controversial character, and I think are before the Commission now sitting. I can only say they are questions to which I will give most careful attention, and I shall be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman at any time; but I must observe there are some matters upon which I must speak with all reserve until the Commissioners have reported.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for
  648
  his courtesy. I am quite aware that some of the points are of a controversial character, and more or less included in the inquiry by the Commission; but there are one or two of much importance to a worthy class of teachers in elementary schools, and I should not fulfil the trust they have reposed in me if I did not call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to them. But I do not wish to trouble the House now, and will avail myself of the permission of the right hon. Gentleman to bring the matter before him more specifically in private.
  Resolution agreed to.

  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Sexton, Mr. Chance, Mr. O'Hea, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. Reynolds.)
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.

    [BILL 278.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SEXTON: In moving that this Bill be set down for Committee to-morrow, I would ask the Government if they will afford facilities to make progress with the Bill? So long ago as the 3rd February the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said he would do all in his power to facilitate the measure. It has been read a second time, has been before the Examiners, the Committee on Standing Orders, it has been through Committee, and the views of the Treasury have been met by Amendments, and even the Money Resolution has been assented to by the House. It is a non-contentious Bill, and yet it is blocked by Notices from hon. Members opposite. I would ask the Government to afford facilities for its being taken.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I understand that the Bill is not blocked by the Government. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; by Government supporters.] Not by instructions of the Government; the Government have no knowledge of the proceeding. However, I will inquire into the objections to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow,

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 356.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. SEXTON: I object to the second reading; and unless I have those facilities afforded me for the Bill to which. I just now referred, I shall object to progress being made with, other measures of this kind.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have put the Question, and I think the Ayes have it.
    MR. SEXTON: I will not object to this Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow

  POLICE CONSTABLES' PENSINS BILL.
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, Sir George Russell, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Howard Vincent.)
  POLICE CONSTABLES' PENSINS BILL.

    [BILL 35.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I ask the House to affirm the principle of this measure by reading it a second time. It has long been before the consideration of various Parliaments, and the principle was affirmed by the Government which existed before the present in a Bill exactly similar to this. I am quite aware that it is extremely difficult for a private Member to pass a Bill through at this period of the Session; but I would ask the House to affirm the principle, for it would be only doing justice to a deserving body of public servants.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    BARON DIMSDALE: I will offer no objection at this stage, but I reserve the right to urge the objections I have to the Bill on its later stages.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not think we should be in a hurry to affirm the principle embodied in this Bill which extends the pension
    650
    list, superannuations, and civil pensions, which is already so great as to cause alarm in the minds of many financiers, and there is likely to be some discussion on this subject when we come to the Superannuation Bill now on the Orders as to whether there should not be some limit to the system. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) admits that it is impossible to carry his Bill this Session, and therefore I would appeal to him, is it worth while to take the opinion of the House and possibly hamper the proper consideration of the subject next Session? I do not say that I altogether condemn the Bill so far as I have ascertained what is in it, but it is an important Bill which a Government should take up rather than leave it in the hands of a private Member. I also quite agree that the police as a body are well deserving of every consideration; but I demur to committing the House at this period of the Session, when there is a thin attendance, to a principle that may or may not be sound, but at any rate deserves more consideration than it is possible now to give it. It would, I think, under the circumstances be better to allow the Bill to stand over to next Session.
    MR. BIGGAR: Seeing that the right hon. Baronet does not seem disposed to adopt the very reasonable suggestion made, and seeing that we have had no explanation whatever of the provisions of the Bill and that it is now the end of the Session, I think the most convenient course will be to adjourn the debate.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Biggar.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 64: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 380.) [2.45 A.M.]
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SUFFRAGANS' NOMINATION BILL.
  (Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. John Talbot, Mr. Powell, Baron Dimsdale, Admiral Field, Mr. Dixon Hartland, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.)
  SUFFRAGANS' NOMINATION BILL.

    [BILL 102.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    MR. M. J. KENNY: This is an important Bill, and deserves more explanation by way of introduction than the few inarticulate words of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). It contains an extremely important proposal to alter the law as it has existed for 300 or 400 years, carrying us back to a period for which the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) will have great respect. I observe the Bill is backed by a considerable number of names of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side, and I take it the Bill is of a partizan, if not of a Party, character. It is not a measure to be decided upon at this hour, and I request the hon. and learned Member not to attempt to proceed with it; if he does we must force the matter to Division.
    MR. BROADHURST: This is far too objectionable a proposal to be assented to at 3 o'clock in the morning. It is a Bill very controversial in character. [Cries of "No, no!"] It is in my view. I find on the back of it a long list of names, all from one particular Party, thereby seeming to indicate that it is entirely a Party or sectional movement. So far as I can read the Bill, it proposes to establish, or enable to establish, a new Bishopric in any Parliamentary division of the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] At any rate, it is altogether an objectionable proceeding to read a Bill of this kind at such a time, and I trust the House will not assent to it.
    MR. GEDGE: The remarks we have just heard show how desirable it is before an hon. Member finds fault with a Bill to make himself acquainted with what that Bill proposes to do. An old Act of Henry VIII. gives power to certain Bishops to appoint Suffragans and give the names of certain towns to such Suffragan Bishops. For instance, the Bishop of London might nominate a Suffragan Bishop of Bedford; but as that place is no longer in the Diocese of London this leads to misconception. The Bill proposes to give the power of naming the Suffragan after any Parliamentary borough or Division within the diocese. How that is objectionable, and how it leads to a wholesale creation of Bishops, passes my wit to comprehend. The Bill does nothing more than amend the old Act,
    652
    in this particular of names; it is not blocked; and I hope it may be read a second time, and passed into law.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I really think the hon. Member opposite has no right to complain of the description given to the Bill. The hon. Member was plausible, as he always is; but the simple description of it in the Bill itself bears out to the letter what the hon. Member for West Nottingham says. I have the strongest objection to the Bill, and shall offer it every opposition in my power. I object to a Bishop being stuffed into the constituency I represent, not a full-blown Bishop either, but a Bishop-Suffragan. The people of Cornwall do not want such; they have enough of Bishops already, and I venture to think other parts of the country have the same view. I propose the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Conybeare.)
    MR. BIGGAR: On the question for adjourning, I think good cause is made out for it. The principle of the Bill is bogus or bosh Bishops, and it really is too absurd for this Parliament to seriously think of taking it into consideration at this hour. Under the circumstances, I think it most desirable that the debate should be adjourned.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I hope, Sir, that the House will not agree to the Motion for Adjournment. I hope, too, that the country will notice the fact that hon. Members connected with the Roman Catholic Church are leading the opposition to a Bill regulating the internal affairs of the Church of England.
    MR. CONYBEARE: May I be allowed to say that I am not connected with the Catholic Church?
    Question put,
    The House divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 59: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 381.) [3.5 A.M.]
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. P. MCDONALD: I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I hope the hon. Member will not press that. He must know that this mea sure——
    MR. P. MCDONALD: I move it, Mr. Speaker.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"— (Mr. P. McDonald,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) [SALARIES].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th August].
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a portion of the Salaries of any additional Police Magistrates for the borough of Belfast, that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to make provision for the appointment of a Watch Committee in Belfast, and for other purposes in relation thereto.
  Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolved, That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the portion of the Salaries of any additional Police Magistrates for the borough of Belfast, that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to make provision for the appointment of a Watch Committee in Belfast, and for other purposes in relation thereto.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES [SALARIES, &C].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries, Remuneration, and Expenses of the Boundary Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and their Officers, that may become payable, under any Act of the present Session, for appointing Commissioners to inquire and report as to the Boundaries of certain Areas of Local Government in England.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT [SALARY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an additional salary to any Judge of the High Court, who may be appointed to exercise the jurisdiction of Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, under the provisions of any
  654
  Act of the present Session to amend "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877," so far as relates to certain Judges; and to the office of the Accountant General.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (OFFICERS) [SALARIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salaries of any Assistant Commissioners that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1869, as respects the Officers of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  REVENUE [ALLOWANCES, &c].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of additional allowances for expenses and remuneration to the Clerks to Commissioners of Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties, and of compensation to collectors and assessors of Income Tax for loss of emoluments, under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and for other purposes connected with the Public Revenue and Expenditure.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT [ALLOWANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Allowances and Gratuities that may be granted under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Superannuation Acts, 1834 and 1859.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment * (233); Public Works Loans *(234); Women's Suffrage (No. 2) * (236).
Second Reading — Bill withdrawn — Boiler Registry and Inspection (229).
Committee — Report — Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (226); Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2) (230).
Third Reading—Truck (232); Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) (223), and passed.

BOILER REGISTRY AND INSPECTION BILL.—(No. 229.)
(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
BOILER REGISTRY AND INSPECTION BILL.—(No. 229.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not propose to proceed further with the measure this year, his sole object at present being to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill, in order that its provisions might, during the Recess, have the advantage of being before the public and be subjected to the searching criticism which he hoped it would receive. The Government might thus, perhaps, get the means of ascertaining what was the general feeling on the subject, and how far they could deal with this matter at all. If the Bill were now read a second time he hoped next Session to move for the appointment of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House in order that the subject might be thoroughly examined. It would, perhaps, be convenient if he were to mention how the law stood at present with regard to this matter. Something like 20 years ago attention was drawn to this matter. In 1870 a Select Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed which went very carefully into the matter and reported in 1871. They expressed a doubt whether compulsory inspection was then advisable, and held that the steam-user was responsible for the efficiency of the boiler. In 1882 an Act was passed by which it became the duty of the Board of Trade to appoint

  451
  competent engineers to investigate all cases of boiler explosion, whether attended by loss of life or not. It was only, therefore, in the last five years that the Board of Trade had had officially submitted to them the task of inquiring into those explosions. The Reports of the Inspectors had been laid before both Houses of Parliament. His attention had been called to the subject especially by the Report of the Assistant Secretary under the Act, who had pointed out that the term "accident" as applied to many steam boiler explosions was a misnomer, and the only thing accidental about them was that the boilers had remained so long without exploding. Although he did not say that foreign countries should necessarily form a rule for ourselves, at the same time foreign countries for the most part insisted upon the inspection of boilers. What were the principal causes of the evils of which he had been speaking? They were, first of all, weak or defective designs in the first instance; secondly, bad condition, owing to deterioration; thirdly, want of proper inspection; fourthly, want of proper fittings; and, fifthly, undue working pressure. Another cause which could only partially be dealt with was ignorance or neglect on the part of the attendant. Since the time of the Report to which he had referred there had been a very great and remarkable increase in the use of steam by small owners. Steam was used in farms, as assistance to many minor manufactures, such as in carpenters' shops. Boilers, in fact, were used for purposes far in excess of those for which they had been used 20 years before. They were placed in closely crowded streets, with only a thin board in many instances between them and the crowd. There was a still growing increase caused by the use of dynamos for producing electric light; and engines were placed for different purposes in all sorts of positions, upon the tops of high scaffolds, &c, and they were often used by persons who were but little conversant with the dangers to be apprehended. With regard to what was the system in foreign countries—in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland—boilers were subjected to periodical inspection. In Austria, France, and Germany the inspection was made partly by Government officials, and partly by the officials
  452
  of private associations; while in Denmark and Holland it was made by Government officials. In Italy only railway boilers—with which this measure did not propose to deal—were inspected. There was also an official inspection of boilers in many of the Colonies. In New Zealand there was a Government inspection; and in several of the States of the United States there was an inspection conducted by the Governments of the separate States. He mentioned this in order to show that it was a fallacy to suppose that the State inspection of boilers acted as a check upon trade. In this country there was a system of inspection by companies or private associations, some of them formed for the purpose of inspection only, some combining inspection and insurance. It was therefore impossible to ascertain with anything approaching to accuracy the number of boilers there were in this country. The number was estimated at from 115,000 up to 140,000, or even 150,000, and as far as he could ascertain about 70,000, or perhaps 50 per cent, were under inspection already. The Bill which he now submitted to their Lordships did not seek to provide for Government inspection, but to endeavour to make use of and to extend the benefits of the existing inspection associations. It was proposed that certain rules should be laid down by a central authority under which the inspections were to be conducted. It was not, however, possible wholly to rely upon the natural interest of the owner to insure. He (Lord Stanley of Preston) had placed himself in communication with most of those interested in the matter. The Mechanical Engineers' Institute of Civil Engineers, the Boiler Makers, Boiler Users, and the Boiler Inspecting Societies, and he was bound to recognize the very cordial help and assistance which he had received on all hands; the result was, he felt able to propose that the Board of Trade, acting as the central authority, should be assisted by a committee of experts gathered from all these different interests upon whose advice the Board of Trade should endeavour to act in framing its rules. Practically speaking, there was no such thing as accidents; and he was persuaded that the present lamentable loss of life from boiler explosions arose mainly from causes which could be foreseen, and, in

  453
  almost every case, prevented; and the object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to remove those causes. It was said that accidents could not be entirely prevented, no matter what precautions were taken. This was, no doubt, true; but, nevertheless, every attempt ought to be made to lessen accidents by requiring that employers should take every reasonable means of carrying on their business safely. In addition to evils which he had enumerated there was neglect on the part of those who tended boilers, and in certain cases the present Bill proposed to make that neglect criminal. It required that employers should take reasonable means for carrying on their business safely, gave increased protection to the owner, increased safety to the workmen, and an increased measure of security to the general public, who sometimes suffered from these boiler explosions. Though introduced by him as a Member of the Government, his Colleagues were not answerable for its details, nor even for all its principles. He had, however, closely inquired into this subject, and was firmly persuaded that a strong case for interference had been made out, and he hoped that their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading with a view to its being proceeded with next Session. The 2nd clause of the Bill provided that all boilers should be registered—new boilers when they were made, and every boiler now in use within three months after the passing of the Act. The necessity for registration arose from the fact that in almost all these explosions it was impossible to trace the age or previous history of the boiler. In many cases it appeared that the boiler had been bought second-hand, its age being unknown either to the seller or buyer, and the difficulty of establishing the responsibility of the employer was in consequence greatly increased. Clause 5 attempted to fix a little more closely than at present the responsibility in case of an explosion by providing that the owner might by an instrument in writing nominate some competent person to superintend, and who would be responsible for, the working of the boiler. Clause 6 provided that a boiler should not be used unless certificated. The 7th clause dealt with the constitution of the Committee which was to assist the Board of Trade in framing rules, and upon
  454
  whose advice the Board of Trade would act. Such Committee would be composed of one representative of Lloyd's, two from the Institution of Civil Engineers, two from the Mechanical Engineers, three gentlemen representing the Improved Boilers Company, three representing the Boiler Makers Society and other persons in the boiler trade, and four representing the general users of steam boilers. There were no means of forming a constituency to elect these gentlemen, and they would be selected from the names submitted to the Board of Trade. Clause 8 provided for surveys by surveyors acting on behalf of any society, company, or body whose rules were approved of by the Board of Trade, assisted by the committee of experts. Clause 11 made it a misdemeanour on the part of any surveyor to receive any fee or remuneration other than that sanctioned by the rules of the body appointing him, also for making any false declaration, and by Clause 12 any person who knowingly made, or caused to be made, any false statement or concealed any necessary information, or who forged or fraudulently gave a certificate, would be penally dealt with. Clause 14 imposed a penalty on the use of undue pressure on boilers. The certificate would contain the pressure to be used, and it was deemed necessary to deal with the common practice of working boilers far beyond the pressure they were designed to bear. By the 24th clause, the Bill was to apply—with certain exceptions—to every boiler in the United Kingdom, on land or afloat, within the territorial waters, the latter provision being necessary to take in steam launches and tugs, which did not come under marine inspection. Ships were exempted which were already classed at Lloyd's, and boilers used by Railway Companies were also exempted. There was practically no case against the Railway Companies, whose system of inspection was thorough, scientific, and complete. Neither did the Bill deal with domestic boilers. He had now laid before their Lordships the principal provisions of the Bill. He asked not that it should be passed into law this Session, but only that it should receive a very searching investigation at the hands of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. We had a great and, he believed, a growing evil to con-

  455
  tend with. He earnestly hoped that while acting by all right and legitimate means and without any inquisitorial investigations or anything which was in any degree in restriction of trade, their Lordships would, nevertheless, so far assert the principles he had endeavoured to propound as to give this Bill pro formâ a second reading. As he had said, he did not propose to proceed with it further this year, but he hoped what he had said would show their Lordships what a great evil existed and what dangers could be avoided. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there were one or two points on which he thought his noble Friend had failed to give information. He did not dispute that it was the duty of the State to interfere when such interference was beneficial for the saving of life and limb. The question was whether legislation in this direction had always been successful. His noble Friend had told them that there were 150,000 boilers of all kinds in the United Kingdom. Did he include in that number all farm engines? Did he include kitchen boilers?
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON: No.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But accidents occurred through kitchen boilers as well as other boilers. He wanted to know why, if the principle of the Bill were sound, it should not be extended to kitchen boilers? Then his noble Friend had not stated the number of deaths occasioned by the bursting of boilers that had induced the Government to bring in this Bill. His noble Friend told them that already we had in this country, by voluntary inspection, something like 70,000 boilers inspected out of the 150,000. His noble Friend likewise mentioned that State inspection, existed in other countries. He should have been glad if his noble Friend had shown the relative number of accidents in those countries as compared with this country. These were valuable data which they ought to have. He should also like to know how many inspectors would be appointed under this Bill, what would be the cost of inspection, and who would bear the cost? Would it come out of the
  456
  local rates or out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the pockets of the persons who owned the boilers? This was a Bill to enable the State to step in and do what individuals had hitherto done for themselves.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that as the noble Lord had not troubled the House with the statistics of the disasters which had happened, and as he was not going further with the Bill, he did not understand that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would be affirming its principle in any way. Their Lordships were in total ignorance of the extent of the mischief intended to be removed; he, however, confessed he had a perfect horror of inspectors, who would have their own particular views up to which boiler makers would be acting, instead of, as at present, looking only to the improvement of boilers. In the circumstances he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, the number of cases which the Board of Trade had to deal with by Statute did not include collieries and mines, but he should hereafter propose that these be included. Apart from them there were 223 cases in five years, and 150 lives lost, or a yearly average of 44 cases and 30 lives. He could not at present state what was the percentage with regard to population in the inspected countries. But he would do his best to obtain information on the subject. As regards our own country there were on board uncertificated ships which were not inspected by the Board of Trade 35 casualties and 54 lives lost in 10 years, while in the corresponding class of certificated ships there were only seven, casualties and only 19 lives lost. The noble and learned Lord opposite hoped that by assenting to the second reading; their Lordships would not be understood to affirm the principle of the Bill. He admitted that many matters both of principle and of detail might be objectionable. All he asked was that it should be understood that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would only commit themselves to an inquiry upon the subject, which inquiry would, he hoped, be followed by legislation.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Does the inspection extend to Her Majesty's ships?
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON: Certainly not.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRUCK BILL.—(No. 232.)
(The Lord Macnaghten.)
TRUCK BILL.—(No. 232.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading lead.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(the Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he could not allow this stage of the Bill to pass without a protest. There was a difference of opinion between the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill on the one hand, and himself on the other, as to the construction of Clause 3. If the opinion of his noble and learned Friends were correct, the clause interfered with freedom of contract, and for that interference not a reason had been given nor argument advanced.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 235.)

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 213.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would move to amend Clause 4 by omitting from the Bill certain word which he asked the House to insert in Committee, giving the magistrate, as the licensing authority, discretionary power in the matter of closing public-houses not earlier than 10 o'clock or later than 11 o'clock at night. He thought it only right to state the circumstances in which the Bill was when he consented to make the alteration. When the Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House it proposed that all public-
  458
  houses in Scotland should close at 10 o'clock. He had the advantage of hearing what could be said for and against the measure by noble Lords on the second reading, and ultimately he succeeded in devising an arrangement which appeared to him to be a fair compromise of the question. He gave Notice, after the second reading, of his intention to introduce an Amendment to the effect stated. No intimation was given by his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) as to what he intended doing. When they came to the Committee stage no Amendment was put down, but he obtained the insertion of the Amendment which he now proposed should be struck out. When they came to the Report stage his noble Friend put down an Amendment excluding from the operation of the Bill towns with a population of 50,000 and upwards, which, virtually operated as a second limitation to the Bill. The Amendment was inserted, and he had to ask their Lordships to dispense with the arrangement which he had proposed. Their Lordships would see what his grievance was. Had the Amendment of his noble Friend appeared side by side with his own he should not have moved his own, for the reason that it appeared to him a second limitation of the measure. That second limitation was one which he could not accept, and under those circumstances he had to ask their Lordships to allow the removal from the Bill of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out the words ("such hour at night of any day not earlier than ten and not later than eleven, as the licensing authority may direct") and insert instead thereof ("ten of the clock at night of any day ").—(The Earl of Camperdown)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, what the noble Earl had stated was perfectly true; and he thought the course which the noble Earl adopted in Committee was accepted by their Lordships as a compromise on the Bill as it came up to this House. He (the Marquess of Lothian) accepted the Bill on the second reading, but with the reservation that he would support the Amendment which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had stated he would give Notice of.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: He did not give Notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought the question did not admit of much doubt. When he accepted the noble Earl's Amendment he did so under reservation that he should accept it accompanied by the Amendment of which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches gave Notice. He thought it was a pity that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches did not put down, his Amendment for the Committee, so that their Lordships might have had an opportunity of considering them both together. He regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) now asked to withdraw his Amendment; for he quite agreed with him that it was a compromise. But he could not agree with him that the exemption of the towns with over 50,000 inhabitants took away from the effect of that compromise. It seemed to him that that compromise was an exceedingly valuable one, and it was as valuable in principle now as it was before. The exemption of these towns did not affect the principle, as it would be applied to the rest of the country; and he thought that with regard to many of the towns under 50,000 inhabitants the noble Earl's Amendment would be valuable. On the West Coast, for example, there were certain towns where it would be very desirable for certain periods of the year that licensed premises should be open till after 10 o'clock, although, in other periods of the year, 10 o'clock would be late enough. If the noble Earl's (the Earl of Camperdown's) Amendment was withdrawn, there would be a hard-and-fast line throughout the whole of Scotland for closing at 10 o'clock, except in the towns of over 50,000. He did not think the noble Earl had given a sufficient reason to induce them to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYwished to say one word at this moment, especially in connection with the vote he gave on the Report stage. He then voted with his noble Friend opposite, and for once he was opposed to his noble Friend on the Cross Benches. He took the Bill as it then was, and he saw that it enacted that the licensing authorities in every district, whether county or burgh, should determine themselves what the hour of closing should be—
  460
  whether it should be 10 or 11 o'clock. He could not see, therefore, why his noble Friend on the Cross Benches should think it necessary to enforce the hour of 11 in all towns of over 50,000 inhabitants. Therefore, by his vote he desired to put every district of Scotland under the jurisdiction of this particular licensing authority. Having supported his noble Friend opposite on that occasion when he wanted to have the hour in each district governed by local authority, the noble Earl in this, the last stage, asked to upset that arrangement. Therefore, though he supported him on the last occasion, he should feel it his duty to vote against him on this occasion, because he proposed now to alter his own honestly reforming clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Earl of WEMYSS, the following Schedule of towns, with their adjacent suburbs in some places, as the towns to be exempted, were inserted:—Edinburgh, Glasgow, including Crosshill; Kinning Park, Pollockshields, Pollockshields East, Govan, Govanhill, Hillhead, Maryhill, Partick, Greenock, including Gourock; Leith, Aberdeen, Dundee, Paisley.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, after the action their Lordships had taken, he did not propose to make any further Motion with regard to this Bill. As he had already stated to their Lordships, he proposed for their consideration an arrangement which appeared to him to be a very reasonable and fair compromise. That, unfortunately, had not commended itself to their Lordships. Another Amendment had been introduced, which, as he said on the second reading, had given a further limitation to the Bill. It went very much further. It absolutely excluded from the provisions of the Bill the chief towns. An Amendment to the same effect was introduced in the other House; but it was disagreed to by a very large majority of the Scotch Members; and, in the circumstances, he did not propose to make any further Motion on the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he must express his regret that his noble Friend should have thought it necessary to have practically withdrawn his Bill, because, upon the whole, he thought it very desirable that the measure should not be

  461
  allowed to drop. At first he was under the impression that the Bill should not have been brought forward at all; but that the promoters should have waited until the Government produced their measure on the whole subject of local government, whenever that might be. Now, he considered that the Bill, as it stood, was a fair compromise; and, in spite of what his noble Friend had said, he believed that it might have worked practically, and, at all events, it would have been a test Bill with regard to the discretionary power of licensing within the certain limits fixed in the measure. It would thus have been exceedingly useful as preparatory to a general measure. He could not but express his great regret that his noble Friend should consider it necessary practically to withdraw the Bill. He desired to know whether the Government intended to take any action with regard to the Bill which was now, in consequence of the course pursued by his noble Friend, in a condition of suspense?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought that the course pursued by the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) was not a very desirable one, and he should like a little time to consider what course, under the circumstances, should be adopted. He therefore did not propose at the present time to take any action with regard to the Bill, but would leave it at its present stage. The Bill would consequently still appear among the Orders of the Day.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought the House had some right to insist on a more specific answer as to the intention of the Government. He would appeal to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government for a more definite statement. The proposition of the Bill was perfectly simple, and he thought the noble Marquess ought to give them some definite information on the point. He thought they would admit that they had not much leading from the noble Marquess up to very nearly the last stage of the Bill, and he thought at the point which they had now reached they ought to be told what the Government intended to do.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(The Marquess of SALISBURY): I have been educated in the careful school of the noble Earl opposite (Earl
  462
  Granville), which enjoins a Minister never to give an answer to a Question without Notice, and I am afraid on this occasion I must ask time to consider.
  Question, "That the Bill do pass," to be put To-morrow.

SOCIALISM—RECENT LEGISLATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in rising to call attention to Socialistic legislation during the Sessions 1886–7, said, that two years ago he had brought before their Lordships the legislation of the preceding 15 years, and last year he had given Notice that he should bring to the attention of the House the Socialistic legislation of the Session. But he had been unable to do so in consequence of the untimely close of the Session. He was bringing forward this question because the Upas tree of Socialism, planted by Mr. Gladstone in 1870 in Ireland, was now overshadowing our land, and attracting every kind of bird of prey to roost in its branches. We were now going rapidly down the road without any kind of drag or check. He had entertained some hope that his noble Friends on the Government Bench would have acted as a drag upon proposals of this character. But whether it was the necessities of the political situation, or, as the noble Marquess had confessed with cynical candour, the necessity of buying the Ulster vote, Conservatism nowadays appeared to be nothing but the fifth wheel in the Socialistic coach. He could not but admire his noble Friend's foreign policy; but with respect to home affairs he was afraid that the whip and the reins were in other hands. We had now, in fact, the rivalry between the two Parties in the promotion of measures of this character, which had been predicted by the late Professor Fawcett. Now, what was Socialism? It was difficult to define, and the eminent Belgian economist, M. de Laveleye, had said that there was no such thing as a definition of Socialism. He himself, two years ago, had divided Socialism into three classes—first, the Socialism of the streets; secondly, the Socialism of the professors; and, thirdly, the Socialism of the statesman and of the Senate. In this country, happily, we had little to fear from the Socialism of the streets; and, as to the professors, the mass of the people shared in the healthy contempt expressed for that class of men by

  463
  Prince Bismarck. It was also worthy of notice that however free the professors might be in respect of the property of others, they were careful enough to preserve their own, for in their published writings there was printed on the title-page, "All rights reserved." As he said, the real danger lay in the competition of statesmen to produce measures in curtailment of individual liberty, and in the direction of the confiscation of property. That sort of legislation was, of course, brought forward under pretext of protecting the weak against the strong. The first principle of legislation ought to be to support the weak, to maintain obedience to the law, and to enforce payment of just debts. But that was not the policy of the day. The policy of the day was nominally to protect the weak; but it was really a truckling and "cottoning" to the strong—a truckling to the Saxon with his vote, and to the Irish tenant with his gun. The legislation of the present day was, as had been said of Providence, always on the side of the big battalions. There was a marked contrast between the Socialism of foreign countries and the Socialism of England. Foreign Socialists theorized, held meetings, and passed resolutions, but they practically had no influence on the legislation of their different countries. But, in England, the resolutions passed by the great congresses of trade unions and kindred gatherings of working men were very soon embodied in legislation. He recollected putting a leading question on this subject some years ago to the German Ambassador, Count Münster, and asking him whether it was not the opinion on the Continent that England would be the first country in which Socialism would become the law of the land, and his answer was—"Oh, yes; on the Continent we all think and say so." Since that time the progress on the Socialistic slide in the matter of legislation had been rapid. Think of the state of things in 1870. Lord Palmerston, who said that tenant right was landlord wrong, was dead only a few years. There was no question in 1870 of the three F's; contracts were free and as sacred as the Church was considered to be down to pre-Gladstonian times. But nowadays in almost all Bills contract was interfered with. Hardly an Act of Parliament passed that did not contain those
  464
  words that so-and-so should be law, "all contracts to the contrary notwithstanding;" and when they came to the legislation with regard to land in Ireland and in the North of Scotland, they would suppose that the Bills were of such a character that they must have been drafted by a new Parliamentary firm, formed of Jack Sheppard, Dick Turpin, and Barabbas, under the guidance and the authority of the Unjust Steward. As in that parable of the Unjust Steward, the Irish tenant was asked, "How much owest thou?" "£100." "Then take the Land Bill, and sit down quickly, and write £50." Now he held in his hand a list of the Bills which had been introduced of late years. He did not say that some of those measures were not more or less harmless, unobjectionable, or even, perhaps, desirable. But they all proceeded on the principle of the State legislating for everybody in everything, interfering with trade, commerce, and manufactures, forbidding contracts, or prescribing contracts, and, in fact, embodying proposals which 25 years ago no man in his senses would have dreamed of proposing. Both Conservatives and Liberals had had their fair share in this kind of legislation. Of measures dealing with lands and houses, mines, railways, ships, manufactures, the trade in alcohol, education, recreation, he found that there were, between 1870 and 1874, 27 Acts, between 1875 and 1879 there were two less, while between 1880 and 1884 there were 40. In 1885 there were 26 Bills of a Socialistic character; in 1886 there were 53 Bills and five Acts, and in 1887 the number rose to 107, of which 44 were backed by Conservatives, and 63 by Liberals. Of Bills affecting lands and houses there were 39, of which 12 were Conservative and 27 Liberal. They were told that the great solution of the Irish Question was the abolition of dual ownership, but in point of fact, from 1870 downwards, they had been doing their best to create dual ownership. There was an Agricultural Holdings Bill brought in by the Liberals by means of which the tenant, in defiance of his contract, was to be entitled in certain circumstances to a reduction of rent. Again, there was an Agricultural Labourers' (Wages) Bill, prohibiting the wages of the labourer being paid in

  465
  beer, cider, or alcoholic drinks; and then there was a Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill brought in by Conservatives, giving a lessee the right of purchasing the freehold by compulsion, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. Then there was a Bill before Parliament proscribing what the royalties were to be which the owner of a mine was to exact, and either by that Bill or another one, where the owner did not work his property, but left it dormant, which might be the best thing for him to do, he was to be compelled to lease or work it. Then there was a delightful Bill called the Rod Fishing Bill—a Liberal Bill—very Liberal, for it gave the public unrestricted access along the banks of all streams and lochs in Scotland, except where there was a riparian garden not exceeding 10 acres in extent, to allow them to fish with rod and line for any fish except salmon. Not only did the Bill contain this provision, but there was also a clause by which, unless the owner provided a pathway, he was to have no compensation for damages to crops or fences. Then there was the Agricultural Labourers' Holidays Bill, which was worse than the Plantagenets, because, if they prescribed what wages should be, they prescribed that a man should work for those wages; but this Bill prescribed wages to be paid for clays on which no work was to be done. The Crofters Act, again, introduced by a Conservative Government, contained two new principles, which were not to be found even in the Irish Land Bill—namely, the doing away with debt in the shape of arrears; and, secondly, the compulsory leasing of land. The unpractical character of the Waste Land Compulsory Cultivation Bill was shown in its very title; the land was at present waste, and if it was cultivated, it must be cultivated at somebody's loss, either that of the ratepayer or the individual. If there had been a possibility of the land paying, it would have been cultivated long ago. The Allotments Bill meant the compulsory taking of private property at the cost of the rates, as a bribe to the agricultural voters. In that Bill they had laid down some things which went much further than ever had been dreamed of before, and he could not believe that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor could have seen this Bill, which em-
  466
  powered land to be bought for allotments, not only for the agricultural labourers, but for the suburban population as well, living on the outskirts of a town, who were now to be found gardens at the expense of the rates. If it was necessary for anyone to have gardens, it was for those who lived in the heart of a city. All this legislation was ridiculous, absurd, impracticable, and most extravagant; and he did not know from which side of the House the worst measures came. There was the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which prescribed that bandages and stretchers should be kept where there were a certain number of workmen, and that where there were fewer it should not be necessary. This Bill would lessen the sense of personal responsibility among mineowners. Then the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill was a retrospective measure, which took away rights in a manner which would be impossible under the American Constitution. Whatever they went in for in that way of business always had to be supplemented by further legislation. Sir John Lubbock's Early Closing Bill was the first attempt on the part of Parliament to prescribe the hours during which full-grown men, sane men, were to work; and he would remind their Lordships that Mr. Hyndman had said that he looked to the time when Parliament would prescribe that three hours should be the amount of a man's day's work. The Technical Instruction Bill provided for the establishment of schools where modelling wood, carving, and other instruction was to be given, including "musical drill." Now, "musical drill" meant dancing, though it probably would not look well that it should appear as dancing in the curriculum, and be paid for out of the rates; so that "musical drill" was simply dust thrown in the eyes of the ratepayers. He found also that, in the evening schools, Welsh was to be taught, so that the language of "gallant little Wales" would not die out. The moral to be drawn from this kind of legislation was that our liberty was being lost, and that public policy was being made an apology for private plunder. According to the French saying. La démocratie c'est l'envie, and it might be added c'est le vol; and though the attack of the Socialists in this country had commenced against the land, capitalists and traders

  467
  and manufacturers ought to awaken to the fact that their turn would certainly come. On the Continent the Socialistic war was against the bourgeois and all employers of labour. The most manifest instance of the failure of this class of legislation was in Ireland, where, after a series of measures confiscating the landlords' property, failure stared the Government in the face, and those who were sought to be conciliated remained unconciliated. Those who were responsible for these measures ought to suffer the keenest of all remorse—the remorse of feeling that crimes had been committed in vain. He was sorry that the Front Opposition Bench was not more fully occupied — [Lord DENMAN and Lord MOUNT-TEMPLE were the sole occupants]—for a few nights ago his observations in defence of freedom of contract were received with sneers and jeers by noble Lords sitting on that Bench. The principle of free contract, which was the very soul of commercial enterprise, was barred in every possible way, nominally for the sake of the welfare of the masses, but really for the purchase of votes. Both sides of politicians were responsible, but the tone of the two differed materially. There was a time not so very long since when the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston walked in the path of economic virtue. In 1870, however, they went after Mr. Gladstone, just as the Jews, according to Scripture, went after strange gods, and had gone from bad to worse, until they now found them—politically—soliciting every man who could vote. If he thought that this change of views was due to a bonâ fide conviction on their part he would respect them; but it was known that that was not the case. Their conversion was as sudden as that of St. Paul; but it was not brought about by a light from heaven, but by the flash of an Irish murderer's gun, which they had not got the courage to face. The Conservative Party now appeared to have gone in for the same line of business; but they, at least, had the decency not to sneer and jeer at those who, however feebly, endeavoured to uphold the sound economic doctrines of the past, which, until recently, had been the basis of all legislation. He had said that there was nothing to dread from the Socialism of the street and the froth and scum thrown
  468
  off there. The Socialism of the stree was not making considerable progress in this country. At the same time, there was something significant in the meetings which were held in Hyde Park, one of which assembled yesterday near the Marble Arch, and in the great number of debating clubs in which Socialistic doctrines were advocated. In many of these clubs there was a close imitation of Parliamentary forms—there was a Government and an Opposition and Ministers of State. There was one in particular, which met near where their Lordships were assembled, and was called the Charing Cross Debating Society. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury was Mr. Champion; Mrs. Besant also held office; and the Chief Secretary was the Rev. Stewart Headlam, editor of The Christian Society. [The noble Earl then read extracts from the Queen's Speech, in which deep regret was expressed at the unequal distribution of property, at the luxury of the rich and idle classes, which tended to the depression of the poor, and to the wasteful and unbusinesslike management of Public Departments.] Taking all these symptoms into consideration, and taking also into consideration the conduct of Members of Parliament, and even some Members of their Lordships' House, he could not think that the outlook was very encouraging. Where, then, were we to look for hope? He believed there was still hope, and that hope was to be found in the conduct of the great body of the people on the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, when it was clearly demonstrated how thorough was the loyalty and how sound the heart of the people of this country. It was not to the Leaders in political life that we must look. They must look elsewhere. In a speech made in "another place" by a man of conspicuous ability and great oratorical power, who possessed immense influence with the masses of the people, he was glad to find the true doctrines of self-reliance and individual responsibility laid down with great force. In a speech against the proposal to prohibit the work of pit-brow women, Mr. Bradlaugh denounced the attempt to make men and women moral by legislation, and spoke of the general tendency in modern times to diminish the sense of personal responsibility. It was to men

  469
  like Mr. Bradlaugh, and not to the occupants of the two Front Benches, that we must look for the enforcement of just and sound principles on such questions as the non-interference of the State in private bargains. If the Government had the courage to speak out as Mr. Bradlaugh had done, and to say that legislation was hurtful which checked individual enterprize, or diminished commercial responsibility—hurtful above all to those for whose supposed benefit it was carried, then, in the midst of this Socialistic legislation, which was sweeping away all the old landmarks of enlightened legislation, they need not despair. In conclusion, he thanked their Lordships for having listened so patiently to what he could not help making a long story.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extending the right of voting at Parliamentary elections to duly qualified women —Was presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a. (No. 236.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.