Sitting of 17 August 1887

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Huntingdonshire (Ramsey Division), v. William Henry Fellowes, esquire, now Lord de Ramsey, called up to the House of Peers.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Coal Mines, &c. Regulation [130]—R.P.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 130.]
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart- Wortley.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 16 th August,]
  [SIXTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 130.]

    PART II.
    General Rules.
    Clause 50 (General rules).

    PART II.

      Rule 33—Stretchers.
      MR. BURT: I wish to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell)—namely, to leave out General Rule 33, for the purpose of inserting—
      "Where persons are employed underground, ambulances or stretchers, with splints and bandages, shall be kept at the mine ready for immediate use in case of accident."
      The Rule provides that—
      "Where more than fifty persons are usually employed underground, stretchers and bandages shall be kept at the mine for use in case of accident."
      I trust that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. It was one of the matters agreed upon at the Conference, and it has been urged again and again at the conferences of the workmen. It is scarcely necessary to point out that it is of the utmost importance, whenever an accident occurs, for those who may be injured to receive immediate attention. It is well known that when accidents have occurred deaths have frequently resulted on account of the want of appliances in the mine for the conveyance of injured persons to their homes. I am sure that hon. Members who are connected with the Army will be interested in this question, and will support my proposal, which is dictated in the interests of common sense and humanity. It is not necessary that I should make an elaborate speech; but I certainly regard the matter as one which deserves the serious consideration of the Committee.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 34, leave out general rule 33, and insert—"Where persons are employed underground, ambulances or stretchers, with splints and bandages, shall be kept at the mine ready for immediate use in case of accident."—(Mr. Burt.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): In introducing the Rule I had the same purpose in view as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and it certainly appears to be desirable that that object should be carried out. My desire has been entirely
      832
      that of the hon. Member; but I understand that he prefers his own proposal. I would suggest, however, that he should strike out of the Amendment the reference to "splints," because no unskilled person could apply splints properly, and I am afraid that a sufficient amount of knowledge and skill could not be found among ordinary workmen in a mine. The Amendment refers to the use of ambulances. I had ambulances in my mind; but I did not use the word, because it conveys the idea of a carriage or a vehicle of some kind, and in a great number of the mines it would be impracticable to employ vehicles. I thought it would be better to use the more technical words "stretchers upon which any wounded man maybe carried." I desire to assist the hon. Member as far as possible; but I can assure him that in many of the mines it would be altogether impracticable to use ambulances. Many of the roadways are too narrow for anything of the kind. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of retaining the word "stretchers" and striking out "ambulances."
      MR. BURT: I fully recognize the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendment, and I admit the force of his objection in regard to the use of the word "splints." At the same time, I adhere to the opinion I have expressed that in some cases an ambulance is necessary. I quite see that splints may be useless unless there is a medical man to apply them. All I desire, however, is that they should be placed in the mine so that they may be available whenever it is practicable. With regard to ambulances, I speak from personal experience. I have known cases of men who have been injured having to be carried a considerable distance without any provision existing in the colliery for their proper conveyance, and the result has been that they have suffered severely from being shaken about.
      SIR WALTER FOSTER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees to the word "splints?"
      MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, as far as I am personally concerned.
      MR. TOMLINSON: While I am in favour of every practical remedy and appliance being provided, I am of opinion that care ought to be taken not

      833
      to require the mineowners to do things that are impossible.
      MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.): May I point out that there is an alternative? The Amendment says 'ambulances or stretchers."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Rule, as amended, agreed to.
      Rule 34—Wilful damage.
      Rule agreed to.
      Rule 35—Observance of directions.
      Rule agreed to.
      Rule 36 —Books and copies thereof.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. A. J. Williams) is not in Order. These are not special rules for a particular mine, but general rules.
      MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: Then, at what stage of the Committee can I bring my Amendment forward?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may bring it up as a new clause.
      MR. PICKARD: The next Amendment is in my name; but I must point out that there is a slight error in it which, perhaps, the Committee will allow me to correct. I propose to leave out the second word "at" in line 27, after the word "office," and insert the words "and in." The rule will then read in this way—
      "The books mentioned in these Rules shall he provided by the owner, agent, or manager, and the books, or a correct copy thereof, shall be kept at the office and in the mine, and any Inspector under this Act, and any person employed in the mine may at all reasonable times inspect and take copies of, and extracts from any such books; but nothing in these rules shall be construed to impose the obligation of keeping any such book or copy thereof for more than 12 months after the book has ceased to be used for enteries therein under the Act."
      My contention is that these books should be kept in the mine as well as in the office.
      Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 27, after "office," leave out "at," and insert "and in."—(Mr. Pickard.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'at' stand part of the Rule."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I must point out that this is a general rule, and that there are many mines in the country in which it would be impossible to have any office under ground in which the books could be kept. I admit that there are various
      834
      things which cannot be dealt with by a general rule, but it may be dealt with by special rules. There are, however, many mines in which books could not be kept.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Why not?
      MR. MATTHEWS: For instance, they could not be kept in proper preservation in a place where there is a large quantity of dripping water. The question is one which ought to be dealt with by a special rather than a general rule, because this rule applies to all mines, and it cannot be suggested that in every mine throughout the country it is either practicable or desirable to keep books.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As a matter of construction, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that words might be inserted imposing an obligation upon the mine-owners to establish an office in every mine. I would suggest that it would be quite sufficient to say that wherever there is an office it should be necessary to keep the books there.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. MASON: I have to move in the same Rule, in line 29, after "mine," to insert "or anyone having the written authority of any Inspector or person so employed." I know that the miners attach great importance to this Amendment, and I trust that the Government will accept it.
      Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 28. after "mine," insert "or anyone having the written authority of any Inspector or person so employed."—(Mr. Mason.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): Of course, the workmen would have the right to inspect the hooks under this clause; but it might not be altogether desirable in all cases to allow the books to be inspected by strangers.
      MR. MASON: In the event of an accident occurring a workman may be injured, and may not be able to inspect the books for himself. These books are not of any secret nature, and I think it is desirable that the relatives of the workman, for instance, should have a right of examining them.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Surely a fellow workman could act for a wounded man. The Amendment, I am afraid, would admit any stranger, which I think would be objectionable.
      MR. MASON: An injured miner may have friends outside the mine who would be able to give him considerable help in the matter, and as these books are in no respect secret, it may be of importance that persons acting for the workman should have power to inspect, for instance, the registers kept in the mine. In many cases it may be desirable that there should be an inspection of the books, in order to satisfy the families of injured men in regard to the real facts of the case.
      MR. A. J.WILLIAMS: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) that it is desirable to give the workmen the power of appointing some independent person to go down the mine and inspect the books. There is a great deal more in the Amendment than appears at first sight. I know there is a strong feeling among the miners, especially in large mines upon this point. Many of them are anxious to have a periodical inspection, but they feel that unless this were made compulsory it might be considered ungracious on their part to send in an unfavourable Report. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and will consent to make the inspection compulsory.
      MR. JOICEY: I hope the Government will give way, because I cannot see the slightest weight in the objection they have taken to the Amendment. At the same time, I do not see that this right of inspection will be of any practical benefit to the miners.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Rule, as amended, agreed, to.
      Rule 37—Periodical inspection on behalf of workmen.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire(Mr. Pickard), does not seem to me to be admissible. It would make the Rule applicable to particular mines, whereas it is proposed to be inserted as a general rule.
      MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: The next Amendment is in my name. It is a very small Amendment—namely, to leave out
      836
      "may" in Rule 37, in order to insert "shall." The Rule says—
      "The persona employed in a mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine at their own cost, and the persons so appointed shall be allowed, once at least in every month, accompanied, if the owner, agent, or manager of the mine thinks fit, by himself or one or more officers of the mine, to go to every part of the mine, and to inspect the shafts, levels, places, working places, return airways, ventilating apparatus, old workings, and machinery. Every facility shall be afforded by the owner, agent, and manager, and all persons in the mine for the purpose of the inspection; and the persons appointed shall make a true report of the result of the inspection, and their report shall be recorded in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and shall be signed by the persons who made the inspection; and if the report state the existence, or apprehended existence, of any danger, the owner, agent, or manager shall forthwith cause a true copy of the report to be sent to the Inspector of the district."
      My Amendment, instead of making this provision permissive, will render it compulsory. These inspections, to my mind, are the most important inspections that can be made. Representing as I do a large mining constituency, I know, as a matter of fact, that the inspections are not carried on periodically, and there is a strong impression that the men do not like to make them. In my opinion, they ought to have sufficient courage and independence to enable them to carry on an inspection, seeing that their lives and safety are in their own hands. If the Government oppose the Amendment, I have no wish to press it; but I must express nay firm conviction that, unless these inspections are regularly made, this clause, in nine cases out of 10, will be a dead letter. I beg, therefore, to move this Amendment, which will make it obligatory that every colliery shall be inspected by the workmen once a month.
      Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 36, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Rule."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I entirely share the views of the hon. Member that in every colliery this work of inspection should be periodically undertaken. I believe that nothing would more readily tend to promote a good understanding between the employers and the men. The hon. Member, however, proposes to insert "shall" instead of "may,"

      837
      but this is one of the instances in which the words at the beginning of the clause, "so far as is reasonably practicable" come in. What are to be the consequences to the workmen themselves if they do not make this inspection periodical? Are proceedings to be taken against them if they have failed to do it? Is it the object of the hon. Member, in inserting this word "shall," to authorize the taking into custody for the purpose of having them fined and proceeded against by summary jurisdiction, of workmen who have failed to comply with this rule? That is one objection against making the rule imperative—namely, the difficulty of enforcing the demand. I do not think that we could trust to any summary jurisdiction to compel an inspection on the part of the workmen. If workmen are to be fined for not making the inspection, they would certainly look upon the rule with disapprobation and disgust. I certainly think it will be better to authorize and empower the workmen to make an inspection without compelling them to do so. Whenever they think there is danger they will have the right of demanding an inspection, and of making an investigation into the matter themselves.
      MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the inspection to be made by other working-men I would accept that alteration, but I attach, very great importance to this power of making the inspection imperative.
      MR. BURT: I entirely sympathize with the object my hon. Friend has in view in moving the Amendment; and I also agree with him in attaching the utmost importance to an inspection by the workmen. I advocated the principle at the time it was imported into the existing Act, and I think it is one of the most valuable provisions of that Act. Whenever I have had an opportunity I have endeavoured to impress upon the workmen the importance and duty of carrying it out; but when my hon. Friend goes to the extent of making the inspection compulsory, I would point out to him that there are practical difficulties in the way. Wherever the workmen are organized, and have trades unions—whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the value of trades unions—this work of inspection is usually
      838
      carried out. But where you have no such organization how are you to do it? Would you institute proceedings against individual workmen because, unless you impose some penalty, and endeavour to make the rule effective, there would be very little advantage in inserting it in the Act. For this reason I think the Amendment is impracticable. But my hon. Friend has done good service in calling the attention of the workmen to the importance of availing themselves of this provision. If I disagree with my hon. Friend in this matter, I fully appreciate the valuable services he rendered to the miners in connection with the Royal Commission, and I know of no one who has done more to secure the protection of life and property in mines. At the same time, I do not think that it would be desirable to bring in workmen and others who are not employed in the mine, and allow them to inspect the works. I think that that would be very undesirable.
      MR.A.J.WILLIAMS: After what my hon. Friend has said, I shall not insist upon the Amendment, but will withdraw it at once. My hon. Friend spoke about the action of trades unions. Unfortunately the time has not yet arrived when, the workmen in all the mines have been thoroughly organized, but I believe that the system of trades unions is being very rapidly developed.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I propose in the same rule to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr-Tydvil, (Mr. C. James) —namely, to leave out the words "of their number," in order to insert "practical miners." The rule provides that "the miners employed in the mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine." Now this is an Amendment which, in my opinion, is of very considerable consequence to those parts of the country where the organization which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Morpeth is not as perfect as it is in Northumberland, Durham, and parts of Wales. In many of the mines very great difficulties have been experienced in getting men to consent to take upon themselves what is regarded as the invidious duty of inspecting the arrangements made by

      839
      their employers. They feel that if by doing so they offend the employers, oven if at the moment they may not be visited with pains and penalties, yet they may possibly in the future suffer from having put themselves forward in the matter of inspecting the mine. It is very much like the case of the Greek warrior who wanted to be protected from the wrath of Agamemnon for all time. It is for a similar reason that the men desire to be able to appoint men who are beyond the reach of the mine-owner, whose anger the men themselves are afraid of incurring. Although it may not be a matter of much consequence where the miners' organization is very powerful, and they are able to assert their rights and impose their will upon the employer, yet it is of very great consequence in Scotland and parts of England where the organization of the miners is very weak, and where an inspection of this kind is only undertaken with fear and trembling.
      Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 37, leave out "of their number," and insert "practicalminers."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'of their number' stand part of the Rule."
      SIR WALTER FOSTER: If the Amendment is accepted, it may result in the appointment of men to inspect the mine who are not themselves working in the particular mine which it is proposed to inspect. If the appointment of such men be considered undesirable, then I think it would be better to leave these words in, and add after the words "two of their number" the words "being practical miners."
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The object I desire to effect is, that the men appointed shall not necessarily be employed in the mine.
      MR. T. D. BOLTON: The difficulty may be met by saying "two of their number, or two practical miners," so that it would cover the case of men who are not strong enough to act by themselves. I know that that state of matters does exist in some parts of the country, and that the men in reality do not dare to appoint two of their number to make the necessary inspection. Under these circumstances, I would ask the hon. Gentle-
      840
      man to substitute "or two practical miners."
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I trust the hon. Member will accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton). This very point of having two men appointed who are not employed in the mine is a matter which the miners of Scotland specially insist upon. They do not charge anything against the mine-owners, nor are they anxious to fight the matter on personal grounds. They make no insinuation that they are subject to intimidation; but there are men who have been accustomed all their lives to treat their managers and owners as a sort of superior beings, and they cannot bring themselves to act contrary to their wishes, even when they know that justice and right are on their side. I may say that a proposal to this effect was adopted unanimously in the miners conference, and that it is invariably carried out where the miners organization is strong enough to insist upon inspection.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am ready to accept the suggested Amendment, but I think it would be practically nugatory, because, if we say "two practical miners," it would still be open to the workmen to choose any two of their own number.
      MR. T. D. BOLTON: My desire is that the men themselves should appoint two of their own number, and this is an instruction to them to do so, and in doing so, they would be able to appoint two practical miners who were connected with, other mines. I think it is desirable that they should have the power of appointing two men other than those who are working in the mine.
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: There is no objection on the part of the mineowners to an inspection of the mine by the workmen, and it is desirable that they should make such, an inspection, but the reason the workmen very rarely avail themselves of the rule, is simply because they are not paid for conducting an inspection. If they were entitled to be paid for their work, as examiners are, that fact might, I think, prevent any difficulty.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: The object of giving the workmen this power is to enable them to ascertain accurately the state of the

      841
      mine. That is the object of this general rule, and if you are to appoint two practical miners to discharge the duty, I do not think that you ought to be tied down to the very mine in which the men are employed. I have no desire to use any harsh expression upon the subject, but I could mention a few cases where men employed in the mine, having made an examination of this kind, have been badly treated afterwards in consequence. As there is nothing to lose, and a very great deal to gain by the adoption of the Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will concede the point.
      MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: An inspection by the men themselves is worth all the other inspection put together; but there is some doubt whether, as the clause now stands, that sort of inspection could be frequently carried out. I am sensible of the force of the objections which have been urged by the Home Secretary to the proposal that the inspection should be compulsory. I am prepared to admit that the inspection cannot be made compulsory, but I think it is our duty to provide for an inspection in some other manner. Now, in Lanarkshire and in other parts of the United Kingdom where there is not a strong organization among the miners themselves, this power to inspect the mine by the working men is a completely a dead letter, and until Parliament revives it and makes it cease to be a dead letter, and a really useful and effective enactment, it will be impossible to put any Mines Regulation Bill upon a practical and satisfactory footing. I would, therefore urge upon the Committee the propriety of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal as it is proposed to be amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton).
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: As I understand the objection of the hon. Member for Morpeth, it is against taking men from one mine to inspect another. My own opinion is that it would be highly objectionable to give power, in this Bill, to the miners to make an inspection from time to time, and then to allow them to decline to make the inspection themselves, but to bring in their neighbours without limit. If we enact provisions of that
      842
      nature, it will be clear that the miners themselves are unfit to protect their own lives and interests. Let me ask what the Government inspection has been established for? The Government Inspector is bound to come whenever he is called upon by the men working in the mine in order to save them from the kind of obloquy which appears to have attached to them in Scotland, but which certainly does not attach to them in any other place that I know of. All I can say is that I could at this moment lay my hand on at least 500 miners who are capable of passing an examination in scientific attainments. Indeed, I should be prepared to-morrow to find 80,000 miners in the North of England who are enrolled in the very best Provident Societies. As a matter of fact, I do not know many cases where I could not lay my hand upon a man who is quite as capable of sitting here as a Member of this House as I am myself, or any other hon. Member, and yet it seems to be inferred that working colliers are such fools that they cannot be trusted to look after their own lives and interests. I believe that before many years have passed this measure will be looked upon as a thing belonging to the past, and as being applicable only to a very crude state of society. I am certain it will be found that there are many men among the large body of working miners who are far better able to take care of their own interests than 670 Members sitting in this House. I cannot help thinking that the attempt we are now making to nurse these men is altogether uncalled for. Are we to take them to their work, and put their comforters around their necks, bring them back when their day's labour is ended, and tuck them up in their beds at night? This is a kind of grandmotherly legislation which I do not think the men themselves will appreciate.
      MR. PICKARD: I rise to support the Amendment. I speak only of Yorkshire, because I know more about Yorkshire than any other county; and I feel convinced that when this measure has passed, and it is put in force, unless there is some such provision as this, the men who have been employed to examine the workings in a mine, and who have reported unfavourably of them, will be liable to be turned away either directly or indirectly from the colliery or pit in

      843
      which they have been working. It will be impossible for them to accept the terms which may be offered to them, and they will feel themselves bound to leave the colliery. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to talk about grandmotherly legislation; but I know that the Amendment is very necessary, because managers do put a gag on miners employed in the pit, and if any man chooses to speak his own mind, as certain as he does so the manager will lay hold of the fact as an excuse for getting rid of him. I therefore urge upon the Home Secretary, as he has already accepted many Amendments in the hope of making the Bill really workable, that he will place in the hands of the men themselves the power of looking after their own interests. At the present moment, although there is a permissive power of inspection, the miners themselves feel that unless they are thoroughly organized they are unable to do the work. I do not understand that the Government intend to appoint a large number of Sub-Inspectors in order to see that this work of inspection shall be more efficiently carried out than it is at present; and if they do not intend to entertain a proposal of that kind, this Amendment is absolutely necessary for the protection of the miners, and even for the protection of the mineowners themselves.
      MR. C. S. KENNY: So far as the inspection of mines is concerned, the existing staff of Inspectors is altogether inadequate, even to permit an annual examination of each mine. The hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) seems to doubt the necessity of examining the mine.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: No, no!
      MR. C. S. KENNY: I would only remind hon. Members that the Commission on Accidents in Mines reported strongly upon the great importance of an inspection of the mine; and year after year the Reports of the Inspectors have urged the necessity of an adequate and thorough inspection. I find that attention has been called to the violation of the principle involved in this clause, and also to the irritation which its exercise produces. We were told in the Report of the Inspectors for 1886 that over and over again this power of inspection was not exercised in the way in which it ought to have been. It was only in a comparatively few instances that any
      844
      inspection whatever was carried out, and the general feeling seems to have been that whenever an inspection has been made there has been a tendency, on the part of the employers, to make it unpleasant for the workmen. Even when, the inspection has taken place, it has been unsatisfactory, because the workmen themselves have evinced an inclination to excuse anything that they find to be wrong, and to make matters satisfactory to the masters. I think it is of the utmost importance that the miners should be able to appoint monthly Inspectors, and that they should have power to select men to peform the work of inspection who would be under no fear or terror, so far as the owners are concerned. We may be told, no doubt, that it is unreasonable to suppose that the mineowners will persecute men for giving a faithful Report; but I would submit to the Committee that the question is, whether this power is a reasonable one, and whether it does or does not exist? If it does exist, and an inspection takes place, the same evils will result, even if the power were real, and not imaginary.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I hope the Committee will not continue to discuss this small matter at any length.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This small matter?
      MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; it is a very small matter, when we consider the other important questions which are to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Morpeth has himself said that inspection, in order to be satisfactory, should be conducted by the men employed in the mine.
      MR. BURT: The right hon. Gentleman does me no injustice. I did express that opinion, and I adhere to it. I think it is best that the workmen who are employed in a particular mine should be the men to inspect that mine, and I must say that most of the cases which have been referred to are entirely outside my own experience. As a matter of fact, I believe the condition of things is such that the only satisfactory inspection should be conducted by the miners employed in a particular pit. But, at the same time, I do not think that any harm would result if the Home Secretary were to accept the Amendment, and, by so doing, concede that there are oases in which it is necessary that independent

      845
      outsiders should be brought in. It has been pointed out that whenever an action of that kind would be necessary it would only be so because the men who are working in a pit are so disorganized that they are incapable of protecting themselves. In such a ease it is likely that their interests would be better secured by getting men employed in other mines to conduct the inspection.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I am quite willing to meet the views of hon. Members opposite if I can. I quite agree with the importance of am examination of the mine by the working miners, and I am, therefore, willing to accept in substance the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, by inserting after "two of their number" the words "or any two practical working miners."
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: May I suggest to the Committee that the effect of this proposal would be to establish an independent and unofficial staff of examiners. I cannot say that I concur with the proposal to place this power of selecting examiners not employed in the mine in the hands of the working miners themselves, seeing that it will take away responsibility from the persons who ought to be held responsible—namely, the manager, the agent, and the mine-owner. I do not think it is advisable that that should be done.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that if the words were inserted "two of their number, or two practical working miners," it would suggest that two of their number were not practical working miners. I think it ought to be "two other practical miners."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert after "number" "or two other practical working miners."
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think it would be better to say "two practical working miners."
      MR. FENWICK: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that "two practical miners" would be preferable. I attach the greatest importance to retaining the words "two of their number."
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Those words are retained. The question
      846
      now is what words are to be inserted after the word "number."
      MR. FENWICK: Then I submit that "any two practical miners" ought to be the wording of the Amendment. If the Home Secretary can see his way to accept those works I think much valuable time may be saved. If he does not, I am afraid it will be necessary to have a debate which may extend to some length. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will prevent further waste of time by accepting the Amendment.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I made an offer to the Committee some time ago, and there is a very slight difference between the words I propose to accept and the words "two practical miners."
      MR. BRADLAUGH: The objection is a very simple one, because the Amendment which the Government propose to accept only provides that the men who are to be employed to inspect the mine shall be taken from some other pit than the pit which is to be examined, and there is a fear that the men selected under such circumstances, and who would, of course, be easily identified, may be made amenable to the discipline of the manager afterwards for the course they have taken.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to move an Amendment to omit from the Amendment the word "working." The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this question as being a very small matter. So far from sharing that opinion, I am prepared to say frankly that if this Amendment is not adopted, as far as I can see, the Bill will not be worth accepting, at any rate, in those portions of the country where the miners are not thoroughly organized. It is perfectly clear that if you have an efficient system of inspection by practical miners themselves, acting on behalf of working colliers in the mines, that you would have a safeguard which at present does not exist. I think this is the most practicable and useful provision which can possibly be inserted in the Bill, and I know that the men themselves are exceedingly anxious to secure it. They feel that if they are compelled to accept "two of their own number" in any particular mine, or if they are restricted to "two practical miners at present engaged in the working of a mine," they will not be placed in that position of perfect in-

      847
      dependence which they consider necessary to attain in order that the work may be efficiently done. If we insert the word "working" we confine the inspection to men actually employed in the mine. Everybody knows that it would be very simple for an employer to lay his hand on any particular individual employed in his own mine who might be selected to perform this invidious duty, and he would be able to point out to neighbouring mineowners that these individuals had been lending themselves to a system which was opposed to the interests of the employers as a body. The fear which such action may inspire would be fatal to any system of efficient inspection by the men or their representatives, and it would be just as fatal to have the men drawn from another pit as it would be for the inspection to be adopted by the men employed in the pit themselves. If you have a man who is a practical miner, and who has been a practical working miner for years past, and who has the confidence of the men who select him, what difference can it make for the purposes of inspection whether in the present week, or the present mouth, or the present year, he is engaged as a working miner? Indeed, I would suggest that it is far better that he should not be a working miner, but that he should be in a position of perfect independence in respect of all the employers of labour in the country. With this view, I beg to move the omission of the word "working."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "working."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'working' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I am glad to find that the Committee are coming round to my view. I think it would be very much better, if it is practicable, not to take a working miner employed in the colliery. I therefore think we should be doing a valuable service by omitting the word "working," because there are a considerable number of collieries in certain parts of the country which are not properly organized. I think the effect of adopting the Amendment would be that in some districts the men would
      848
      appoint practical working miners, who would become important additions to the body of official Inspectors, and who would really form an independent body of Inspectors. It is quite certain that the present staff of Inspectors would be altogether inadequate to discharge this duty; but I believe, further, that the colliers themselves would arrange to appoint thoroughly practical working miners to do the work, and that, in the end, the men so selected would be withdrawn from the work of the colliery, and would become the most important assistants to the work of inspection we could possibly get.
      MR. PICKARD: May I point out to the Home Secretary that in the event of a working miner being appointed to do continuous work of this kind, in the event of his going from one mine to another, the retention of the word "working" would place him in this position—that it would be impossible for him to examine any other mine than that in which he had been absolutely working himself.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I certainly entertain a strong objection to the omission of the word "working." If that word were excised, it would leave it open for any two practical miners who might be neighbouring mining engineers to be called in; and what I object to is that in that case it would not amount to an inspection by the workmen themselves. I am perfectly prepared to allow the working miners to appoint any two men of their own class they like; but we want to avoid any dispute among the workmen which might be involved by allowing the inspection of a colliery by mining engineers employed in neighbouring works. The words "any two practical miners not being mining engineers" would include all the secretaries of Trades Unions who have been practical miners, and would not involve the necessity of their being actually engaged in work at the time of their inspection. Mineowners do not object to an inspection being made by the men themselves; but what they want to avoid is that in any dispute among the workmen a colliery should be involved in an inspection by the engineer of a neighbouring mine.
      MR. PICKARD: That objection might be met by inserting the word "colliery."
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: The word "colliery" would not do, because we have ironstone mines, and the miners employed in them are not called "colliers."
      MR. FENWICK: The same objection might apply to the use of the word "mining engineer," because we do not regard a mining engineer as a miner. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle says the use of the word "colliery" is objectionable, and that there are many miners who are not colliers. But the term is one which is thoroughly understood. May I point out to the Home Secretary that if he insists upon including the word "working" in the Amendment, it will have the practical effect of prohibiting the miners in any district from selecting any of my hon. Friends around me to undertake an inspection of a mine, notwithstanding the fact that many of them have had very considerable experience in the working of mines. I submit that if the Amendment is carried in its present form, it will be quite open to any owner to object to any hon. Member of this House, however great his practical experience may have been. The effect of the Amendment would be to shut out myself and many of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector of a mine, although some of us have had 20 and 30 years' experience as working miners. I do not think that that is the intention of the Home Secretary; but I am afraid that it would be the effect of the Amendment if the word "working" is retained in it. I therefore trust that the right hon. Gentleman will feel inclined to drop that word.
      MR. MATTHEWS: The compromise which I offered to the Committee was that these inspections, if conducted by outsiders, should not be carried out by a class of professional men who are not really working miners. What I was anxious to secure was that the Inspectors should be men engaged in the actual working of a mine, and not amateur Inspectors. That is what is meant by the Amendment. I intend no more than that, and I think that no more is effected by it. Am I to understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they cannot trust the working miners employed in the mine themselves, and that, therefore, it is desirable to go outside, and to obtain the assistance of men who may
      850
      have been working miners, but who are professional men, not really engaged in the working of a mine?
      MR. FENWICK: I am sorry that the knowledge possessed by the right hon. Gentleman of the law and its administration is not such as to lead him to conclude that if the word "working" is retained in the Amendment it will be sufficient to prevent either myself or any of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector. I think any Lawyer would say that the retention of the word "working" would effectually prevent us from acting in any such capacity.
      MR. TOMLINSON: What we object to, and what we are not prepared to submit to under this clause, is that men who may have been working miners years ago should come in now as unauthorized Inspectors. It would provide no additional safety for the workmen that such men should be able to come in to inspect the mine when their knowledge may be altogether out of date. I do not see why we should allow such persons any greater latitude than men who are practical working colliers employed in the mine.
      MR. WARMINGTON: I must take exception to the law as it has been laid down by the Home Secretary. I doubt very much whether any Court of Law could be got to say that a working miner is a different person from a man working in a mine. That being so, I would suggest that we should have a practical miner, or a practical person who is, or has been, a working miner, and who has been so within a reasonable period. I think that would meet the views of my hon. Friends; but if we leave in the words "working miner," the person appointed as Inspector must be a person who at that moment is working in the mine.
      MR. T. D. BOLTON: I should like to point out to the Home Secretary what would be the effect of this Amendment without the word "working." All these men could do would be to report the state of the mine, and if danger is apprehended to call the attention of the Inspector of the district to that danger. That is the entire amount of their power. Then what possible harm could it do if this report is made by a man who is a practical miner, but who at the actual time at which he makes his inspection is not working in connection with any

      851
      mine? I hope the Home Secretary will, take that point into consideration, and will allow this discussion to close by withdrawing the word "working," the retention of which will only occasion great annoyance and inconvenience to the men, and cannot possibly do any good.
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: I do not think that the Home Secretary would be well advised to leave out this word. The real effect of the Amendment would be to provide for the appointment of an unofficial Inspector of the mine, who might be any man the miners might choose to select. I should value very much the opinion of miners actually employed in a mine; but I do not think it right to have an unofficial inspection. The only real course is to appoint two men who are employed in the mine selected by the miners themselves, and I think they ought to be encouraged to carry out periodical inspection. I do not think, however, that we ought to frame the clause in such a way as to make it possible to appoint a miners' agent to conduct the inspection.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I would venture to suggest that the words to be inserted should be "or any two persons not being mining engineers, who are, or have been, practical working miners."
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have no objection to withdraw my Amendment in favour of those words.
      Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MATTHEWS: As I desire to bring the discussion to a close, I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment also.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, to insert the words "or any two persons not being mining engineers, who are, or have been, practical working miners.—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. TOMLINSON: I am very sorry to feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment; but I do so on the ground that if it is adopted a man may be appointed who was working in a mine 20 years ago, and then took up with agitation. [Cries of "Agreed!"] I certainly know that there are men of that character, and I am afraid that we may run the
      852
      risk of handing over the inspection of a mine to agitators who really know nothing about the present conditions under which a mine is worked.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Amendment made in page 35, line 2, after "shall," by inserting "forthwith."
      Rule, as amended, agreed to.
      MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I now propose to add a new rule—
      "Rule 38.—No person shall be allowed to work alone in the mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."
      I may say that representations have reached me from all parts of the country in favour of an Amendment of this kind. The miners feel that their lives are placed in very great danger in consequence of the employment of entirely unskilled labour in a very dangerous work. I do not think that it is necessary to argue at any length in favour of the Amendment. I will only make this remark, that I have been informed that lives have been constantly in danger by inexperienced men being allowed to work in mines. I have no objection to accept an Amendment which may make provision for the labour of boys employed in leading horses and others not actually employed at the fall of the workings.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, line 8, after rule 37, insert— "Rule 38. No person shall be allowed to work alone in the mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."— (Mr. Donald Crawford.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
      MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. I regret to say that these words—
      "No person shall be allowed to work alone in a mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman,"
      are very vague and indefinite. What sort of work does the Amendment apply to? Does it mean that if a man has been engaged for three years in one kind of work he may then go to another description of work of which he has had no experience at all; or is it intended that every man, before he gets regular

      853
      employment in a mine, is to undergo a period of apprenticeship?
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As I understand the object of ray hon. Friend, it is to secure that no person shall be allowed to work as a hewer or coal getter in any working place in a mine until he has had three years' experience. Many persons have written to me making a similar suggestion, almost in the very words of this Amendment; but most of them desire the restriction to be applied to persons who are actually engaged in a working place in getting coal.
      MR. BURT: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important Amendment in the direction of protecting life. There was very little of the evidence which came before the Royal Commission, to which more importance was attached than that which related to the number of accidents which happen from unskilled persons being allowed to perform certain kinds of work in the mines. The Amendment may require some modification; and the hon. Member who moves it has himself intimated that in its existing form it is probably too strict. It deals, however, with a matter of considerable importance, and I certainly hope that something in the direction indicated -will be adopted,
      MR. TOMLINSON: The last thing that any mineowner would wish would be that unskilled workmen should be employed in the mine. What I want to know, however, is how you are to carry out a provision of this kiud—namely, that no man is to be able to work alone until he has had three years' experience in the mine. What is to be the machinery by which you are to be able to find out that fact?
      MR. BROADHURST: I think the Home Secretary was somewhat unnecessarily severe upon my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and it is to provide that no man shall be permitted to hew or cut coal in a mine until he is able to give some guarantee that he has a knowledge of the work, and can safely take his place among other men employed in the mine. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is the custom in most trades and professions in this country to require an apprenticeship, and if apprenticeship is necessary in any case, I am certainly not acquainted with
      854
      any industry in which it is more necessary than in getting coal. May I add that the right hon. Gentleman himself must have underwent a considerable apprenticeship before he was called to the Bar, and that he must have passed difficult examinations.
      An hon. MEMBER: No; he had only to eat a certain number of dinners.
      MR. BROADHURST: The qualification, then, for the Bar is eating dinners. I certainly was not aware that that was the only qualification. However, there is a kind of apprenticeship required, and I think that an apprenticeship in regard to mining matters is quite as necessary as an apprenticeship in many other industries and professions. If steps were taken to enforce an apprenticeship a great deal more strictly than we do now in regard to mining, I think it would be far better for that industry and for the prosperity of the country.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: There is one consideration I should like to bring under the notice of the Home Secretary—namely, that there has been constant complaints of the employment of unskilled labourers in mines who have been entirely unfit for the work, and their employment has resulted in frequent accidents.
      MR. F. S. POWELL: May I point out that the words of the Amendment, as they stand, are very wide? I think that the intention of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) in moving the Amendment is perfectly plain; but the words he proposes are so wide that they would include all the boys and other persons who are engaged in minor operations in the mine. The Amendment would seem to lay down that no young person whatever should be employed in the mine until he has had three years' experience. I am quite sure that that cannot be the intention of the hon. Member.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think that the object of the clause now under discussion is a very good one; but I would suggest that "three years" is too long a term, and that it would be better to insert "two years." As the Amendment is now worded I am afraid it would be unworkable. I do not object to the object of it; but I think that the limit it imposes upon persons employed in the mine

      855
      before they are to become coal-getters is too long.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I rose with my hon. Friend for a similar purpose— namely, to point out that the Amendment, as it stands, would never work, because a little boy who is now employed at one of the ventilation doors is necessarily left alone for hours together, and generally begins a miner's life in that way. I do not see how it would be possible to carry out a provision that no person should be allowed to work alone until he has had three years experience of working in. the mine. As a rule, no pitman goes in and works alone.
      MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I am afraid I am suffering the penalty of not having expressed the Amendment in sufficiently precise terms; but in introducing it I stated that I did not mean it to apply to boys or persons in charge of horses, but only to men employed in getting coal in the working places. I am quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, that—
      "No person shall be allowed to work alone at a, working place as a hewer unless he is under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."
      If I can do anything to promote unanimity on the part of the Committee I shall be glad to do so.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I would propose the substitution of these words—
      "No person shall be allowed to work alone as a hewer in a working place until he has had two years' experience of working underground."
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
      "After the word "no," to insert "hewer being allowed to work alone at a working place until he has had two years' experience of working underground."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Amendment."
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, especially with regard to the Proviso that he shall have had two years' experience.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That point is not now before the Committee. That will form a subsequent question.
      MR. WARMINGTON: I would suggest that the words "in a mine" would come in better afterwards.
      Question, "That the words 'in a mine' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'as a hewer in a working place,'" put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "three" in order to insert "two."
      Question proposed, "That 'three' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: I am of opinion that this is about the most important part of the whole Bill we have been discussing. The necessity of a periodical inspection has been urged over and over again as the only means of guarding against accident and loss of life from casualties in the working of a mine. It is, I think, of the utmost importance that no person should be allowed to be employed as a coal-getter until he has had some years' experience of such work. The training he ought to have should be of a practical character; for instance, a person who has been employed for two years in driving horses cannot be said to have had a practical training as a coal-getter.
      An hon. MEMBER: Would it not be better to say "until he has had two years' experience of working under ground?"
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: That would not be enough, because driving a horse would be working under ground, and so would be the building of a stall. If time permitted I could give numberless instances to prove the necessity of a practical training. About 41 per cent of the number of deaths which occur from accidents in mines arise from the want of practical knowledge. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the Report of some of Her Majesty's Inspectors on this subject. If the Committee will permit me, I will read one or two extracts. Mr. Cadman says—
      "The principal safeguards on which miners must rely against these accidents are careful and intelligent attention to the timbering of the roof and sides, and keeping a constant watch for any change or peculiarity which may appear in the overlying strata. The responsibility of securing his working place rests with the collier, subject, of course, to the direction of the overman, and very considerable skill and knowledge of the local peculiarities of the seams worked is necessary to make a good timberman. For this reason, it is very de-

      857
      sirable that young men should be practically trained in this branch of their duty, and have the benefit of the experience of old and tried colliers, who, by years of service, have become acquainted with the best ways of dealing with the dangers and the difficulties which are daily and hourly presenting themselves."
      These are the words of one Government Inspector, and they go far to prove the necessity of practical training. Mr. Hall, another of Her Majesty's Inspectors, speaking of timbering, says—
      "The death roll caused by falls of roof is so serious and continuous, and so stationary without showing signs of improvement, that it would appear as if some extraordinary step is needed to bring about a favourable change, and without weighing too nicely the reasonableness of any demand in this direction."
      For these reasons I hold that it is essential to secure that men before they are employed as coal-getters should have had a practical training.
      MR. DILLON: I think that it is of importance to secure that experienced men who have had a practical training shall be employed in working a mine. I have all my life protested against the doctrine which has been laid down that a system of apprenticeship as applied to manual labour is a system to be condemned, for I see hon. Members opposite who belong to the learned professions, and they are quite aware that before they were able to select their profession they were required to pass through a term of probation. It is an absurdity to suppose that a similar provision should not apply to the manual professions as they may be called. An hon. Gentleman just now talked of introducing a system of protection, but in what respect does the protection provided, both in regard to the law and to the profession to which I belong, differ from the protection which should be afforded in the case of coal-mining?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The present Amendment does not raise the general question, but only whether the period is to be two or three years.
      MR. DILLON: I do not know what course the Representatives of labour intend to take on this occasion, but I think they are perfectly entitled to demand protection for the miners. I shall express no opinion upon the matter myself, because it is not one which I am competent to discuss; but I do think that those who represent the working
      858
      miners in this House are just as much entitled to demand whatever number of years' experience they consider necessary for the protection of life as the members of the medical profession are in their profession, in the interests of the general public.
      MR. FENWICK: If I am in Order, I should like to submit an Amendment which I think might have the effect of bringing this discussion to a close, so that we may be able to get on with the rest of the Bill. I would suggest that the words should be—
      "No person be allowed to work in a mine as a coal-getter until he has had two years' experience of working in the mine under the supervision of a skilled workman."
      I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment, because I believe it would meet the whole case.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I understand the desire to be that any person who may have been employed in the mine as a horse-driver shall not be allowed to work as a coal-getter unless he has had two years' experience of coal-getting.
      MR. FENWICK: Yes; that is what we want.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Then I think the object will be secured by saying "two years' experience of such work."
      MR. FENWICK: I think the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary is preferable to my own, and I am quite willing to accept it.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: There is only one point I would venture to suggest. During the time a novice is acting under the supervision of a skilled workman, he would, of course, only receive limited wages, and it is the highest ambition of every man to get as much as he possibly can. I know that in many instances a miner refuses to marry until he attains the position of a coal-getter. It would, therefore, be desirable to make the term of probation as short as possible consistent with adequate protection to the workmen.
      MR. TOMLINSON: Is it intended that the clause should be retrospective? Will it be the duty of the managers to go through the mines and ascertain whether all the men who are working are duty qualified?
      MR. MATTHEWS: No.
      Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      After Rule 37, page 34, insert: "No person not now employed as a coal-getter shall be allowed to work alone as a coal getter at the face of a working until he has had two years' experience of such work under the supervision of a skilled workman."— (Mr. Matthews).
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. TOMLINSON: I fail to see what means there are of knowing whether a man has had the necessary experience or not.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMANruled that Amendments relating to the inspection of mines, and to the testing of safety lamps, in the names of Mr. Maurice Healy and Mr. P. Stanhope, were out of Order.
      On the Motion of Mr. JACOBY, Amendment made,
      In page 35, at end of clause by adding: "That in any case where a dispute occurs between the men and the manager of any mine respecting the carrying out of the Mines Regulation Act, and the inspector be applied to, he shall notify both parties, in order that they may appoint representatives to accompany him while prosecuting his inquiry."
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMmoved to add, at the end of the clause, a provision that "men and boys be allowed to ride as soon as they come to the shaft."
      MR. FENWICK: As a question of Order, I wish to know whether the Amendments which stand in my name and in that of the hon. Member for Morpeth are covered by previous Amendments. My Amendment provides "that the sump hole at the bottom of the shaft shall be protected by fencing."
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member is provided for by Rule 12, which requires the fencing of the entrances to shafts.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: My object in moving the Amendment is to provide for a case which frequently occurs in Scotland, where men and boys are detained for an undue length of time in the works. After having been at work for eight or nine hours they are frequently kept at the bottom of the pit simply in consequence of the caprice of
      860
      the manager. As the engines are working all the time it would be quite easy to take up the men and boys as soon as they reach the bottom of the pit. I think the Amendment is one with which the Committee generally will agree. I believe that the Representatives of the working miners are strongly in favour of it, and I trust that the Home Secretary will accept it.
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, at end of Clause, to add "That men and boys be allowed to ride as soon as they come to the shaft."—(Mr. Cunninghame Graham.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. TOMLINSON: May I remind the hon. Member that it may be necessary, in order to secure the safety of the mine, to carry on the business of it in a particular method; and if any individual is to be at liberty to stop the ordinary working at any moment great inconvenience might result, as well as danger in the working of the mine."
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I have an Amendment on this point which, if this Amendment is carried, may be ruled out of Order, although it is much wider in its scope. My Amendment provides that—
      "When any workman, employed in contract work underground, in any mine to which this Act applies, shall desire to leave off work, it shall be incumbent on the mineowner or manager to arrange for his being taken to the surface without any unnecessary delay; and it shall be the duty of the mineowner to adopt a special rule as hereinafter provided for carrying this stipulation into effect."
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I do not wish to propose any Amendment that is unreasonable, or to interfere in any way with the proper working of the mine. But I deny that the adoption of this Amendment will interfere with the working of the mine. All I desire is that when the men and boys have finished the recognized hours of labour they may be allowed to go up the pit, and not be detained, while minerals are being carried up, entirely at the caprice of the manager.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment does indirectly interfere with that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson), which is of a much wider character.
      MR. BURT: I would make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the full discussion which the subject deserves may be taken when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is reached.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Under the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I have now to move, in page 35, at end of Clause 50, to insert—
      "That, in cases where gas has been found in a mine, no furnace shall be used for purposes of ventilation for the twelve months immediately following: and, when fans or other mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, that two sets of machinery be kept ready for action, the one to be used in case of accident to the other."
      This Amendment is one of very considerable importance, and I have been asked to take charge of it. I do not think it is necessary to say much by way of explanation. The Amendment consists of two parts, the first of which deals with the ventilation of the mine in regard to matters which I do not think have been disposed of by previous Amendments; and the second part relates to the necessity, where mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, of providing two sets of machinery, in the case of any accident occurring to one of them. I think it is essential to provide that, in case of accident, the machinery shall not be rendered wholly incapable of bringing the men up from the pit. In a similar way that a ship has a double steering apparatus, I propose to provide that a mine shall have a double set of ventilating machinery.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the first part of the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 2, which was agreed to yesterday.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I was afraid you might hold that the question of ventilation in respect of gas has already been dealt with, and that there might possibly be an objection to the first part of the Amendment. But the same objection will not apply to the second part of it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, at end of Clause 50, add "When fans or other mechanical appliances are used
      862
      as a means of ventilation, that two sets of machinery be kept ready for action the one to bi used in case of accident to the other."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. MATTHEWS: No doubt it h very desirable that wherever possible there should be spare machinery; but there are a large number of small mines throughout the country where it would be impossible to carry out this provision. If the matter is dealt with at al it must be dealt with by a special rule It would be impracticable to put the small mineowners to the expense of pro viding this double machinery.
      MR. JOICEY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment He seems to be under the impression that the moment an accident happens it a mine all the ventilation is cut off, and it becomes dangerous to remain in the pit. That is not the case; and after an accident has happened a fair amount o ventilation can be kept up for several hours, and there is ample time for the men to get out of the mine. It is there fore unnecessary to put the mineowners; to this additional expense.
      MR. CONYBEARE: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I will not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. PICKARD: I have now to move to add as a New Clause—
      "That no smudge or small coal shall be left down any mine which the Inspector of the district has stated to be fiery, or dry, or dusty."
      My object is to prevent, if possible, an accident arising from spontaneous combustion. We think it would be much more safe if all materials of the kind were requited to be brought out of the mine, so that spontaneous combustion may be prevented. We believe that if all the coal is brought out of the mine both large and small, the danger would be considerably lessened.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, at end, add, "That no smudge o small coal shall be left down any mine which the Inspector of the district has stated to b' fiery or dry and dusty."—(Mr. Pickard.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think the words of the Amendment are too wide to be inserted in a general rule. Every man who left smudge or small coal down a mine would be liable to penalties, if the Inspector of the district had declared it to be fiery or dangerous. The words of the Amendment are very indefinite, although I sympathize with the object of the hon. Member, and probably it will be possible to insert a special rule.
      MR. PICKARD: In the Yorkshire mines all the coal is riddled and the dust taken away, and that is what I want to secure in all cases.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I will give the matter the best consideration I can, with the view of dealing with it by a special rule.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 51 (Penalty on non-compliance with rules).
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): We have added a great number of general rules, and I am not sure that the words "unless he proves," in line 15, will be quite right enough. We will consider this matter in conjunction with what has been already done before the Report.
      Question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Special Rules.
      Clause 52 (Special rules for every mine).
      MR. TOMLINSON: I have on the Paper an Amendment on page 35, line 27, after "mine," to insert the words—
      "Such special rules shall specify which, if any, of the mines or seams of mines to which they apply, are dry and dusty or are fiery."
      I have put that Amendment on the Paper, but I find that it does not meet with the support I had hoped for. Therefore, I will not move it.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clauses 53 to 59, inclusive, severally agreed to.

    PART III.—SUPPLEMENTAL.

      Legal Proceedings.
      Clauses 60 to 62, inclusive, severally agreed to.
      Clause 63 (General provisions as to summary proceedings).
      MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have put down the following Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "months" and insert "weeks." The sub-section, if amended as I propose, would read—
      "Any complaint or information made or laid in pursuance of this Act shall (save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act) be made or laid within three weeks from the time when the matter of the information or complaint arose."
      I have put this Amendment down at the request of some of the colliery managers. If an interval of three months were to elapse after the subject matter of the complaint arose before information were laid, it might be very difficult to ascertain what had occurred three months before. Especially would it be difficult to obtain the evidence which would be required, and which would be most valuable—independent scientific evidence. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Of course, if it is opposed by those who are but acquainted with the working of mines, I should not press it, but I have been asked to move this, as I say, by managers of the Cumberland mines.
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 5, leave out the word "months" and to insert the word "weeks."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'months' stand part of the Clause."
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I quite sympathize with the objects of the managers the hon. Member refers to, to whom vicarious responsibility attaches under this Act, but it certainly seems to me that three months is a period quite short enough.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to move an Amendment in line 7, after the word "arose." I wish to add "such complaint or information may be made or laid by a common informer." The object of this is that there may be open to those who cannot be injuriously affected by anything which has happened, to give evidence supporting complaints upon which summary decisions may be taken. I will

      865
      not detain the Committee longer than is necessary to state the object of the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 7, at the end of the sub-section to add "and such complaint or information may be made or laid by a common informer."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Member's Amendment is unnecessary, unless it were meant to over-ride a limitation such as that in Clause 66. The words "common informer" are not applicable. Anyone can prosecute, and the only offence in which consent is necessary to a prosecution is a case in which there is vicarious responsibility, where the owner, agent, or manager, is made responsible for what is done by someone else—in a case where the person prosecuted has done nothing wrong himself, but can be prosecuted for the fault of another.
      MR. BURT: My hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has moved this Amendment at the request of the miners. It is a subject which has often come before our conferences, and, no doubt, so far as the phraseology is concerned, it is objectionable. It is open to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, no doubt, is an authority upon this point. At the same time, the object aimed at was to give a power of prosecuting in the case of managers and others. The right hon. Gentleman sympathizes with the object we have in view in this Amendment, and I do not know whether he may not find it possible to deal with the matter in some other way. If it is possible, I have no doubt he will do it.
      MR. MATTHEWS: But under Section 66 any person may prosecute another who has committed an offence under the Act. Clause 66 introduces a limitation against the prosecution of owners, agents, and managers, for offences which they have not committed themselves—that is to say, vicarious offences —offences committed, by some person in the colliery, for whom the owner, agent, or manager is made responsible. In such a case Clause 66 imposes a restriction. If the hon. Member wishes to object to that—and I am not sure that he does—the proper place to raise the objec-
      866
      tion would be on Clause 66. For instance, if an owner does not provide an ambulance, or a stretcher, or splints, or bandages, such as we have provided earlier on that he shall keep at the mine, he has committed an offence himself and can be prosecuted by any person. On the other hand, if a workman commits a fault he can be prosecuted himself; but the owner, agent, or manager may also be prosecuted for his fault.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would point out that Section 66 provides that a prosecution shall not be instituted except by an Inspector, or with the eon-sent in writing of the Secretary of State in cases where the offence committed is not committed personally by the owner, agent, or manager, but by somebody under him for whom he is responsible. Now, what I want to secure is that, with regard, at any rate, to all other cases, it shall be possible to prosecute on the evidence of a common informer. Is there any objection to the introduction of these words—any solid objection? It does not appear to me that they could do any harm.
      MR. F. S. POWELL: If there is anything in the proposal as contained in the clause it will apply as much against the employer as against the workman.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think it will save time if I point out that there is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard) to leave out the clause and insert a clause which I need not read, which suggests the very thing which is sought to be brought about by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Gentlemen behind me. There the question is properly raised as to whether it should be left in the hands of any person deputed by workmen, or by any workman ordinarily engaged in the mine, to bring an action—I believe that is the limitation put on it— to prosecute any owner, agent, or manager, even for an offence that is not personally committed by them. I think my hon. Friend would serve his object better by withdrawing the Amendment, and taking the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Normanton.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move the following Amendment, standing in the name of the late Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. T. Blake). At the end of line 12 to insert the following sub-section:—
      "Any person may give evidence as a witness by virtue of this Act upon oath, or upon affirmation or declaration, to speak the truth signed by him. Any person who shall give false evidence upon oath, affirmation, or declaration as aforesaid, shall be guilty of, and may be convicted of, perjury, and may upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without bard labour, for any period not exceeding two years."
      The object of this is to permit evidence to be given either on oath, affirmation, or signed declaration. Unless there is any objection to this on the part of the Government, I shall not delay the Committee by attempting to argue the matter. I will simply move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 40, at end of line 12, to add the following sub-section;—"Any person may give evidence as a witness by virtue of this Act upon oath, or upon affirmation or declaration, to speak the truth signed by him. Any person who shall give false evidence upon oath, affirmation or declaration as aforesaid, shall be guilty of, and may be convicted of, perjury, and may upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding two years."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. MATTHEWS: Either these words express what is the existing law of the land as to judicial oaths, or they do not. If they do, they are unnecessary; and if they do not, they are improper in this Bill. This is not an Oaths Bill, but a Coal Mines Regulation Bill. It is not a Bill for dealing with oaths in any way. If any limitation is to be made in the law as to judicial oaths, it should be done in an Act of Parliament dealing with that matter.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: The Amendment does not propose to alter the law, but merely to simplify the practice. At the present moment, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, if a witness under this Act required to give his evidence upon affirmation, he would have to satisfy the person to whom he applied to be allowed to make that affirmation that he was a person upon whom an oath would have no special binding effect on
      868
      his conscience. I do not wish to go into the whole argument involved in the case which hon. Members will remember was argued before the Court of Appeal; but I shall certainly press this Amendment to a Division if the Government do not consent to it. With a number of men in the position of those for whom this legislation is intended, it is absurd to put upon them the necessity of entering into the discussion of a technical and metaphysical question as to whether a particular form is or is not binding upon the conscience. I regret that the Government should show any hesitation about this at all.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot consent that the law shall be one thing in a criminal inquiry with regard to coal mines, and another thing in every other inquiry.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: It is not intended to make it one thing in an ordinary inquiry and another thing in the case of coal mines; but it is intended to clear up what is now doubtful. I have had occasion to bring before the House several times the conduct of magistrates, I County Court Judges, and Coroners, who placed different and contradictory constructions on what was meant by the present state of the law. I will not continue the argument. I was anxious to ascertain the opinion of the Government on the matter, and I shall certainly press for the opinion of the Committee.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I shall support this Amendment, because I wish to see the general law bearing upon the taking of oaths altered.
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: All we have to do is to recognize conscientious objections which are not religious; but we ought not to upset the whole system of the general law with regard to oaths.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: Everyone at present can affirm if he can succeed in. convincing the presiding Judge, whoever he may be—if he can "satisfy" the Judge, according to the Affirmation Act of 1869, that "an oath has no binding effect on his conscience." It is only to obviate the necessity for a subtle argument between the Judge and the counsel as to a collier or anyone else about to give evidence, that I wish to insert these words. My desire is to put a stop to disgraceful squabbles on the subject of the oath.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 109: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 394.) [2.20. P.M.]
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 64 (Appeal to Quarter Sessions).
      MR. WOODALL: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out, in line 15, the following words: —
      "By which conviction, imprisonment, or a fine amounting; to or exceeding one-half the maximum fine is adjudged."
      I wish to leave out the limitation in the section, and to enable any person who feels aggrieved by any conviction made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. I am not, however, disposed to press the Amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it should not be accepted.
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 15, to leave out from the word "by" to the word "adjudged," both inclusive, in line 17.—(Mr. Woodall.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. TOMLINSON: As I understand there is a strong objection entertained to this Amendment in certain quarters, I will not therefore undertake to press it till I hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has to say about it.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I think the hon. and learned Member, by his Amendment, would extend the right of appeal beyond that contained in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The hon. Member will find the principle as to these appeals laid down in 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 19. This section gives the right of appeal where imprisonment or a fine amounting to or exceeding half the maximum fine is imposed, the object being to stop appeals in cases where trumpery fines have been inflicted.
      MR. WOODALL: I should like to have heard the opinion of some hon. Members below the Gangway upon this subject. I have been assured that there is a strong feeling amongst the miners
      870
      that there should be an appeal allowed in all cases.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 65 (Parent or guardian liable for misrepresentation as to age) agreed to.
      Clause 66 (Prosecution of owners, agents, and managers for offences).
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: This clause tends to make the law equal—employers and employed. I think it is right so far; but I wish to make an exception in favour of the manager of a mine. The manager may be an employer, or he may be himself employed; but whether or not he holds a position of great responsibility. The condition of the whole of the mine practically depends upon him. His position is analogous to that of the captain of a ship. He, or the under manager, has to come in contact with the workmen and has to issue orders of all sorts, some of which may be distasteful to the men, although warranted by the circumstances of the position. The danger I want to provide against is, that where there are a great many young men, as there always are in a mine, they shall not be allowed to bring frivolous complaints against the manager merely, you may say, for the sake of having a lark. I trust hon. Members below the Gangway will see that there is nothing in this proposal which is detrimental to the interests of the miners, but that they are only precautionary, in order to avoid such an evil as I have pointed out.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): What Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving?
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: All the Amendments I have here affect the same point. My object in moving them is to prevent a manager from being at the mercy of a common informer who may lodge frivolous complaints against him.
      MR. MATTHEWS: But which Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving? Because I agree with one of them—namely, that which would put the under manager in the same position as the manager. The third Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, however, that in line 29, which

      871
      says leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent or manager," I object to. These Amendments are totally different in effect.
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: I was about to move the Amendment in line 28, "before 'manager,' leave out 'or.'" But I will not do so. I will move the Amendment in line 29.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Then I will ask leave to move the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment in line 28.
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 28, after the word "manager," to insert the words "under manager," and so similarly throughout the Clause.— (Mr. Matthews.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to move to leave out the word "not" after "Act," in line 29. The clause says—
      "No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent or manager of a mine for any offence under this Act not committed person, ally by such owner, agent or manager, &c."
      I move to leave out the word "not."
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 29, after "Act," leave out the word "not."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
      Question proposed, "That the word ' not' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot conceive that the hon. Baronet is serious in moving this Amendment. The effect of it will be this—that no prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, or manager for any offence under this Act, committed by himself, unless he is prosecuted by the Inspector or with the consent of the Secretary of Stats. But in cases where an offence is not committed personally all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute. He is liable for the wrong of another man, and all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Yes.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      COLONEL BLUNDELL: I beg leave to move, in line 29, to leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager." I think a manager who may be employed should be ex-
      872
      empted from the possibility of being attacked by a common informer for something he does in connection ordinarily with his office as manager. I trust this Amendment will be fairly considered on its merits. I bring it forward in the interest of the safety of the men in our mines, believing that the safety of our mines depends on the managers. There are, as I say, many young men who will be delighted to bring complaints against the manager merely for a lark, and I wish to protect these persons from anything of that sort. I would make them responsible for anything they do personally, and my Amendment would leave them liable to prosecution, if a prosecution is approved of by the Inspector as representing the Secretary of State.
      Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 29, to leave out the words "not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager."—(Colonel Blundell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think I must emphatically decline to agree to this Amendment. I think it is only reasonable that every workman in a mine should have a right to prosecute the owner, agent, or manager, if he does anything personally that is wrong. I think all these four persons—that is to say, the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, require some protection when they are subjected to that extremely harsh rule which is quite exceptional in connection with coal mines, and which does not exist in any other branch of our law—that is to say, that they are made criminally responsible for action that they do not themselves know of. That criminal responsibility has been attached to them for reasons of public policy which I need nut now go into. It is a very harsh law, and when it is introduced there must be a kind of guarantee with regard to it. When a man has done wrong himself and the men suffer, I could not consent that he should not be liable to prosecution by any workman.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my

      873
      name—namely, in page 40, after line 37, to add—
      "No prosecution shall be instituted against a Coroner for any offence under this Act, except with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State."
      The object of this Amendment is to exempt Coroners from prosecutions. I move this in consequence of representations I have received from Coroners, who are a useful body of men; but they have pointed out to me that under Clause 49 they are required to do a number of things, such as sending notice to the Inspector of the district; to adjourn inquests under certain conditions; to advise the Inspector of defects in and about a mine; not to allow certain persons to be sworn or to sit on the jury, and so on. For neglect of the duties contained in Section 49 he would be liable to prosecution under that Act; and, seeing that these gentlemen occupy a dignified and responsible position, I think it only desirable that before they shall be prosecuted in such a way the consent of a Secretary of State should first be obtained in writing.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 40, after line 37, to add the words "no prosecution shall be instituted against a Coroner for any offence under this Act, except with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State."— (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Question proposed, "That Clause 66, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. PICKARD: I beg to move that the clause be struck out, on the ground that, so far as prosecution is concerned, we as workmen will, under this clause, have no power whatever. It appears first of all that every owner, agent, or manager is to be exempted unless he commits a personal offence. It is a well-known fact that the owner, or agent, or certificated manager, is not always there, and very often delegates his authority to another person; and we think the workmen over whom the person so delegated has authority should have the power of prosecuting the manager in the same sense that the manager has power to prosecute the workman if he commits any offence under this Act. I therefore beg to move the omission of the clause.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 126 Noes 72: Majority 54. — (Div. List, No. 395.) [3.10 P.M.]
      Clause 67 (Report of result of proceedings against workmen).
      Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      MR. TOMLINSON: I have two Amendments on the Paper—to leave out, in line 41, "within 21 days of the heaving of the case," and to insert "annually, on or before the first day of January;" and also, in line 42, to leave out "thereof," and insert "of all proceedings so taken during the then preceding year." I will not, however, move these Amendments.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 68 (Summary proceedings for offences in Scotland).
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out all the words after "be"—that is to say, to leave out the words—
      "Constituted of two or more Justices of the Peace, sitting as Judges in a Justice of the Peace Court, or of the Sheriff or some other magistrate or officer for the time being empowered by law to do alone any act authorised to be done by more than one Justice of the Peace, and sitting alone or with others at some Court or other place appointed for the administration of justice."
      Then I propose to insert the words "the Sheriff." The effect of this will be to render the Court of Summary Jurisdiction "the Sheriff," instead of the Justices of the Peace us proposed in the clause. It is thought bettor that such inquiries should be conducted by the Sheriff, and not left to the local Justices.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman move to strike out all the sub-section after the word "be?"
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do.
      Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 4, to leave out all the words after the word "be," and insert the words "the Sheriff."—(The Lord Advocate.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I entirely approve of the altera-

      875
      tion. Complaint is made in Scotland that certain classes of prosecution for mining offences might be heard before the Justices, and the desire was to have them universally held before the Sheriff or paid magistrate.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'the Sheriff' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: The object of the Amendment I have to move—namely, in line 33, after "provisions," insert the following section:—
      "(6.) In any inquiry in Scotland as to the cause of death or of serious injury, any relative of any person whose death may have been caused or who may have suffered serious injury by the explosion or accident with respect to which the inquiry or inquest is being held, shall be at liberty to attend and give evidence, and either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent, examine any witness,"
      is to procure for relatives of any person killed or injured liberty to attend and give evidence, either in person or by counsel, and to examine witnesses, at an inquiry in Scotland. It seems that doubts were entertained as to the right of relatives to give evidence or examine witnesses at Coroners' inquests; but the Act of last year removed those doubts. We want now the same advantages in Scotland, which, if not originally given, at least are emphasized in Clause 49, Section 8. I admit that the Amendment may be subject to improvement; but I wish to give the right to relatives, where persons are seriously injured or have suffered death, to be present at inquiries either before the Fiscal or at a special inquiry, such as was held in the case of the Daphne, when Special Commissioners were sent down to institute an investigation. We desire that the relatives of persons injured or killed in this way in Scotland should have the same right that the relatives of such persons have in England, and I sincerely hope the Committee will endorse this Amendment. I think justice demands it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 41, line 33, after "provisions," insert the following sub-section:—" (6.) In any inquiry in Scotland as to the cause of death or of serious injury, any relative of any person whose death may have been caused or who may have suffered serious injury by the explosion or accident with respect to which the inquiry or inquest is being held, shall be at liberty to
      876
      attend and give evidence, and either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent, examine any witness."—(Mr. S. Williamson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Might I suggest to my hon. Friend what I think will carry out his intention, and, at the same time, not render this clause open to certain objections which it would otherwise be open to? If he were to provide that his Amendment should apply to any public inquiry held under this Act in Scotland, and make it applicable to all kinds of inquiry provided under Section 46 of the Act, I see no objection to it; but I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire, in a small referential clause of this kind, to import into the law of Scotland the whole system of Coronors' inquests. That could not be done according to a decision that was given the other day, as the Committee will see. If my hon. Friend will do what I propose, probably the Committee will see its way to accept that or some similar clause. I move that after the word "Scotland" in the Amendment the words "under this Act" be inserted.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "Scotland," to insert "under this Act." —(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I would suggest another Amendment, to carry out the same idea. In the third line, which refers to "the inquiry or inquest," I would propose to leave out the words "or inquest."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "or inquest."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
      Question proposed, "That the words ' or inquest' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. TOMLINSON: I would point out that this would carry the appearance of relatives at inquiries under Clause 46.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Question proposed, "That the proposed Amendment, as amended, be agreed to. "
      MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) quite understands what he has done. In Clause 46, after full consideration, it was deliberately decided not to give: relatives a right to appear at inquiries under it. The Amendment now proposed would have this result—that if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in England, the relatives of the injured persons would not have the right to appear; but if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in Scotland, those relatives would have the right to appear. The inquiries which would be held under this process would, therefore, be held in two ways.
      MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am quite alive to the fact that that would he the effect of the Amendment, and it is in view of that that I give my support to it. Might I point out that in Scotland we have no Coroners' inquests, and that, therefore, we have not the opportunity of having representatives of persons killed present at the inquests, with power to give evidence or to examine witnesses, as you have in England under the Common Law. Under these circumstances, as it is not proposed in this Coal Mines Bill to alter our whole system of procedure in these cases, it seems but reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded for the relatives of persons killed or injured to appear at the Secretary of State's inquiry. If this were not conceded, there would be no opportunity in Scotland for these people to appear at all. There would be no opportunity of appearing at such inquiries as were held in connection with the Blantyre colliery accident, or the upsetting of the Daphne. It is most important that persons should have the power of appearing in that way in carrying out inquiries in the interests of the public. I venture to submit that, inasmuch as this would be the only opportunity where such persons would be permitted in Scotland to attend an inquiry, to give evidence or examine witnesses, it would be throwing the whole process out of balance if the Amendment were not accepted as I propose. If the hon. and learned Member will reflect that in Scotland there will be an opportunity afforded for persons appearing at inquiries under this Amendment, as will be afforded in England, he will see that it is desirable to admit this proposal.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I am not objecting to the Amendment, but I am pointing out how it will work. I am pointing out that by striking out the words "or inquest," and introducing the words "under this Act," may in England defeat the object of the inquiry.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): This Amendment would practically be an anomaly. We rejected a provision of this kind on Clause 46, which it was sought to apply to Great Britain generally. It was proposed to give the relatives this right in all cases; but the Committee refused to assent to the proposal on the ground that the inquiry was not one at which anyone had a right to appear. The provision applies not only to such cases as the Daphne, but to cases of inquiry where there has been no death. Therefore the hon. Member proposes that anyone should have a right to appear at these inquiries in this country; but that in Scotland they should have that right, though the two inquiries—the inquiry in Scotland and the inquiry in England —may be exactly identical in form. The hon. Member may be sure that if relatives are permitted to appear as a right it may make a great difference as to the course of the inquiry. If you give them a right to appear they will in all probability employ counsel, and go into the whole matter, as if the inquiry were an inquiry into a question affecting conflicting parties. As a matter of fact, however, the inquiry—and it was so decided by the Committee—would be a matter merely for the enlightenment of the Home Secretary, who will be the dominus of the whole proceeding. I have been concerned in several inquiries during the short time I have been Secretary of State, and my knowledge of the course which has been adopted with regard to them is that these persons are always allowed to attend; but that power is vested in those conducting the inquiry to stop them when they are irrelevant. When they are stopped in this way the Court can proceed to another part of the investigation. That would not be possible if an appearance was put in by these persons as a right, and they had the power of employing counsel and calling witnesses in the ordinary way.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In order that something of

      879
      this kind might be moved, I withdrew an Amendment I had on the Paper at an earlier period of the evening. It was put down to establish something like the Coroner's inquest in the case of fatal explosions in Scotland. When I withdrew my Amendment I understood that there would be brought forward, perhaps by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) at a later stage of the Committee, something to provide for this want, which admittedly exists in Scotland. Now, with regard to this particular suggestion, it seems to me that the inquiry would not be at all on the same footing as inquiries carried on in England, because inquiries carried on in England are on oath. Every witness is sworn; but, unless I am mistaken, the inquiry directed by the Secretary of State would be under some authority not competent to administer an oath. Therefore, the amount of importance and solemnity attaching to the inquiry in Scotland would not be at all the same thing as appertains to the inquiry in England. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he sees his way to make any Amendment in the clause by which this want that I refer to would be supplied?
      MR. MATTHEWS: There is power to administer an oath at these inquiries; but really we have discussed this whole question before, on Clause 46, and the proposal now submitted was negatived.
      MR. CALDWELL: There is one effect of this Amendment that I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend, and which it would be necessary to provide against if the Amendment were carried. According to the Amendment, the relatives of injured parties would have power to appear at an inquest. There might be claims to attend on the part of a vast number of parties, and I think if the proposal were accepted it would be necessary to limit it in some manner or other. I think that a limitation of this kind should be accepted—namely, that no more than one person should be allowed to attend as representing the relatives of the whole of the injured persons. There should only be one person with a right to appear by counsel to examine witnesses in the interest of the injured persons.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I have read the words of Section 8 in Clause 49,
      880
      and I do not see why all these evils should exist in Scotland which do not arise in England. The words in Section 8 are not the ipsissima verba of the Act of last year; but they are words put in by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If these words are applicable to England, why not give us some similar words for Scotland? There is nothing in this Act bearing on the rights of relatives to attend at these inquiries in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is persistent in his objection to this Amendment, let him add these words after the concluding words of my Amendment— "subject, nevertheless, to the order of the Court."
      THE CHAIRMAN: I understand this Amendment refers to any inquiries under this Act. In the Amendment moved on Clause 46 it was proposed that at such inquiries the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, or any of the workmen of the mine, or any relatives of any person killed or injured, should be at liberty to attend and examine witnesses. That Amendment was negatived, and, being negatived, cannot be raised again.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: Allow me, with all deference to you, to point out that after Clause 46 was dealt with we came to Clause 49; and, in so far as the acceptance of this Section 8 of Clause 49 was concerned, the Committee overruled what was done on Clause 46. And I am simply pleading that Scotland should have the same right and justice that England has got under Clause 49 and under Clause 46.
      THE CHAIRMAN: This proposal affecting every inquiry under this Act does not refer to Clause 49, but to Clause 46. It is, therefore, inadmissible, having been negatived on Clause 46.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I certainly am under the impression that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) withdrew an Amendment in order to allow this point to be discussed, and we have been looking forward to the right to discuss this matter under existing circumstances. I ask you, Sir, with all respect, whether the words which the hon. Member now proposes do not convey additional matter, which exempts them from your ruling?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: Before you put the Question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he will introduce some words on Report, which will do justice to the relatives of these people in Scotland? I think it is only fair.
      MR. MATTHEWS: In consideration of the number of cousins in Scotland I will give my best attention to the matter.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I really must protest—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. CONYBEARE: This Amendment, as I understand, is solely applicable to Scotland. Does not that exclude it from the general application of Clause 46?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! What is universal includes a particular application.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I think we had better let the clause pass.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 69 (Saving for proceedings under other Acts) agreed to.
      Clause 70 (Owner of mine, &c. not to act as justice, &c. in proceedings under this Act).
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The clause says—
      "A person who is the owner, agent, or manager of any mine, or a miner or miner's agent, or the father, son, or brother of such owner, agent, or manager, or of a miner or miner's agent, or who is a director of a company being the owner of a mine, ‥‥ act as a member of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of offences under this Act."
      Well, I think that is scarcely wide enough. I think that a son-in-law or father-in-law are much more likely to be influenced than other relatives in cases of this kind. A man may have a son-in-law who is engaged with him in business; and I think it, therefore, desirable that we should extend the principle of the clause so as to include such relationship as this. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to consider the point before the next stage of the Bill?
      MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 71 (Application of fines).
      MR. JOICEY: I beg to move as an Amendment to this clause, in line 27, to leave out the words, "and shall be carried to the Consolidated Fund," in order to substitute—
      "Paid over to the Treasurer for the time being of any special or permanent fund, approved by the Secretary of State, established for the relief of sufferers by mining accidents, where the offence was committed, and where certain fines were inflicted."
      I wish to insert these words because I. had considerable difficulty, in a case which occurred in 1885, in getting fines paid over to the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund. I applied to the Home Secretary, and I found that the money had been paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and I was told in this House, both in answer to Questions and in private interviews, that it was quite impossible that this money could be paid over to the Miners' Fund, as it had gone into the Consolidated Fund. One of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends on the opposite side took it into his head to write a note, asking if it could not be paid over; and I discovered, to my astonishment, a short time afterwards, that the money had been paid over to the hon. and learned Member for Durham who sits on the other side of the House (Mr. Milvain). I think that there ought to have been no doubt on the matter, and on that ground I beg to move this Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 42, line 26, leave out "and shall be carried to the Consolidated Fund," in order to insert the words—"paid over to the Treasurer for the time being of any special or permanent fund, approved by the Secretary of State, established for the relief of sufferers by raining accidents, where the offence was committed, and where certain fines were inflicted." —(Mr. Joicey.)
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have very grave doubts whether this is an Amendment which the hon. Member can move, as it proposes to deal with money which goes into the public funds. A private Member cannot move to apply public money to private purposes, however small the sum and however valuable the object maybe.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But I would point out that this is not money which has ever been public money. It is money which will

      883
      have to be dealt with in the public funds ultimately, but until it is handed over to the Consolidated Fund it is not public money.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): On behalf of the Exchequer I would like to say a word on this matter. I would remind the Committee that at this moment the law of the land is precisely that which is proposed to be done by this Bill. The 68th section of the existing Coal Mines Regulation Act provides—
      "That, except as aforesaid, all penalties imposed in pursuance of this Act shall be paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and carried to the Consolidated Fund."
      Therefore a proposal of this kind is one which seeks to alter the existing law of the land. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Member must see that the Government cannot consent to what he proposes.
      MR. JOICEY: Under one of the clauses of the old Act the Home Secretary has power to hand over the money to some fund, and the reason this course was not adopted in this case to which I have referred was that it had already gone into the Consolidated Fund; but my view is that this money should go to the benefit of the sufferers in mining accidents. I believe the feeling of the Committee is with the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will find some way of settling the matter.
      MR. F. S. POWELL: It appears to me that this Amendment is in the wrong place, and that it should come earlier in the clause.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: We are always led into some difficulty or another when the words of an Amendment are not exactly before us. I appreciate the hon. Member's view, but I would call his attention to the fact that at the present moment the Home Secretary may direct the fines paid to be transferred to the relatives of the persons injured. All that my hon. Friend asks is that it should be obligatory on the Home Secretary to pay over this money to such persons as he thinks proper. It only goes into the Exchequer when the Home Secretary thinks it desirable that he should do so. We who take an interest in these miners' funds know what an enormous number
      884
      of people they keep off the rates and maintain in comparative comfort; and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he sees that these funds are doing so much good, will let this money go directly into them, especially when the money arises from fines in connection with accidents.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I said I had grave doubts as to whether this Amendment was admissible; but if it is admissible now it will be admissible on Report. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he decided upon considering this matter and bringing it up on Report.
      MR. JOICEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say what he is prepared to do?
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am not in a position to say at present; but I will consider the matter.
      MR. FENWICK: If it were accepted it would be necessary to leave out the words—
      "A Secretary of State may (if he thinks fit) direct such fine to be paid to or distributed among the persons injured and the relatives of any persons whose death may have been occasioned by an explosion, accident, or offence, or among some of them."
      I think, however, the proper time to consider this matter would be upon Report.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Miscellaneous.
      Clauses 72, 73, and 74, severally agreed to.
      Clause 75 (Interpretation of terms).
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton). I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Mr. Matthews) says as to this Amendment, having regard to Clause 20. I must say I entertain some grave doubts as to the practicability of the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 43, after line 18, insert the words "'part of a mine' includes every section

      885
      having a separate intake and return air course."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones,)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I hope we shall have ample discussion on this important clause, as we are a good deal in the dark as to the absolute effect it will have. I trust some Member of the Government will give us the opinion of the Government, and also that we shall have some expression of opinion from the labour Representatives. It is not my wish to waste time or to trifle with the Committee; but really, when Amendments are before the Committee involving such very serious interests as I believe this does, it is more than a pity to let them go without having the subject dealt with thoroughly, and threshed out in all its bearings. With reference to this matter of separate intake and return air course, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if it is not a fact that difficulties have arisen in the working of mines, and in regard to the whole system of ventilation; and whether it is not better that we should introduce some provision into the Bill dealing with the matter?
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): I am not aware of any clause where these words occur.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I refer the Government to Clause 20. I think "part of a mine" is used in one other section.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEY: No doubt it is necessary to define the words in Clause 20, and we will put these words in the clause on Report if we find we can do so without any inconvenience.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Why defer it until the Report stage when there is no practical difficulty in making the Amendment now?
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think it would save the time and labour of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State if I were to point out a very substantial difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment. Clause 20 provides that—
      "Where two or more parts of a mine are worked separately, the owner or agent of the mine may give notice in writing to that effect to the Inspector of the district, and. thereupon each such part shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a separate mine."
      886
      I do not know whether it would be really the effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham (Mr. Paulton); but it seems to me the effect would be that every separate ventilating district would be compelled to have a separate manager and separate organization; that is the conclusion I draw from the Amendment. If that is so, the Amendment is perfectly impossible. I moved the Amendment, but I did so simply because I wanted guidance.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I equally want guidance. Clause 20 is a clause to my liking.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: The effect of the Amendment seems to be this—that every ventilating district will by these words be constituted a separate mine.
      Question put, and negatived.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg leave to move to insert, after "person," in line 33, the words "holding a first-class certificate, and." Agents are made superior to managers, and therefore there is a strong feeling that agents should hold first-class certificates.
      Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 33, after the word "person," to insert the words "holding a first-class certificate, and."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Baronet must be aware that the agent is in all cases the person who looks after the finances and business arrangements of the mine. He is not in mines generally a skilled person in mining; his duty is to look after the administration of the mine financially. I do not think it is desirable, or necessary, or expedient to require that he should be a person holding a first-class certificate in mining.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. In the district to which I belong, men have acted in the capacity of agents, and also in the capacity of general managers. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shakes his head; but I can give him half-a-dozen names in a moment.
      MR. MATTHEWS: It cannot be so.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman says it cannot be so; but all

      887
      I can say is, that it is. This is the evil I endeavoured to point out yesterday— namely, that gentlemen under the guise of agents really act as general managers. Certainly we ought to avoid in any way relieving these agents from responsibility when they act as general managers, as, I maintain, many of them do. I may say, further, that in a number of collieries nothing can be done even by the managers themselves in the way of opening up the collieries without direction from the gentlemen who act as agents. The miners in South Wales have been objecting to this for a very long time. We have men supposed to be managers, but who, nevertheless, are obliged to take their orders from persons called agents. If parsons who act as agents are not capable of obtaining a certificate of competency in mining, certainly they ought not to be allowed to act as general managers.
      MR. FENWICK: Perhaps I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the person acting as agent under this Bill is the person who, on behalf of the owner, has the power and care of directing the management of the mine. Now, if he is the person who is to have the care and direction of the mine he ought to be a person who is possessed of a first-class certificate within the meaning of this Bill. We know very well that the person who now acts in the capacity of agent is the person who has the complete care and control of the mine. The manager simply takes his instructions or directions from the agent, and without the agents' sanction he has very little power to cause any alterations to be made in the mine. If that is to be the understanding under the Bill we are now considering, I think it is very desirable that the agent, being the person who on behalf of the owner has the care and direction of the mine, should be possessed of a first-class certificate. The Home Secretary is not strictly accurate when he says that the agent simply attends to the finances of a colliery.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) is a little mistaken in this matter. The agent under this Bill is not the manager of a mine—the manager is already provided for. The agent is the man who stands in the
      888
      place of the absent proprietor or owner. Take my own case. Many years ago, before I was a partner, I had the practical control of a number of mines. I was then acting as agent for the firm to which I afterwards belonged.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think hon. Gentlemen opposite might just as well insist upon the owner having a first-class certificate; the agent really takes the place of the owner. Of course, it is under the orders of his employers that the agent acts. If an employer gives a manager improper orders the manager ought to refuse to obey them; he is no more subject to the agent than he is to the owner. The agent is appointed simply because the owner, like the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), cannot manage every one of his mines, and he puts an agent in his place.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: I am very sorry our experience in this matter is so adverse to that of the right hon. Gentleman. If I am compelled to I will give an illustration. I do not want to give names here; but let me say that a complaint was made against the management of a mine in one of our daily papers in South Wales. The matter was taken up by the person who was recognized as the general manager, and the newspaper had to make a public apology; but a few months afterwards an accident occurred in the mine under the general management of this gentleman. I attended the inquest in order to ascertain what position this gentleman held, and I found he shielded himself behind the term of agent and not manager. We know, however, that he was general manager of five collieries. We contend that he was not a proper person to fulfil that important position unless he held a first-class certificate of competency.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: This is an important matter, and I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or else the words of this clause are most unhappily chosen. The words are—
      "'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person having on behalf of the owner the care or direction of any mine or any part thereof."
      Now, what is the care or direction of a mine? Surely the care or direction of a mine means something more than the financial position to which the right

      889
      Gentleman referred; it implies something more than the mere receipt of the revenue. Apart altogether from the words of the clause, I can boar out what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is not at all an unusual thing for a very eminent engineer to have control of two or three collieries. He has a manager appointed to each individual colliery, and the manager of each individual colliery is bound to conform to his general directions, and even to his particular directions if he so wishes. The head viewer or agent, as he is termed and known as throughout the district, may be a very good man or he may be a very incompetent man; and it is, therefore, certainly undesirable that a properly qualified man should have to submit to the directions of one who is not a competent man in. mining matters. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not think I am pressing this matter in any captious spirit. I think that, as a rule, agents are men who have all the qualifications that are necessary. In some instances, however, that happy state of things does not exist; and I do not see any reason why a person who occupies the position of agent, a person who has the care and direction of a mine, should not possess a first-class certificate. But I am willing to submit to a compromise. If the right hon. Gentleman will strike out the words "care or direction of any mine," and substitute some other words showing that the agent merely occupies a financial position, the difficulty may be met.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Will the Committee accept these words—
      "'Agent,' when in relation to any mine, means any person acting as representative of the owner and superior to a manager."
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: That does not meet the case.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Abraham) says that that does not meet our point. Of course, it is known that the owner is superior to the agent, and that the agent is superior to the manager. What we desire is that the agent shall not interfere with the management or direction of the mine.
      MR. CONYBEARE: We have not considered what provisions there are in this Bill in which agents are mentioned. Take Section 17.
      890
      There we find that the owner, agent, and manager are spoken of together. It appears to me that if this proposed Amendment or definition is to be of any value at all, we must carefully consider what are the powers given to the agents in the preceding part of the Bill. "What possible harm can there be in the requirement that the agent shall have a first-class certificate? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has met us by observing that you might just as well require the owner to take out a certificate. A very good thing too. Every owner should know something practical about the colliery from which he derives his fortune. But what I was going to say is this. According to what I recollect of the many provisions of this Bill, the agent, whatever definition you may give of him, is in a position of superiority in many cases to the manager. The agent is able to give orders. It is part of his duty to give orders to the manager. Supposing an agent knows nothing about the working of a mine; supposing he is not able to take out a certificate, he may give orders which a manager may be compelled to carry out, but which may be orders of a most ridiculous kind, involving probable disaster, or jeopardizing the lives of the miners. If the manager is bound to obey the orders of the agent, it appears to me the agent ought to be qualified to give orders of an intelligible character, and such as a manager may feel himself called upon to carry out.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that this discussion is rather running in contravention of what has been already settled. The relations between the agent and the manager are defined in Section 21. Section 21 says—
      "Every mine shall be under a manager, who shall be responsible for the control, management, and direction of the mine, and the owner or agent of every such mine shall nominate himself or some other person to be the manager of such mine."
      And it provides that—
      "A person shall not be qualified to be a manager of a mine, unless he is, for the time being, registered as the holder of a first-class certificate."
      The relations of the manager to the agent are, therefore, completely settled.
      MR. BURT: So far as I know, the agent in the North of England would in every case hold a first-class certificate, or could immediately pass an

      891
      examination entitling him to such a certificate. There would, therefore, be no practical difficulty in putting this provision in force so far as I am aware. At the same time, let me point out that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not at all meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda Division of Glamorgan (Mr. W. Abraham) and others who have spoken in this debate—it would not at all alter the position of the agent. What we really want to accomplish will have to be met in another way — namely, by omitting all the words after "person" in line 33, and making the definition read—
      "'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act."
      Whether that is an Amendment which will be accepted or not I cannot say; but it is an Amendment which would prevent an agent sheltering himself behind his subordinate—the manager.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Let me once more appeal to the Committee. Does anyone doubt that the owner is superior to the manager? I should think not. The manager must obey the owner's orders; but he must see that the orders of the owner do not contravene the Act of Parliament. Anyone can understand that the owner may be a child or a woman, or be a gentleman of great experience and knowledge like the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease); the agent is simply appointed to represent the owner. Hon. Members must not lose sight of that—the agent is the person the owner puts there to stand in his shoes and do all he would do. Clause 21 points out clearly the distinction between the manager and the owner or agent. I submit that the words that I have suggested would meet all the difficulties of the case. If anyone does anything in the mine contrary to the Act, the agent is liable to a criminal prosecution. The agent has the inherent power which belongs to every owner—he is simply the representative or double of the owner when the owner cannot be there. I beg the Committee to take a practical view of this question.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: With the object of saving time, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should
      892
      reconsider these words? I understand he is prepared to agree to the omission of the words "care and direction of the mine."
      MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Let me point out one or two double inaccuracies in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. As a matter of fact, of course an owner who is a perfect layman never thinks of interfering with the management of a mine; but he very often appoints a person known throughout the whole district colloquially as agent. That person may have the care of half-a-dozen mines; but he may not be a person holding a first-class certificate. He gives directions in matters of detail in connection with the management of the mines to the managers who are under him. Anyone who is acquainted with the coal trade in the North of England will bear me out when I say that the appointment of such a person is anything but satisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman will, however, reconsider these words, there is an end of the matter.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I must say, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he is mistaken in regard to the duties of an agent. The managers of the mines in Staffordshire have met on several occasions, and urged, in the strongest possible manner, that agents are practically superior managers. The managers think it very hard indeed that these men should be placed over them, to give them directions when they are not compelled to hold certificates, as the managers themselves are. There is no evil so strongly felt in Staffordshire as this. I must urge on the Committee, supported as I am by practical men, the necessity of agents who, in Staffordshire at all events, manage mines holding first-class certificates.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says—and says very truly—that the owner of a mine may be a person perfectly incompetent to judge of the management of the mine. He says that the owner may be a child, a woman, or a baronet; but the agent takes the place of the owner. If the right hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 21, which has been so frequently quoted, he will see that the agent may appoint

      893
      himself to be manager of the mine. If he does appoint himself to be manager of the mine, then, of course, it will be necessary for him to qualify by taking out a first-class certificate. But a man may appoint himself not merely to one mine, but to any number of mines. He may be the nominal general manager of a large number of mines; and in regard to each particular pit, he may have under him a second-class certificated manager. That is perfectly admissible under the Bill. Now, what is of great public importance—and of importance to all those who work in each of these pits—is that the agent, who has, at any rate, to a certain extent, control over the second-class manager and the first-class manager, should himself be in a position to judge of the work, and of the completeness and character of the management of each of the pits under him, and the only guarantee that you can have that the agent shall be properly qualified to judge of the management of a manager, whether he be first or second class, in any colliery or pit is that he shall be himself a certificated man of the first class. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, to say nothing of the question of promotion, it does appear to me to be reasonable that these men who are over certificated managers should themselves necessarily be holders of first-class certificates.
      MR. JOICEY: It think it would be unwise to limit the agency to a man who holds a first-class certificate. It is necessary at times to have a man as agent who possesses a complete knowledge of the whole of the working of a mine. A man may have a first-class knowledge of mining, and yet not hold a first-class certificate. I believe there is a good deal of work independent of the actual working of a mine for an agent to do. I am one of the largest proprietors in the North of England; and I think that, as a rule, you will find the agent is a first-class certificated man, and that it is only where you get an exceptionally clever commercial man that he would be appointed agent. I think that, under such circumstances, it would be very unwise to prohibit owners from appointing any but first-class certificated men.
      MR. BURT: I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home
      894
      Secretary will meet the case, and therefore I recommend my hon. Friends to accept it.
      SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I understand that on Report the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is prepared to alter the clause, so that it will provide that an agent who has the care and direction of a mine shall hold a first-class certificate. If that is the understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I suggest that the clause should read—
      "'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, moans any person appointed by the owner as his representative in respect to a mine or any part thereof, and superior to the manager appointed in pursuance of this Act."
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If that is proposed, what is the use of such a definition? You do not require such a definition—it is pure surplusage.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: If the agent is to be superior to the manager, what is he to be superior to him in regard to if not for the purpose of this Act? If the agent is superior to the manager for the purpose of this Act, then all the other words may be dispensed with. I think it should be made clear that an agent is not to have control of the mine unless he is duly qualified.
      MR. MATTHEWS: He will not have control of the mine any more than the owner. The agent will have the power of the owner, neither more nor less.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: In what way will he be superior to the manager?
      MR. MATTHEWS: Just as the owner is, neither more nor less.
      MR. W. ABRAHAM: In the direction or management of the mine, or in a commercial sense?
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Could not the words "representative of the owner" be omitted?
      MR. MATTHEWS: I will adopt the words suggested to me by the Chairman himself—namely, "as such representative superior to the manager." I have always understood the agent to be the alter ego of the owner, as a man who has all the privileges of the owner, and no more.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to move the omission of the entire definition—namely—

      895
      "'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person having, on behalf of the owner, care or direction of any mine or any part thereof, and superior to a manager appointed in pursuance of this Act."
      I propose to do away with what appears to be a perfect absurdity in defining the word "agent." "Agent" is perfectly well known to the law. It means a person acting on behalf of the owner in respect to what this Act deals with. What on earth do we want to define the word "agent" for under these circumstances? By introducing needless definitions we run the risk of having fine points raised which need never be raised at all if you were content to leave the thing as it is.
      Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 32, to leave out from the word "agent" to the word "Act," in line 35, both inclusive.—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
      Question put, "That the words 'agent when used in relation to any mine, means any person,' stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 54: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 396.) [4.25 P.M.]
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 43, line 33, leave out "having on behalf of the owner care or direction," and insert "appointed as the representative of the owner in respect."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
      Question, "That the words 'having on behalf of the owner care or direction ' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'appointed as the representative of the owner in respect' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 34, after "and." insert "as such." —(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
      Question proposed, "That the words ' as such ' be there inserted."
      MR. CONYBEARE: I am entirely in the dark as to what is to come after this. I should like to know how the matter really stands. If I am permitted, I will propose to make it clear that the agent should not directly interfere with the management of the mine.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I will read how the clause will run when amended—
      "'Agent,' when used in relation to any mine, means any person appointed as representative of the owner in respect of any mine or any part
      896
      thereof, and as such superior to the manager appointed in pursuance of this Act."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 40, leave out the word "sixteen," and insert the word "eighteen."—(Mr. Pickard.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. MATTHEWS: I think we exhausted this subject many weeks ago. Sixteen is the age of a boy we decided, and I trust this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the Committee will be allowed to get on with Business.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 76 (Application of Act to Scotland).
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 44, line 10, leave out the words "the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer." and to insert the words "the auditor of the Sheriff Court of the county, or district of a county in which any inquiry takes place." — (The Lord Advocate.)
      Question proposed, "That the words ' the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I understand this Amendment is moved to meet the object with which I moved two Amendments earlier in the discussion on the Bill, and which I withdrew on the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). I must take it upon his authority that this Amendment adequately meets the object in view.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'the auditor of the Sheriff Court of the county or district of a county in which any inquiry takes place,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before this clause is agreed to I should like to ask why the term "public elementary school" needs to be defined at all in. line 21?
      MR. F. S. POWELL: I think that this definition appears in all Statutes.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: There is nothing about public elementary schools in the Bill.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.
      MR. ARTHURO'CONNOR: Where?
      Clause, agreed to.
      Clause 77 (Application of Act to Ireland) agreed to.

      Transitory Provisions and Repeal.
      Clause 78 (Existing inspectors and examining boards continued); and Clause 79 (Existing certificates and register continued), agreed to.
      Clause 80 (Grant of certificates of service in case of certain under managers).
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I cannot help thinking that this clause will do serious injury to a great body of men who have by great diligence and often by self-sacrifice qualified themselves for the posts which are supposed to be secured by certificates of competency. I do not want to prejudice the case of the men I refer to by quoting the case entirely in my own words, because they seem to have expressed it much better than I can do myself. In a letter, the men to whom I refer clearly set forth the object I have in view. The Colliery Managers Association of Lancashire say, and their arguments are equally valid in regard to colliery managers in other parts of the country, that Clause 80 effects the position of what they are pleased to call their profession. They submit that if it becomes law, and a certificate of service is granted to every person who satisfies the Secretary of State he has been exercising daily supervision for 12 months previous to the passing of this Act, it will be the means of causing hundreds of certificates to be granted. In fact, every under manager will be entitled to it, and they say it will materially affect the future welfare of those men who have worked hard and successfully to obtain certificates of competency as required by the Act of 1872. You will take from these gentlemen many of the chances of promotion which are now open to them—many of these men have worked themselves up from lads in the pit at considerable expense, while others have served long periods of apprenticeship to become competent colliery managers. It is asserted, I believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that there
      898
      would be difficulty with regard to the appointment of managers if it was always necessary to insist upon an examination on certificate—that is to say, a certificate of competency with examination; but these gentlemen declare that there have been over 6,000 certificates granted, and I believe I am within the number when I say that of these 2,500 are first-class certificates. Having regard to the fact that there are 3,500 collieries in the country, and that a very large number of the mines and pits are very small—I do not know how many hundreds have less than 30 men under ground who do not require certificated managers at all, and of those who have more than 30 men under ground a very large number of them are comparatively small—it is clear you do not want anything like 2,500 first-class certificates to furnish the managerial staff necessary to conduct the coal mines of the Kingdom. My informant goes on to say that if second-class certificates are granted it will be lawful for a person holding a first-class certificate to nominate himself for 20 mines or collieries, and to appoint a second-class man in each pit. These collieries may be miles apart, and not visited by the so-called manager more than once a month. In these cases, and there are many such, the whole management will devolve upon the second-class man, to whom it is comtemplated to grant the necessary certificate for no other qualification than that of 12 months' service. I think the arguments embodied in the statements I have submitted to the Committee are well worthy of the consideration of the Government and of the Committee. I do not think it is necessary I should say anything further, but certainly I shall feel myself compelled to vote against this clause.
      MR. MATTHEWS: Allow me to say a very few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman. I quite admit that the second-class certificated managers would be subjected to great hardship if they were not enabled to continue the functions they are performing now. The same difficulty occurs under the Act of 1872 with regard to first-class certificates. If hon Members will turn to Section 31 they will find certificates of service were made as effective as certificates given in pursuance of examination for those who had a certain service. We propose a similar clause for the under managers.

      899
      I am sure hon. Members will see the justice of the clause.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I quite agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the ' Home Secretary. There is only one matter I desire to refer to, upon which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy us. It is just possible that the clause will operate very harshly upon a number of deserving persons. It may happen under this Act that owners of mines may appoint persons as managers of mines who are permitted under the section of the Act which allows of non-certificated managers being appointed where there are only a small number of persons employed. Under the last Act where only a certain number of persons are employed it is not necessary the managers should hold a certificate at all.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This is a very important point. There was a similar provision in the Act of 1872, and for years after that Act passed men were appointed and qualified in this way —evasively I think—on the strength of having been employed in charge of collieries during a certain period before the Act was passed. It was a pure evasion of the Act, and it should be borne in mind that many of these men are now in possession of first-class certificates.
      MR. MATTHEWS: No, no. This is entirely confined to second-class certificates. I will, however, reconsider the point by Report. I think that a little alteration may well be made in the section.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What I say is that of the men who were appointed under the Act of 1872 on service certificates, many are not now classed under the Bill as first class.
      MR. MATTHEWS: They have been so for years past.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clauses 81, 82, and 83, inclusive, severally agreed to.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I rise to propose the Amendment standing in my name entirely on humanitarian grounds. I would never have drawn up this Amendment with reference to ordinary industries of the country; but the case of the miners is one, in my opinion, which calls for special consideration. Let us look at the position of these men. They work under ground;
      900
      they cannot get out without the permission of the owners; they are working in narrow workings, and in mines some of which are wet and others partially wet; they carry on their labour in a cramped position; they have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning, and they do not get out of the mine until 4 o'clock in the afternoon: and during six months of the year they never see the sun except on Sunday. I think it is monstrous to keep these men below ground for more than eight hours consecutively. I feel sure that this Amendment will commend itself to the feelings of the House on humanitarian grounds, and it is, as I have said, solely on those grounds that I propose it. You say, why do the men not combine, as the English miners do? But the workmen in Scotland are not so perfect in their organization as those in England, and that is easily accounted for, because in England you have large bodies of men associated together, whereas in Scotland you have comparatively few men scattered over large districts, and it is for these reasons that the men do not combine. Some years ago the Scotch miners struck against the long hours during which they have to work; but, after eight weeks, they were starved into submission; they were obliged to give way because they could not help themselves. There are several mines in my district the owners of which do not allow the men to come up before 4 o'clock, notwithstanding that they have to get up at o o'clock in the morning, and work under the conditions which I have described. I think this is a most barbarous practice, and I sincerely trust that the clause which I propose will meet with the sympathy of hon. Members.
      New Clause, after Clause 11 —
      (Employment of workmen.)
      "No workman shall be employed below ground in any mine to which this Act applies (except in cases of emergency) for a longer period than eight consecutive hours, or for more than eight hours in any twenty-four hours, when the mine is worked on the single shift system. The period of such employment shall be deemed to begin at the time of leaving the surface and to end at the time of returning to the surface,"—(Mr. S. Williamson,)
      —brought up, and read the first time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      MR. HOZIER: I rise to support the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson). I fully recognize that the House has, as a rule, always objected to curtailing adult labour; but I cannot help thinking that circumstances alter cases, and I would ask the Committee to consider the circumstances and the nature of the work which the miners have to perform. I suppose there are few people who receive greater sympathy for their labour than Members of Parliament. Let us consider the time during which a Member of Parliament has to work. If he is engaged on a Committee he comes down at 12 o'clock, and afterwards attends in the House of Commons from 4 o'clock in the afternoon probably until 4 o'clock the next morning. This makes 16 hours' work, and we are told in consequence by the Lancet and other newspapers which are full of our sufferings, that we are more or less dying for our country. But will anyone contend that our 16 hours of work can be for a moment compared with even 8 hours' work in the mines? It is the miner, I say, who is being worn out by excessive hours of labour, and for that reason I beg to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock.
      MR. HALDANE: The new clause, the second reading of which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) proposes to do two things—it proposes to restrict the hours during which a man may be employed consecutively below ground; and, in the second place, it proposes to put it in the power of a man so employed to compel the owner or manager of the mine to give him egress at any time. I wish to remark that these two propositions stand on a completely different footing. We have hitherto sought in this Bill to do two distinct things. We have sought to protect the workman and employer against fraudulent dealings, and we have sought to deal with a mine as a dangerous place, and to provide in accordance with principle and precedent that the business of mines shall be so conducted that it shall be free from certain dangers and perils. The second of the propositions of the hon. Member appears to me to fall within the latter of these categories, and to be a most
      902
      proper and beneficial one. But in the first part of this clause we appear to approach an entirely new principle; we are not dealing with women and children; we are dealing with able-bodied men, and what my hon. Friend asks is to protect these men, who are perfectly able to protect themselves, from the consequences of their own contract. Now, my hon. Friend adverted to some of the circumstances in which they are placed. I entirely and absolutely agree with him in thinking that it is a monstrous thing that the men should work in the mine underground for more than eight hours. I think it would be of advantage to the country if we could have the system in Scotland, which works so well, in the North of England—that is to say, the system of two shifts of six and a-half or seven hours. But are you to call for the intervention of the State to get this good system introduced into Scotland? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] Ought it not to be the result of the exertions of the men themselves? [An hon. MEMBER: No.] My hon. Friend says "No." But I say "Yes." We are here dealing with the gravest issues, and if the words which my hon. Friend proposes were inserted they would land us in a condition of things of which at the present time we have no conception. I admit that this is one of the most tempting cases that can be brought before us; but if we are to answer this question affirmatively we shall be introducing an entirely new principle, and one which is impossible, logically, to defend in its application to oases which are not now before us, and, which I take it, many hon. Members are not anxious to go into. We have had this question brought forward in connection with the hours of shopmen and in connection with the hours of agricultural labourers. I think the case of the miners is a far harder and more urgent case than these. But let us see how the matter now stands. By organization the miners in the North of England have been able to restrict their hours in the same way as is proposed by the clause of my hon. Friend. They have been enabled in the East of Scotland to keep their hours within the eight hours' limit. Why not, then, in, the West of Scotland? Surely it is because there is not sufficient organization among the men, and because they have not adequately combined

      903
      together in order to get what, I think, the great majority of Members of this House would agree that they ought to have. It may be that we shall hereafter be driven to recognize that it is the duty of the State to interfere to a greater degree in the interest of the subject than at present; but in the meantime let us rely on the exertions of individuals in combination; let us remember that they are in the possession and exercise of their faculties, and that they should unrestrictedly and to the fullest degree put forth the intelligence which belongs to them for the purpose they have in view. While I deeply sympathize with my hon. Friend's object, I feel that I am face to face with a question of principle, and, moreover, with a very grave question of principle. I know that in the vote I shall give I shall be going in the teeth of the wishes of a large number of my own constituents: but I believe that there is no other course open to me than the one which I propose to take in opposing this Motion.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I would at this hour make an earnest appeal to hon. Members to restrict the discussion of this Amendment, and to decide at once the question which is before the Committee. I am not in the least seeking to depreciate the importance of this question; but I think that it has been so often brought forward that nothing can be added to what has already been said that is likely to alter the opinion which this House has arrived at. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) very ably stated the view which is held on this side of the House with, regard to the question before it, and surely it is not necessary at this stage to discuss the question at greater length. I do not want to enter into controversial matter; all I wish to say is, that every hon. Member of this House has thoroughly made himself acquainted with the labour which the miner has to perform, and I do trust that if hon. Gentlemen opposite think it necessary to divide the Committee on this clause, they will do so at once.
      MR. BURT: I quite appreciate the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and the indication he has given us with, regard to the pressure
      904
      of time. I join in that appeal, although it may seem a little inconsistent in asking to be allowed to say one word on this subject before we go to the Division. I have been all my life an advocate of short hours of labour; I have advocated that principle constantly in this House and out of it, and at this moment I am still in favour of shortening the hours during which the miners work. I have, however, always drawn a distinction between adult male labour and juvenile and female labour. In those particular cases I quite endorse the view of my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, and I think he is quite right in bringing this subject before the House; There is evidence of a general desire on the part of the Scotch miners to have such a clause as this inserted in the Bill, and for my part, if we had been dealing with Scotland only, I would have had no hesitation in supporting the Amendment before the Committee. But I want to point out, that so far as adults are concerned they can do for themselves what is here asked to be done for them. It has been done in England, where it is true they have a better organization, and it has also been done in Scotland. It is only in that part of Scotland where the men have not a thorough organization that these long hours are maintained, and when they have become more thoroughly organized in that part I believe they will be able to establish the eight hours' system throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. In the North of England the miners at present work six and a-half and seven hours a-day, but this Amendment would imply that everyone should work at least eight hours a-day. I recognize that under existing circumstances there is a strong feeling against "continuing the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member. I should be very much disinclined to vote against him, but I feel I cannot vote with him, and I shall therefore do what I have seldom done since I became a Member of this House—that is to say, I shall remain neutral on this question.
      MR. CHILDERS: I have no wish whatever to prolong the discussion, but I am bound to inform the Committee that last year I was engaged for some months on this question of coal mines regulation, and I received

      905
      a large deputation from miners in all parts of the country. This deputation brought before me a number of proposals among which compulsory limitation of hours of labour was not included. But to make sure, I put this question to them—" Do you wish any State interference with the hours of adult labour?" The emphatic answer I received was, "No." The deputation which waited upon me was a most important one, and knowing that this was a burning question, I put the case before them as I have stated to the Committee, and I obtained the answer, that in no district in Great Britain was it the desire of the miners that any restriction of the hours of labour in the case of adult males should be imposed by law. I am strongly in favour of such combination among miners as will obtain for them lower hours of labour. In my humble judgment, eight hours is quite enough, and perhaps more than enough, for them to work, but it is certain that last year it was the wish of the miners that this should not be established by law.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) says in effect—"We will not help you; you must help yourselves." With regard to the deputation to which he has referred, I am aware that he did elicit the answer stated to the Committee; but it is equally true that the miners in different parts of the country, when the reports of that interview were published, emphatically protested against the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. This is not so much a question of organization as is supposed by some; there seems to be a great misapprehension on this point. The hon. Gentleman near me is of opinion that it is to their organization that the miners in Northumberland are indebted for the limitation of their hours of labour. Although, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh, I am not a miner, I venture to dissent from the view which the hon. Member has taken. I believe that the limitation of the hours of labour in Durham and Northumberland is due to a totally different cause; it is due to the fact that some of the employers in that district adopted the system of double shifts, and that others finding it to their interest
      906
      to have the double shift fell in with the arrangement. I believe even now if the employers were to take it into their heads that it was to their advantage to depart from the system which at present obtains and prescribe more than eight hours of labour, the miners in the end would have to submit, notwithstanding their organization. Some time ago the miners in Northumberland challenged their employers; and what was the result? The result was complete collapse.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Member for East Donegal ought to add that the leading members of the organization tried to prevent the strike.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes; but I say that the organization as a whole was in favour of the strike. The strike collapsed. The miners of Durham and Northumberland would not face a collision with their employers, and on this question of hours, also, their resistance would collapse if the owners made up their minds to change the present system. The miners in Scotland are twitted because they are not organized as they are in England. It is perfectly true that in some parts of Scotland the eight-hours' system obtains, whereas, in other parts, it does not. You have the eight-hours' system in Fifeshire; but you have not got it in Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland. As I have said, this does not depend upon organization. The fact is, that in the East of Scotland the mines and collieries are generally owned by comparatively small men, who are more amenable to the pressure brought to bear upon them by the miners than the larger owners in the West of Scotland. In the West of Scotland you are in the presence of large firms, who have no bowels of compassion; they make the hardest possible terms with their employés. This is the reason why you find that the men in the West of Scotland have to submit to harder terms than those in the East. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may grudge a few minutes of the time of the House; but, surely, if we had to stop here for a week to settle this question, it would not be too much, when we consider that the time of 600 men is concerned on one side and that on the other there is the interest of 400,000 minors. What is the time of the House of Com-

      907
      mons to the lives of these men? I can tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) that there is in his own constituency a colliery in which the men are compelled to work for nine hours, and he will find that the overwhelming majority of his constituents are in favour of this eight-hours' Amendment, and that he will have to vote for it, if he remains in his present position, at some future day. This is a matter of considerable importance, not only with regard to the miners in Scotland, but also with regard to those in Durham and Northumberland, and we want to secure for the miners in the West of Scotland the term which has already been secured by the workmen in the East.
      Ms. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: This is a question of supreme importance to the miners in the West of Scotland, and as I have never wasted any time in this House I ask for the indulgence of the Committee while I make a few observations on the clause of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson). So great is the interest we take in this question, that I can assure hon. Members that we should consider the Bill almost as so much waste paper, unless we have in it a clause restricting the hours of labour under ground to eight. I say that our men do not care a farthing if the other clauses of the Bill were thrown out; but they are most anxious that this particular clause should be passed. I challenge any hon. Member for Scotland to bring forward any section of miners who will condemn my action in speaking thus, or condemn the action of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock in bringing forward this Amendment. It has been said that we take merely an academical interest in this question, and that we are not practical miners. But I suppose that we are not deprived of common sense; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has told us that the deputation that waited on him were not in favour of State interference with the hours of labour in mines, I can assure him that he might stump Scotland from the Tweed to John O'Groats' House, or from the Bass Rock to Ailsa, he would not find a single miner to support the statement made to him by the deputation. I am glad there are no mining Representatives from Scotland in the House at this mo-
      908
      ment, and my reason is that if there were they would be compelled in lengthy and forcible speeches to vindicate their position with regard to this Amendment, in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and to ask him if he thinks he is really serving the interest of the working classes of the country by not standing firm on this question? It is said that the Scotch miners are to organize as they have done in Durham and Northumberland; but are our men to be pushed day by day to starvation while this organization is growing up? The miners in Scotland know their trade interest, and they know that if they do not have State interference in this matter this winter will reduce them to starvation. I say there is a pinch coming in the mining industry, and that it cannot go on in the future as it has done in the past. The whole of this Bill is conceived in terms that imply that the mining interest is flourishing. But prices are falling, and much suffering will be thrown on the workmen in consequence; and if the Government do not take measures to meet this they will find themselves face to face with a similar state of things to that which occurred at Blantyre a little time ago, where men saw themselves, owing to the pressure of these economical laws-—this freedom of contract— gradually being brought into a state of starvation. You talk of freedom of contract, and say that we are not to interfere with adult labour; but how otherwise are we to interfere between the rich and poor man? Your freedom of contract is all on one side. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will advise the House not to commit itself to Socialistic legislation; but what has been the legislation of the last 10 years, if not Socialistic in its tendency? If all the miners had the same mental power as the hon. Member for Northampton, I should be the last to ask for State interference; but these men stand in a vastly different position, and I say that it is not in their interest alone, but in that of employers, that this eight hours' rule should become law. Is it not obvious that the men will do a better day's work under the eight hours' system than under a 12 hours' system? The proposal we make is a moderate one, and it is one which must, be carried sooner or later. The country is rapidly

      909
      making up its mind, and the House and the Government will find that every trade in the Kingdon will before long ask for an eight hours' Bill. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, I hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division, even if he only gets one Member, and that would be myself, to tell with him.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I wish to say that I shall be obliged to divide the Committee on my Amendment, not because of the irrelevant matter which has been introduced into the discussion, but on humanitarian grounds, on which alone I appeal to the Committee.
      MR. BROADHURST: It is exceedingly difficult on this vary important question either to give a silent vote, or to abstain from voting. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) has referred to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers); but the Committee will remember that on the occasion referred to the Scotch miners were fully represented, and formed no inconsiderable part of the deputation which waited upon my right hon. Friend. With regard to the main question, the hon. Member for Morth-West Lanark speaks as if it were a universal demand on the part of the workmen that the State should step in and make this eights hours' regulation. I defy the hon. Gentleman, however, to refer to a properly constituted representative of a workmen's organization who has voted for this rule.
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to ask in any public meeting if the workmen are in favour of the Bill without the clause.
      MR. BROADHURST: That is not the question. Many trades in this country have provided themselves with the eight hours' rule, and I am myself in. favour of it where it can be obtained. But the question here is whether the State is to be called upon to do for the miners what they are perfectly able to do for themselves. If we ask the State to regulate the hours of labour for adults, we shall afterwards have to ask for State interference in the matter of wages, and then we may have to ask the State to intervene to settle how wages are to be expended. To support this proposal would be to condemn the
      910
      whole system of trades unionism, which is one of the great triumphs won by labour in this country. For these reasons I shall certainly not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I consider it my duty to enter a protest against what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) and others as to there being no demand on the part of the Scotch miners for an eight hours' rule. I do not deny what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the reply made by the deputation which waited on him last year; but I have, within the last few weeks, addressed some half-dozen meetings of miners in Ayrshire and Stirlingshire; and having discoursed with some thousands of these men, I am able to state that at the present moment the miners of Scotland are for this measure, and, further, that they are exceedingly emphatic in demanding it. I challenge the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. H. Elliot) to get up and say that his constituents will not at once turn him out of his representation if he fails to do his duty in voting for this clause. I am a strong trade unionist. There are many trade unionists among the miners of my Division; but if they tell me that they are not in favour of this clause, my own experience is very much at fault. There is, I must say, a gross misconception with regard to tin's very important question, and we are bound to deal with it fairly. The State is simply the representative of the people of the country; and if the men of Great Britain and Scotland desire to do—through the agency of Parliament— that which they are unable to do through their trade unions, I say they are quite as much justified in asking their Representatives in this House to introduce this rule as they would be to endeavour to establish it through, their trade unions. But this Amendment is not alone in favour of the mm; it is in favour of the owners also. I believe there are some owners' Representatives to be heard, who will, in this case, say that their interest is identical with that of the men. At any rate, there are owners who wish to deal fairly with their men, and are in favour of this measure, although they cannot deal out

      911
      this measure of justice, because there are other owners who are interested in the men working 10 hours a-day. We have to consider whether this is a principle tending to the social and moral development of our people, and if it be, it is a principle which should be introduced in the interests of the country at largo; and when we are met with pedantic and academic arguments about the good of the State, I say that they are arguments which can, in the present case, be dispensed with. These are the few remarks I have to make; and I will add my testimony to this discussion that the workmen and miners in Scotland are in favour of this Amendment.
      MR. MASON: I rise to support the clause which has been moved by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson); and, in doing so, I wish to contradict the statement that there is no desire in Scotland for this eight hours' regulation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) that he is entirely misinformed on this subject, and of this the Petition presented yesterday to the House is evidence. [Cries of "Divide!"] I shall conclude what I have to say on this subject, notwithstanding the cries of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that the Scotch miners are largely in favour of the eight hours' system. I am surprised that it should be argued that the men ought to be able to get this for themselves. No doubt, it is a fundamental principle that what people can do for themselves we should not do for them; but in this case the miners cannot get what they want. The evidence is that they cannot get mining regulations carried out without the aid of an Act of Parliament. If this regulation works without any injurious effect in one part of the country, why do you not agree to establish it in Scotland, when the miners ask for it? I do not at all agree that the question should be argued from the point of view of combination. I am satisfied that eight hours is quite long enough for any man to work under ground; and I dare say that if, instead of being Members of Parliament, Gentlemen in this House were miners, they would every one of them be in favour of the present clause. From an economical point of view, I believe the application of this principle would
      912
      be beneficial to the nation. It has been found to be of use where it has been put in force; and I call on the Committee to assist those who are unable to assist themselves in the matter of establishing the rule where it does not exist now. This clause will in no way interfere with over ground work; and, for my part, I think we may draw a very important distinction between the two kinds of labour. For these reasons, I shall support the Motion for the second reading of the clause.
      MR. FENWICK: My objection to this Amendment is not on the ground that I think the Scotch miners are not anxious to have the clause, but because its tendency is in the direction of increasing the hours of work for a number of miners whom I represent in this House, and who solely, by their organization and self-dependence, have been able to secure a shorter period of labour. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) said that it was because we had the double-shift system in Northumberland that we have been able to shorten the hours of work; but I can assure my hon. Friend that even under that system we worked atone time a greater number of hours than we do now. It is in my recollection that the miners in Durham worked for 10 and 11 hours a-day, and it is by their organization, and not owing to any Act of Parliament, that they have been able to get those hours reduced. It is because I believe that, with double shift in operation, the owners may find it open to them to extend the hours of labour, that I am opposed to the Amendment. If the hon. Member chooses to bring in a Bill for Scotland, to enforce the eight-hours' system, I shall support it, because I believe that the Scotch miners strongly desire to have that system. I do not want to vote against the miners of Scotland; but for once since I have been, a Member of this House I shall walk out when the Question is put from the Chair.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: It is impossible for me to give a silent vote on this question after the discussion which has taken place. I intend to vote against this Amendment, as a protest against those who encourage men to rely on Parliament to do for them what they ought to do for themselves.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I venture to appeal to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to withdraw his Amendment, and that appeal I make in the interest of the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Northampton has made a suggestion which, I think, those who support this Amendment would do well to consider. But there is another appeal which I wish to make. Hon. Gentlemen have clauses on the Paper for consideration in Committee, and I suggest that those clauses should be considered as the first question on the Report of the Bill. If those clauses still remain on the Paper for consideration in Committee the Bill will be placed in such a position that it is impossible to say what would be the result. I hope hon. Gentlemen will agree to the course I have suggested.
      MR. S. WILLIAMSON: It will be quite impossible for me to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the present Amendment.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 159: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 397.) [5.40 P.M.]
      And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman loft the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  QUESTIONS.

    ORDER OF BUSINESS.
    MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, What will be the Business of the House to-morrow?
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I observe that the Coal Mines Bill has been set down for to-morrow, and I wish to ask whether the Government intend to take it then or not? [Cries of "From day to day."]
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I can only say what the order of Business will be to-morrow. The first Order will be the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Bill; the second will be the Coal Mines Bill; and
    914
    the third Order will be the Truck Bill.
    MR. CHILDERS: What time will the Allotments Bill be taken on Friday? I understand that a promise has been, made to take it on Friday.
    MR. JACKSON: I cannot answer that.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I was not aware there was any definite promise to take the Allotments Bill on Friday night. I think it was only said that it was likely to be taken; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has promised to make a statement with regard to Public Business to-morrow.
    MR. SEXTONI wish to ask, when the Irish Estimates will be taken?
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member will hear of that to-morrow.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask, whether it is not the fact that the Government undertook that the Coal Mines Bill should be the first Order from day to day until it was disposed of?
    MR. JACKSON: Her Majesty's Government anticipated that the Coal Mines Bill would not take more than, two nights, and they were much disappointed that it was not finished on, Tuesday. As three days have been occupied by the Bill I think the Government have done everything that was incumbent on them and in their power.
    MR. CHILDERS: the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has suggested that boa. Members shall allow the Committee to be finished as soon as possible and bring forward their Amendments on the Report, and no answer has as yet been made to that suggestion. I hope I am not doing wrong in expressing the hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury.
    House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.