Sitting of 23 November 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

TREATY SERIES (No. 23, 1911).
Copy presented of Treaty between the United Kingdom and Siam respecting the Extradition of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at Bangkok, 4th March, 1911. Ratifications exchanged at London, 1st August, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1910).
Copy presented of Annual Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, with Statistics for the year 1910. Part III. Output [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Conference.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is now able to state the names of the British delegates to the forthcoming Opium Conference at The Hague?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): In addition to the gentlemen whose names I gave to the hon. Member on the 9th inst., His Majesty's Government will be represented at the Conference by Sir William Collins.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does that make four delegates or five?
  Sir E. GREY: It makes four.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that at the Shanghai Conference Great Britain was represented by five delegates, and whether the question of appointing an extra delegate has been, or will be, considered?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.
  Mr. KING: Will it be considered whether a representative of the commercial interests might not be appointed?
  Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Gentleman will give notice of the question, we will consider whether there should be any more delegates or not.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement of 18th October, 1907, by The Hague Convention, No. 14, to prohibit the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature, signed and ratified on behalf of Great Britain, was also signed and ratified by Turkey and by Italy, and, if so, on what dates respectively; and can he state whether the prohibition has been observed both by Turkey and by Italy during the present war or by one of them only, and, if so, by which?
  Sir E. GREY: The declaration drawn up at The Hague Conference prohibiting the discharge of projectiles from balloons, etc., was not signed by the Italian Plenipotentiaries. It was signed by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries, but has not been ratified by the Sultan. I have no information at present as to how far the principles laid down in the declaration have been observed or disregarded by the belligerents.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the announcement that Russia may be allowed to export 500,000 tons of sugar westwards in the coming year, instead of 600,000 as she asked, indicates that any arrangement has been arrived at between the Powers forming the Convention as suggested at the recent meeting; if so, whether His Majesty's Government is a party to such

  1353
  an arrangement; whether it implies that this country will continue a member of the Convention after 1913; and whether, in view of the interests here which are dependent on cheap and abundant sugar, he can now see his way to announce that under any circumstances this country will withdraw at the earliest possible moment?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware. As regards the third part of the question, the answer is that no inference as to the future can properly he drawn from what is now taking place; and as regards the remainder of the question, that I cannot at present add anything to what I have already said.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how 500,000 tons got in instead of 600,000, to which he alluded in his first answer? The right hon. Gentleman told us then that Russia asked permission to export 400,000 tons, which with the 200,000 would make 600,000.
  Sir E. GREY: If my right hon. Friend will put his question on the Paper, I will see what further information we have.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether any instructions have been or will be given to the British delegates as to what their reply is to be to the question which will probably be put by the foreign Powers, namely, whether if they agree to this stipulation of an extra 400,000 tons Great Britain does or does not intend to withdraw from the Convention?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot answer offhand a definite question as to the instructions which we should give to our delegates in regard to a hypothetical question which has not yet been put.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend say that our hands will not be tied in regard to future action? I think he has already said so.
  Sir E. GREY: This is a matter in which more than one Department is concerned. More than one Department has to be consulted, and I must ask my right hon. Friend to give me notice of the question.

  Persia.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information with regard
  1354
  to the dispatch of Russian troops into Persian territory; and whether any representations have yet been made by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: Russia demanded the replacement of the Treasury Gendarmes by Persian Cossacks in the case of certain property, and a formal apology to the Russian Minister by the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs; and failing this, within a certain time expressed her intention of sending troops to Kasvin. The demands were not conceded. I understand that an intention to comply with them now exists, but it is not likely to be carried out for a few days. Meanwhile the Russian troops have started, and some have arrived at Resht. We have been in communication with the Russian Government, and have been assured that the dispatch of troops would only be a temporary measure to secure satisfaction.

  Foreign Office Staff.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked what restrictions are placed upon the appointment of first division Civil servants in the Foreign Office which do not apply to the other principal offices in the Civil Service; how long these limitations have been in force; and whether the Government have considered the desirability of removing them?
  Sir E. GREY: Candidates for clerkships in the Foreign Office must be nominated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and then undergo a competitive examination. This limitation of open competition has always been in force, and the principle of entry into the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service by limited competition was recognised by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments (Paragraph 25 of Fourth Report, 1890). It is not proposed to alter the present system.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Does the limitation also confine the appointments to applicants possessed of certain private income?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question?
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I gave notice of this in my question.
  Sir E. GREY: No. I do not see anything about income in the question. I did not regard the question as directing my attention to that point. I understood the hon.

  1355
  Member to ask whether there was open competition or whether the appointments were made by nomination.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I will put a further question on the subject.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the principle of filling appointments by nomination has extended in his office since 1906?
  Sir E. GREY: The principle, I understand, before 1906 was that nomination was given by selection from the list made by the Secretary of State. The only recent change has been that now nomination is given to candidates who are on the list, and selection is made by the Board of Selection and not by the Secretary of State personally.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the passing of the Land Act of 1909 has practically doubled the time a landlord has to wait for the purchase money of his estate under the Act of 1903; and whether he will endeavour to obtain a special advance from the Treasury to clear off these cases altogether, or at least deal with those in which there has been a delay of over four years?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As regards the first part of the question, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The Act of 1909 enabled the Estates Commissioners to increase considerably the annual amount of advances, with the result that the total amount of advances applied for and pending at the passing of that Act will be paid off much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Inasmuch as a preference is given under the Act to vendors in pending cases who take some of their payment in stock, there may be some delay in the case of vendors in direct sales who have decided to wait for payment in cash, but there is an acceleration in the other cases. The advances made in the financial year ended 31st March last exceeded those made in any previous year under the Land Purchase Acts. In view of this fact I do not see any necessity for further approaching the Treasury on the subject.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether since the passing
  1356
  of the 1909 Act there has been no diminution in the amount of cash provided for landlords who sell their estates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; all I say is that having regard to the great arrears of pending cases, we have proceeded far more quickly in getting rid of these arrears than we were able to do before.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that many of the landlords who sold under the 1909 Act have long since been paid their purchase money?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked when the Congested Districts Board propose to deal with the O'Callaghan Westrop estate, county Clare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board hope shortly to make an offer for this estate.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in regard to a grazing farm, the property of Major S. C. Hickman, in Rehy, West Clare, the sale has been sanctioned since July last; and, if so, whether he can give assurance that no undue delay will occur till the vesting orders are sent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner of this estate, which is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts, included in the proceedings some 200 acres of untenanted land for sale to the Estates Commissioners. He is willing to sell at the Commissioners' estimated price, and they hope to be in a position to deal with the lands at an early date.

  University Scholarships (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that of fifteen county councils who have allocated sixty-two university scholarships, of an aggregate annual value of about £2,750, all except three have stipulated that these scholarships shall be tenable only at the National (Roman Catholic) University, or at one of its constituent colleges, and that Irish shall be a compulsory subject; if he is aware that the effect of these conditions is to exclude practically all Protestant students from any benefit from these scholarships, the cost of which is defrayed out of the public rates, to which Protestants contribute; and if, in view of the terms of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, he will take steps to prevent Protestant students being

  1357
  penalised, and Trinity College and Belfast University being boycotted, in connection with these scholarships?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Under Section 9 of the Irish Universities Act, county councils may assist by scholarships students at any university in Ireland, but no grant under the Section may be subject to any religious qualifications. While the limitation of scholarships to the National University does not exclude Protestant students, it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the Act if it were left to the student to select his university. As I have already stated in the House, I expect shortly to be in a position to establish a scheme whereby clever boys may be enabled to pass from primary to secondary schools, and ultimately to compete for scholarships at the university, and I hope that the county councils will help to make the scheme possible by dispensing with any restriction such as that to which exception is taken, not unreasonably, in the question.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the action of the county councils as to the allocation of these scholarships is calculated to give confidence to Protestants under a Home Rule Parliament?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is very difficult for me to say what measure of confidence would be placed in it.

  Irish History School Book.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to a school history bearing the names of Mr. Fletcher, Fellow of All Souls, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling, addressed to all boys and girls who are interested in the story of Great Britain and her Empire; if he can state if this history is in common use in Irish schools as well as in English; and whether, in view of the expressions of opinion set forth in the said school history, he will lay the portions of the book dealing with Irish history before his colleague, the Minister for Education of England, with a view of providing some other materials of Irish history?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed and can well believe that this work is not in use in national schools in Ireland, and no special text-books of history are prescribed for secondary schools. I am quite sure that the English Minister of Education stands in no need of my advice.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman between now and the adjournment consider the propriety of consulting his colleagues on the question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have been a Minister of Education myself, and I do not desire unnecessarily to interfere with the discretion of my right hon. Friend. So far as Ireland is concerned, I do not think that the work in question is used in any schools whatever.

  Burning Outrage, Ballaghadereen.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that Dominick Dyce, of Kilrudden, Loughlin, Ballaghadereen, who has been given a portion of a farm striped by the Congested Districts Board has had an outhouse burned down and a quantity of hay, turf etc., destroyed; that a grave was dug outside his house, and a notice was nailed to his door warning him, by order of Captain Moonlight, that the land was bought for the Ballyglass tenants, and no outsider will be allowed to come in; is he aware that Dyce was attacked on the 9th instant by several women, who warned him that he would be burned like his turf if he held the land, and that the man received a threatening notice on the 10th; and if he will state what steps are being taken to afford this man the protection of the law?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated. A claim for compensation in connection with the burning of the shed has been lodged. All necessary protection has been, and will be, afforded to this man.

  Boycotting at Quin, County Clare.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked whether Mrs. Hall, of Clooney House, Quin, county Clare, a lady of eighty years of age, has for some time past been boycotted because she refused to sell her demesne lands, in addition to other lands which she had sold to the Estates Commissioners; whether her herd, labourer, and gardener were each ordered to quit her service, and did so; whether her barn was burnt down and her hay destroyed; what measure of protection is being afforded to Mrs. Hall; how long has she been under police protection; and whether there is any indication that the need for this protection has ceased?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for York on 25th March, 1909. Mrs. Hall

  1359
  is still boycotted, but there are signs of improvement in her case. She has been under police protection since February, 1909, and is still protected by a sergeant and three constables. The police authorities inform me that it would not be advisable at present to withdraw the police protection.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Has there been any result from the undertaking given by the hon. Member for East Mayo that the United Irish League would use the whole strength of the organisation to rescue Mrs. Hall?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not a party in any way to any obligations or promises made outside my own Department.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some special effort to afford protection to this poor lady?
  Mr. BIRRELL: She has, and will continue to have, the ample protection of a sergeant and three constables.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that sufficient protection for this poor lady at her advanced age, and as she has now been boycotted for more than two years should not more protection be given?
  Mr. BIRRELL: She has had the fullest possible protection. I have always said that her case is a very hard and very shocking one. She has received the fullest protection.

  Submerged Rocks (Portmagee).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that owing to the want of marks on rocks in the channel at Portmagee risks attend the navigation; whether steps will be taken to mark these submerged rocks at half tide and high tide, which have frequently been disastrous to vessels; and whether similar steps will be taken as regards the Lackavallig rock in the fairway of the Caherciveen River?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board will cause inquiries to be made and will consider whether beacons should be erected on the rocks mentioned as suggested.
  Mr. BOLAND: In regard to Lockavalleg rock, may I point out that attention has been called to it several times already, and it has been inspected, and nothing has been done?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know that the matter is receiving the attention of the Congested Districts Board.

  Old Age Pension.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked why Mr. John Meehan, of Moymore, Tulla, county Clare, has had his claim to an old age pension rejected by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: John Meehan's claim was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the ground that his means exceeded the statutory limit of £31 10s. per annum.

  School Teachers Classification (Ireland).
  Sir J. LONDSDALEasked the amount per annum that would be saved if the total number of teachers in the second grade were reduced by 600, and the annual expenditure involved by increasing the number in the first division of the first grade by 200, and the number in the second division of the first grade by 350; if the difference between these two amounts represents the additional cost per year of carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners of National Education; and for particulars showing how the Treasury, estimate of £18,000 per annum has been arrived at?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The proposals of the Commissioners was to reduce the second grade by 800, which would effect an estimated saving of £75,200. They also suggested an increase of 240 in the first division, and 350 in the second division, of the first grade at an estimated cost of £83,295, the nett cost of the changes being therefore £8,095. To this, however, must be added the cost of the increase in the third grade, estimated at £10,995, bringing the total cost of the Commissioners' proposal to £19,090. This is, however, only an approximate estimate, and the Commissioners, therefore, set down the cost in round numbers at £18,000 per annum.

  Receivable Orders (Irish Land Commission).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what would be the approximate cost of having Land Commission receivable orders issued with a tissue or other similar duplicate receipt to be given the payers by the Irish banks in exchange for the rent and original receivable order; is he aware that the Irish banks will welcome this slight innovation; and will he in the circumstances have this matter considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar question asked on 25th November, 1910. The question of cost does not enter into consideration, for apart altogether from that question, the Land Commissioners are of opinion that the suggested course is both undesirable and impracticable.

  Extra Police, County Galway.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware that, although no crime or outrage had been committed at Colmanstown, county Galway, there are fourteen police stationed there; and whether, in view of the peacable condition of that district, he will have the extra police removed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that there are thirteen police stationed at Colmanstown, and the responsible police authorities consider that it would be premature to withdraw or reduce this force.

  Beet Root Culture (Ireland).
  Mr. NOLANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he has any official information showing that a sum amounting to between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000 is paid every year for sugar by Great Britain and Ireland, and, if so, whether he can state how much of this sum is paid by the people of Ireland; whether he is aware that no sugar is produced in these islands and that consequently the entire price paid for sugar every year goes abroad; whether he has any official information showing that sugar-beet could be economically grown in British and Irish soil and sugar manufactured from the same, so that part, if not the whole, of the sum now annually paid to other countries for beet sugar might be kept at home, and that the growth of sugar-beet in certain countries on the Continent as a rotation crop has improved the fertility of the soil by from 20 per cent. to 80 per cent., has increased the demand for labour, and has led to a large increase in the number of cattle raised there; and will he say whether anyone connected with the Irish Department of Agriculture has any practical knowledge of the subject; and, if not, whether, in view of the importance of the question, he will try to have this defect remedied?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): The value (exclusive of duty) of the imports of sugar into
  1362
  the United Kingdom in 1910 was nearly £23,800,000, of which about £1,800,000 represents the value of the imports into Ireland. No home-grown sugar is manufactured in Great Britain. Some English-grown beet was exported this year to Holland for manufacture. The Department's experiments have demonstrated that under certain conditions good crops of beet can be grown in Ireland, but whether beet can be economically grown is a question which can only be determined when commercial enterprises for the manufacture of sugar from beet or for the developments of a general market for the roots have been undertaken. The deeper and more thorough cultivation of the soil required for sugar beet improves the fertility of the soil and so increases the yield of the crops in the rotation, and the intensive cultivation requisite has in beet-growing countries led to an increased demand for labour, which is chiefly of a migratory character, and a larger number of cattle is kept in some of the districts. The hon. Member is referred to the considerations advanced in the first four paragraphs of the Department's Memorandum on Sugar Beet, issued in March, 1905, which still hold good and which, if taken into account, would save those interesting themselves in sugar-factory projects some trouble and expense in obtaining this information by other means. The Department's experiments, which have been continued again this year, have been formulated in the light of Continental practice and local conditions, and so far as the cultivation of the crop is concerned, will furnish the most useful class of data for Ireland. The Department have on their staff officers who are well qualified to advise farmers as to this crop.
  Mr. NOLAN: Have the gentlemen connected with the Department practical knowledge of the cultivation of beet and the manufacture of beet sugar?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, they have.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman co-operate with the British Board of Agriculture in this matter?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I should be very glad to co-operate with the British Board of Agriculture in any matter appertaining to my Department.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the experiments made in Great Britain have been very unsuccessful?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am afraid that the experiment has not been successful.

  Maltese Refugees (Tripoli).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the 1,300 British-Maltese refugees who arrived at Malta from Tripoli on board the steamer "Castlegarth" on 1st October were prevented by the authorities from landing; what was the reason for their detention; whether he has any information as to the circumstances attending their departure without sufficient food or water or adequate shelter; and, if so, will he communicate the same to the House?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The period of detention of the refugees appears to have been about fourteen hours, namely, from midnight until some time after noon. The reason for their not being allowed to land immediately was that it was necessary to hold a post-mortem on the body of a child which had died on the voyage. It was feared that the cause of its death was cholera, and, had the post-mortém confirmed this fear, the refugees would have had to be taken to Comino, where there is a cholera hospital, instead of being allowed to land at Malta. I understand that the "Castlegarth," which is a trading ship, and was taking in cargo at Tripoli, was boarded by Maltese refugees, desirous of escaping the bombardment, while she was lying off the port. Subsequently the master was informed by the Italian Consul-General that the port was blockaded, and he was thus unable to land the refugees at Tripoli. He therefore judged that the only course was to take them to Malta. The ship was only 1,670 tons burden, and it was impossible either to accommodate or feed 1,300 refugees in an adequate manner during the twenty-six hours' voyage.
  Colonel YATE: Why were not arrangements made to get away these unfortunate women and children before the bombardment, instead of leaving them to escape as best they could by a trading steamer?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is a question which ought to have been addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and any further information should be sought from him.

  Loch Lomond (Access to).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the questions which
  1364
  have arisen with reference to access to Loch Lomond, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in or about the year 1884 there was an arbitration between the county road trustees of Dumbartonshire and Sir James Colquhoun, of Luss, for the acquisition by the former from the latter of the ferry rights, the then existing bridge, and such rights as were necessary for the building of the present bridge at Balloch; whether, under the award which followed, the county road trustees paid to Sir James Colquhoun £6,000 or thereabouts, or any, and, if so, what, other sum for the subject of the arbitration; what they obtained for that payment; whether the subjects which they obtained were specified in writing in any transfer, deed, or disposition; and, if so, where access can be had thereto, in order that there may be an accurate ascertainment of the rights to, and connected with, the land in question, now vested in the Dumbartonshire County Council as successors to the county road trustees?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am not aware of the arbitration between the County Road Trustees of Dumbartonshire and Sir James Colquhoun referred to by my hon. Friend. But if there was such an arbitration, then the papers containing the records of the proceedings therein will be, no doubt, in the custody of the county clerk of Dumbartonshire. These papers will disclose the information which my hon. Friend desires to obtain.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: If I put down this question for the week after next, will the Lord Advocate communicate with the county clerk of Dumbartonshire in order to obtain information on the points mentioned, as they are very important?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  Consumption (Scotland).
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board for Scotland to issue regulations making consumption a notifiable disease in Scotland, in the same way as it has recently been made a notifiable disease in England?
  Mr. URE: The Local Government Board for Scotland has for years urged upon local authorities the desirability of making pulmonary phthisis a notifiable disease, with the result that compulsory notification has already been applied and is in force over areas containing 57 per cent. of the population of Scotland. The Board

  1365
  has now under consideration the question whether the time has come for the issue of a general order on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SCOTTISH AMENDMENTS.
    Mr. PIRIEasked, with reference to the Amendments affecting Scotland in the Insurance Bill, if the Lord Advocate can state when, where, and by whom they were originally drafted, and on what date, and by whom they were submitted to a section of the Scottish Liberal Members; whether, at the second meeting of those Members held on the morning of the 13th instant, the day these Amendments were debated in this House, there were only about a dozen Members present; and, seeing that the principal Amendment, regarding the powers of local authorities, for which a deputation of about twenty-four gentlemen, representing these authorities in Scotland, spent many days in London on deputation work, was not attained, and that the local authorities in question consider that they have a grievance against their representatives, any action is proposed by the Scotch Office to remodel the Bill more in keeping with the expressed desires of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. URE: The Government Amendments to the Insurance Bill were prepared as is usual. The communications which passed between the Scottish Office and certain, of the Scottish Members relative to the Insurance Bill and the Amendments thereon were confidential, and I am not, therefore, prepared to enter into the details asked for by my hon. Friend. I am not aware what number of Members was present at the meeting referred to in the question. I cannot conceive of any grievance which the local authorities have against their representatives in this House in connection with any Amendment made upon the Bill.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if these Government Amendments to the Insurance Bill were submitted to or seen by Scottish Liberals?
    Mr. URE: I imagine that they were seen by some Scottish Members.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the same privilege be extended to Scottish Members on this side of the House?
    Mr. URE: Certainly.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the Lord Advocate why a fortnight before these Amendments were debated, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Dumfries, and in answer to a question by myself, he did not explain the intended action of the Scottish Office on this matter, or adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire to issue a separate document explaining what was intended, and so have avoided mistakes and confusion?
    Mr. URE: I explained to the Committee that it was impossible at that date to give any definite information to the hon. Member, for this reason: that we could not, until the subsequent Clauses of the Bill had been adjusted, make a final adjustment of the Scottish Clauses.
    Mr. WATT: Were the Amendments drafted by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), who himself moved their acceptance?
    Mr. URE: No.
    Mr. PIRIE: It was common knowledge.

    SCOTTISH DEPUTATIONS.
    Mr. PIRIEasked if the Lord Advocate can state, with reference to the following deputations from Scotland to Dover House, London, namely, those on 30th October and on 31st October, with reference to the House Letting Bill, on 1st November with reference to the National Insurance Bill, and on 2nd November with reference to the allocation of the education fund, whether any representations were made from the Scottish Office to discourage such meetings, and suggesting that the same purpose would have been served by these meetings taking place in Edinburgh; if he can explain if there is any special reason for this increase in the official interviews between those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs in Scotland and those who are affected by such conduct; and whether he can point to any result that justifies such proceeding?
    Mr. URE: No representations of the character suggested in the question were made by the Scottish Office. There has been no increase, so far as I am aware, in the official interviews referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. PIRIE: The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no increase. Can he explain how the expenses of the deputations from Scotland to London amounted to £2,000, while the annual average for five years has only been £1,600?
    Mr. URE: I cannot accept the hon. Member's estimate of the expenses, but I can quite understand why the deputations in a particular week exceeded the usual number.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be cheaper to Scotland if he sent a man down from London to interview these deputations?
    Mr. URE: I have a subsequent answer to give on the matter.
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, whether the result justifies such proceedings and expenses?
    Mr. URE: My hon. Friend is in an excellent position to judge of that.
    Mr. PIRIE: As is all Scotland.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the names of the officials of Scottish boards who have been called to London from Scotland on Government business during this Autumn Session, specifying the number of occasions and the number of days absent from their work in Scotland in the case of each official?
    Mr. URE: In connection with the National Insurance Bill the Vice-President and the medical member of the Scottish Local Government Board were in London during the Autumn Session, and one member, with the Agricultural Adviser, of the Congested Districts Board was in London in connection with the Scottish Landholders Bill. I am not in a position to state the precise number of days during which these officials were absent from Scotland, but while in London they were, of course, discharging official duty.
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to my question, give the names of the officials? He has given their official titles, but the people of Scotland want to know their names?
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the Local Government Board of Scotland came to an end while these gentlemen were appointed on deputations to London?
    Mr. PIRIE: Would it not be more economical for the Scottish Office for these people to engage an hotel for these gentlemen?
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the
    1368
    increasing number of deputations from Scotland to Dover House, London, during this Autumn Session, in one week alone about 170 gentlemen being received in four deputations by the Secretary for Scotland, at an estimated expense to the ratepayers of Scotland of about £2,000; if he is aware that the total annual average expenditure on similar deputations for the years 1904 to 1908 was £1,600; and, seeing that the deputations in question achieved no result which could not have been secured by their taking place in Edinburgh, will the Government consider the advisability in any legislation it may propose next year, or take other steps, to put an end to such expenditure of time and public money?
    Mr. URE: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am not aware of any general increase in the number of deputations from Scotland to Dover House. During the week referred to the number was quite exceptional, for reasons which are well known to the hon. Member. I cannot accept his estimate of the expense. My Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and I were ready to meet deputations in Edinburgh prior to the re-assembling of Parliament, but, as I understand, that was found not to be convenient for some of the gentlemen who appeared on the deputations.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute or deny the correctness of my statement that the average cost for five years of deputations was £1,600, and does he think it is an exaggerated estimate of the cost of 170 gentlemen from Scotland at £12 per bead amounting to over £2,000?
    Mr. URE: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's estimate.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask for what purpose were those deputations. Would they give advice to the permanent officials of the Scottish Office, or to the Lord Advocate himself, or by any chance to the Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. URE: To give information to the Secretary for Scotland and myself.

    INSURANCE STAMPS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked if the cost of printing the insurance stamps required under the State insurance scheme would be paid out of the contributions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No, Sir. The cost will be defrayed by the State.

    SMALL WAGE-EARNERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been drawn to the statement made by Judge Stevenson, at Cockermouth County Court last week, where he made a reduced order of 6d. a week against a woman and stated that he could not understand how the woman was able to maintain a family of seven children on her husband's wage of 21s.; if he was aware that when the State Insurance Bill became law, in consequence of thousands of workmen being called upon to pay 6½d per week out of a wage of less than £1 per week, thousands of families would be in a worse position than the case referred to; and if he intended reducing the contributions to the State insurance scheme for those who were receiving less than £1 per week?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope that the result of the Insurance Bill will be to place thousands of families of the poorest class in a better position than ever before in times of illness and unemployment. The scale of reduced contributions for low wage-earners was fixed after very careful consideration, and my right hon. Friend does not see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to a case at the Battersea coroner's court, on Friday last, during an inquest on Rosie Ives, who died from the result of burns, when Albert Ives, the father, told the coroner that three years ago he was incapacitated from doing any work by an accident, and was receiving 12s. 9d. per week as compensation money, and paid 7s. 6d. rent, which left 5s. 3d. to maintain the family of six; if he was aware that, in consequence of the Government not agreeing to pay sick pay insurance money in case of accident under the State insurance scheme, hundreds of families would be in a worse position than the case referred to; and if he intended taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I may remind my hon. Friend that there are hundreds of families with no provision at all where the
    1370
    breadwinner is incapacitated by illness. In the case mentioned by him the allowance received is 12s. 9d. The result of accepting the Amendment to which he refers would have been to reduce the allowance in cases of sickness to 9s. The Amendment, as my hon. Friend is aware, was defeated in Committee by an overwhelming majority. To have accepted it would have been to disregard the advice of the Government actuaries, which has since been confirmed by the actuary consulted by my hon. Friends below the Gangway.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it necessary to take the compensation money in order to give "9d. for 4d."?

    APPEALS (IRELAND).
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended that in Ireland the right of appeal under the new Clause substituted for Clause 51 of the National Insurance Bill should lie to the county court registrar; whether he was aware that in Ireland this official as a rule had no permanent office in the county in which his county court judge had jurisdiction, and was generally a solicitor practising in Dublin or Belfast; that an Irish county court registrar had no power to make orders as in England, and would be as difficult of access as the county court judge was when the quarter sessions were concluded; and whether, under the circumstances, he would constitute the resident magistrate for the district in which the insured resided or some other official permanently resident in the locality, the person to whom appeals were to be made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The point raised by the hon. Member is under consideration.

    TRANSFERENCE OF MEMBERSHIP.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when a member of an approved society is insured for benefits in addition to the State benefits and desires to transfer his membership to another society, there is any provision made in the National Insurance Bill to ensure that his full transfer value, and not merely his transfer value under the State scheme, is transferred with him?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The National Insurance Bill has no concern with insurance for benefits outside the scheme.

    1371
    The point raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for arrangement between the societies.

    LANDOWNERS AND WORKMEN.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an owner of land will be able to deduct, for the purposes of Income Tax, payments made by him for the compulsory insurance of woodmen, carpenters, and farm hands employed by him, or whether landowners would be liable to pay Income Tax on such compulsory contributions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Where an owner of land directly employs men of the classes named in the question on maintenance, repairs or management, payments made by him for the compulsory insurance of these men enter into the computations for the reduction of and relief from assessment under Schedule A. As regards Schedule B, an occupier of land can make allowance for the contributions paid in respect of farm hands in ascertaining whether his profits fall short of one-third the annual value, in which case he can claim an adjustment of his assessment.
    Mr. CASSEL: Do not the expenses already exceed the percentage allowed, and will not the landowner not have to pay Income Tax on the compulsory contributions referred to?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will my hon. Friend kindly put that question down?

    REPRESENTATIVES OF INSURANCE.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Clause 43 of the National Insurance Bill, the representatives of insured persons on the local health committees must themselves be insured persons?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The insured persons in the locality who appoint these representatives are not bound to select insured persons; it is left to them to choose whom they please.

    PROPOSED INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give the names of the proposed Irish Insurance Commissioners; and if he can give the number of officers, referees, and servants proposed to be appointed in Ireland, and inform the House in what manner they are to be appointed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not yet in a position to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question; as regards the second part, I would refer him to the answers given yesterday to the hon. Member for Taunton and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I inquire whether an estimate of the expense has been made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of the Commissioners?
    Sir E. CARSON: Of the Commissioners and the other officers referred to in the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Well, of course, an estimate has been made of the general expense of the scheme.
    Sir E. CARSON: I mean in regard to Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman any figures.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask whether we shall have the names before the Report stage, and also whether there will be an opportunity for the discussion of the whole matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that question, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

    MEMBERS OF APPROVED SOCIETIES IN ASYLUMS
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the National Insurance Bill, the names of members of approved societies who may be sent to asylums will have to be still kept on the lodge books, as is required by the Friendly Society Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the affirmative.

    OFFICERS AND CIVILIAN SERVANTS.
    Colonel HICKMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the contributions under the Insurance Bill of officers and their civilian servants respectively under the following circumstances; under the Allowance Regulations, paragraph 497, etc., servants' allowance is granted to assist officers towards the cost of maintaining civilian personal servants and grooms and to avoid too many soldiers being employed and taken away from their

    1373
    soldiering duties proper; this is in lieu of soldier servants, vide King's Regulations, paragraph 1335, and the officer who maintains a servant out of the allowance being entitled to free medical attendance for that servant under the Regulations of the Army Medical Services, paragraph 489?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the Bill as it stands, the officer and his servant would have to pay the full contributions of 3d. and 4d. respectively. My right hon. Friend is obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing the point to his notice, and he will consult with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War before the Report stage of the Bill is reached as to how this small anomaly can best be met.

    Bolton Post Office.
    Mr. GILLasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that it is now about three years since the erection of a new post office for Bolton was promised; will he explain why no steps are being taken to commence such erection; what is the reason of the delay; and if he can give a definite date as to when such work will be commenced?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): It was hoped to commence building operations for the new head post office at Bolton during the present financial year, and with this object arrangements were well advanced. Unfortunately, a difficulty has arisen as to providing accommodation for the telephone service, and it has become necessary to reconsider the plans. I cannot say definitely when the work will be commenced, but the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay.

    Marlborough Gate Roadway, St. James's Park.
    Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked whether, now that the traffic has increased through the opening of the Admiralty arch, the First Commissioner will forthwith consider throwing so much of the garden of St. James's Palace into the public thoroughfare at Marlborough Gate as will enable an adequate footway to be made along the west side of the roadway, in order to lessen the risk to pedestrians at an unprotected corner, and to convert this dangerous passage into a thoroughfare more convenient to the public and more compatible with its regal surroundings?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The increase of traffic appears to be from Constitution Hill and Buckingham Gate rather than from Marlborough Gate. There have been no accidents, and no reports of danger from accidents at the point mentioned by the hon. Member. The First Commissioner does not at present propose to take any action in the direction suggested.
    Sir J. ROLLESTON: Is there any real reason why the conversion of this squalid passage into a decent thoroughfare which is so largely used by the public between the two Royal palaces, should not be undertaken?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: It would cost a lot of money, and disturb a number of people without justification for it.
    Sir J. ROLLESTON: Who are the people to be disturbed?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The occupants of the apartments in the Palace of St. James.
    Captain MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there have been very few accidents it is owing to people being afraid to go there?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: That appears to be contradictory of the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

    House of Commons (Women Secretaries).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked why women secretaries are not allowed to use the room set apart for the use of secretaries of Members; and whether, in view of the fact that some Members have women as secretaries, he will make adequate provision for them?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: It is not thought desirable that women secretaries should be introduced into the room set apart for Members' private secretaries; but the Grand Committee room in Westminster Hall is at their disposal whenever available. The First Commissioner is considering a scheme for re-arranging the men secretaries' room in order to afford some slight relief to the occupants.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of reversing the situation by giving the women secretaries the more comfortable and suitable room at present devoted to the men, and banish the men secretaries to the shades of the Grand Committee room?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I think the Grand Committee is the more suitable and more comfortable room of the two.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What is to be done when the Grand Committee room is being used by the Grand Committee?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The Grand Committee have only used the room twenty-nine times since last February, and never after four o'clock.

    Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked whether the firm of Phillips, Mills, and Company are contractors to the Office of Works; if so, is he aware that the firm have been employing a man as porter at their Paddington depôt at a wage of 12s. a week; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Messrs. Phillips, Mills, and Company are not contractors to the Office of Works.

    Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
    Mr. GILLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the application of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee to the Treasury, made on the 8th of July, 1910, for a grant in aid of their scientific and development work in the sea fisheries, and referred to his Department by the Treasury, has been referred to the Development Commissioners; whether the claim to such Commissioners was for a grant for policing purposes or for scientific and development purposes or both; whether the claim on behalf of the latter objects was specially referred to and recommended to the Commissioners; whether the Commissioners have come to a definite decision as to making such grant or otherwise to such joint committee; and whether he will supply the hon. Member for Bolton with a copy of the claim sent by the Board of Agriculture to the Development Commissioners relating to this matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The application of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee was made in respect of fishery research and development work. The Commissioners were informed that the work proposed to be undertaken by the joint committee would come within the
    1376
    general scheme submitted to them by the Board. No definite decision with regard to that scheme has yet been arrived at, the Board being still in communication with the Commissioners on the subject. Negotiations respecting it are still in progress, and material modifications may have to be made in it before the approval of the Commissioners and the consent of the Treasury are secured. When these negotiations are concluded I shall be glad to lay on the Table of the House copies of the correspondence between the Board and the Commission.

    Land Valuation.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether members of the Royal Engineers attached to the Board for survey duty in connection with the Ordnance Survey are being used for land valuers' work; and, if so, to what Department will their services be charged?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Royal Engineers on the Ordnance Survey are not being employed on the valuation of land; but, for the assistance of the Board of Inland Revenue, the normal revision of the Ordnance Survey maps is being expedited and the order of revision rearranged so as to provide for the earlier revision of the maps in which changes have been specially numerous.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I to understand that no officer of the Royal Engineers has been employed at all on the land valuers' work?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No Royal Engineer in connection with the Ordnance Survey.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether any Royal Engineers were so employed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord had better address his question to the Secretary of State for War. I am not responsible for war.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether those members of the public who have been put to expense in preparing Form IV. will be indemnified for such expense, which was caused by an illegal act on the part of the Treasury?
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked whether the Government proposed to reimburse those who have been put to expense in

    1377
    obtaining professional assistance in order to answer the questions illegally insisted on by the Commissioners an the Revenue papers commonly known as Form IV. and Form VIII.?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I ask whether, in view of this decision there will be any guarantee that similar illegalities and tyrannies will not be perpetrated by the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No tyranny was committed.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether there is any redress against those legal advisers who have allowed their clients to incur expense in filling up the forms which they knew, or ought to have known, were illegal?

    Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked who are the persons who at present constitute the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board consists of the President, the Lord President of the Council, His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: If a separate Board of Agriculture is set up for Ireland will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of removing the Secretary of State for Scotland and replacing him by another English Minister?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That could only be done by legislation.
    Mr. STANIER: Has the Board of Agriculture sat as a Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, it sits every day.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean on the Front Government Bench?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture under what several headings of departmental expenditure the unexpended surpluses have arisen which have for the last five years been repaid to the Treasury?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the
    1378
    annual Appropriation Accounts, which show under each sub-head of the Vote the amount of the variations between the Grant and the expenditure, with an explanation of their cause in each case.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the support given by the Board to the Government's proposal to constitute a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland, with separate administration of the Contagious Diseases of Animals Acts, indicated the approval of the permanent officials and expert advisers of his Department or merely that of the Board as defined by statute?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not for the permanent officials and expert advisers of any Public Department to approve or disapprove of the policy or proposals of the Government. Their business is to carry it out to the utmost of their power.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does that mean simply that the views of the permanent officials will not be taken?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of course they are taken and duly considered and weighed.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask what the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself is?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Prime Minister if he will state what reduction will be made in the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture when he is relieved of administering agricultural affairs in Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Then I am not incorrect in assuming that in order to arrive at the true expense of the proposed new Scottish Board one should add a proportion of the present salary of the British Minister for Agriculture which he gets—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the Noble Lord kindly hand that question in?

    Diseases of Animals Act, 1891.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the amounts drawn from the Local Taxation Accounts, under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in respect of swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and other contagious animal diseases, are all paid into the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account to meet expenditure out of that fund;

    1379
    what proportion of the estimated sum of £91,000 under this heading for 1911–12 is allocable to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease; and how long is it since the expenditure out of the above account has exceeded this sum?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The estimate of £91,000 does not include any expenditure in respect of foot-and-mouth disease. The expenditure out of the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain has not exceeded that sum in any year since 1898–9.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the time has not arrived to alter the name of this account, which is no longer applicable?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it is necessary to alter the name of the account, which, as a financial arrangement, works very well.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether the applications for small holdings this year have been so numerous that the original Commissioners could not have dealt with them; if so, whether they have increased to the extent of being quadrupled; and, if they have not increased to that extent, what additional employment has been found for the new Commissioners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have as yet no complete information as to the number of applications received this year. The duties of the Small Holdings Commissioners are to advise and assist the county councils and the Board in the administration of the Act generally. All of them have been fully occupied since they were appointed.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it is not one of the duties of these Commissioners to give people information which may lead them to apply for small holdings, and so increase the number of applications?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. They have been giving information quite freely all Over the country, wherever there seems to be any reason for it.

    Patent Matters (Select Committee).
    Mr. LYNCHasked, in reference to the promised appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into patent matters and
    1380
    other allied matters, whether the Committee will be appointed as early in the next Session as possible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Yes, Sir.

    Shops Bill.
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to state to the House the intentions of the Government in regard to the Shops Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made yesterday on this matter.

    Factory Acts.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, with the exception of the Factory Act of 1907, which dealt exclusively with laundries and certain institutions, the last amending Factory Act was passed in 1901; and whether, in view of the fact that so great a period has elapsed and that many amendments to the law are needed, he will state when he intends to introduce fresh legislation on the subject?
    Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the question, the following Acts have been passed amending and extending the Factory Act of 1901—the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906; the Employment of Women Act, 1907; the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907; the White Phosphorous-Matches Prohibition Act, 1908; and the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of the present Session. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present time.

    Birkbeck Bank.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent judgment of Mr. Justice Neville, in which he stated that the business of the Birkbeck Bank in its inception and throughout its career has been illegal; and whether he will consult the Law Officers as to what remedy, if any, exists against any persons in connection with the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My attention has been called to the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Neville in the case of the Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society, and the Official Receiver, acting as liquidator

    1381
    of the society, will consider whether any persons are liable to contribute to the assets of the society and will, if necessary, be advised by counsel in the matter.

    Trade Unions.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the number of trade unions in the United Kingdom and the membership of the same; and whether he can say on what ground the Board of Trade formed the opinion that the 394 trade unions reporting to the Board of Trade on the question of unemployment represents the opinion of trade unions generally throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total number of trade unions in 1910 was 1,153, and their gross membership was 2,435,704. Of these 699 pay unemployment benefit of some kind or other, and the number of members eligible is about 1,500,000. The number of unions making regular monthly returns to the Board of Trade is 394, with a membership of nearly 800,000. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member has been misinformed, as the Board of Trade have never expressed the opinion which is attributed to them. If he will be so good as to tell me what he has in mind, I shall be happy to give him any information in my power.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not know whether I should be in order in telling you what I have in my mind.

    Labour Exchange (Grimsby).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the manager of the Grimsby Labour Exchange has been supplying men to the local ship and steam trawl owners to fill the places of coal porters who are on strike although notified that a strike was in progress; and whether he proposes to put an end to such action by Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. BUXTON: I understand that vacancies for coal porters in place of men who had ceased work in Grimsby were notified in the local Press and to the local Labour Exchange. I am informed that the bulk of these vacancies were filled through the former channel. Ten men were engaged through the Labour Exchange. Before such engagement each man was informed of the existence of a strike, in accordance with Section 3 of the Statutory Regulations
    1382
    under the Labour Exchanges Act. From inquiries I have made I am satisfied that the regulations have been strictly complied with, and I do not propose to take any action.

    Coal Output.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of the output throughout Great Britain for the last twelve months and the amount of the output of coal throughout Great Britain for the twelve months prior to the passing of the Eight Hours (Mines) Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No information is available at present as to the output of coal during the course of the present year, as the statutory returns of output from owners of mines are not required to be made until the end of the year; nor am I able to say what is the output for any broken part of a year, as the returns give only the total output for the year. The output for the year 1910 in Great Britain was 264,337,786 tons; and for the year 1908, the last complete year before the Eight Hours Act came into operation, it was 261,409,056 tons.

    Elementary School Teachers.
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Education whether it was permissible for pupils who had no intention of entering the teaching profession to be admitted as pupils in teachers' centres and that grants should be made to these teachers' centres in respect of such pupils; and, if not, what precautions were taken by the Board of Education against the admission of such pupils?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Pupils who have no intention of entering the teaching profession may be admitted to pupil teacher centres. No grant, however, is payable in respect of pupils who have not made a declaration of bonâ fide intention to become a teacher.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to resolutions passed by the Lancashire County Association of the National Union of Teachers at Blackpool on 11th November last, urging the Government to obtain full compensation for teachers dispossessed from schools closed by order of the Board of Education and calling attention to the resolution

    1383
    passed by the London County Council on 14th May, 1907, safeguarding teachers' interests; and whether he proposed to give effect to those resolutions?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I have seen the resolution of the London County Council, but not the other resolution referred to in the question. So far as I understand what is desired, it would seem that, as is to be inferred from the London County Council resolution, it is the province of the local education authority to deal with the matter; it is not within the competence of the Board of Education to find posts for teachers.

    Cork Post Office.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster-General how many vacancies existed in the Cork Post Office amongst the sorting and telegraph staffs; why have those vacancies not been filled; and what steps have been taken to carry out the assurance that all vacancies would be filled by open competition and by transfer of established sorting clerks and telegraphists from other offices?
    Captain NORTON: The information asked for is not available in London; I am having inquiry made in Ireland, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    Outdoor Relief (New Order).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if it was his intention to issue a new Poor Law order governing the administration of out-door relief; and, if so, on what date it was proposed that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the order before it was issued?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have now been able to consider the various criticisms on the order suggested by the Departmental Committee, and I am happy to find that they can be substantially met. The question of the allocation of time for a discussion of the matter in this House is rather one for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the draft order be circulated to Members of the House some time before it is issued, so that we may decide whether we want to apply to the Prime Minister for time to discuss it?
    Mr. BURNS: The draft order has been before the House for nearly a year. I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member, and, if I can, meet it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that the order was to be amended. Is the right hon. Gentleman making amendments to meet the criticisms that were made? If so, may the draft order, as amended, be circulated?
    Mr. BURNS: The suggested amendments to the draft order will be embodied in the order which the Board propose to issue. I will consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Casual Wards.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could now state what were to be the rules and regulations which were to govern the administration of the casual wards when under the management of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; would he also lay upon the Table of the House copies of any arrangements which might be made with philanthropic societies for receiving casuals from the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and also state whether he had now decided what were to be the tasks of work imposed; and what arrangements were to be made for the early morning discharge of those men and women who were seeking work?
    Mr. BURNS: Some little time must elapse before I shall be in a position to say whether any alterations should be made in the regulations governing the administration of the casual wards either with regard to the tasks of work or the times of discharge or otherwise. Nor can it yet be stated whether such arrangements as may be made for co-operation between the Metropolitan Asylums Board and voluntary agencies will be of a sufficiently formal kind to be embodied in written agreements.

    Finance Act, 1910 (Forms IV. and VIII).
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost under all heads in connection with the issue of Forms IV. and VIII. under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer I gave yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to a Return?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I can do that.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman refuse the Return?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Because it would cost a great deal of labour and be of very little service.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Would it not have the advantage of showing the public what the Government have been doing in this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It would not give the public any information worth having.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Form TV., under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. Forms I. and II., being the letter covering the same and the instructions issued therewith respectively, and Form VIII. were submitted in draft before issue and approved by the Law Officers of the Crown or the junior counsel advising the Treasury, or, if not, upon whom the responsibility for advising the Board of Inland Revenue as to the terms of these documents finally rests; and whether there were any means whereby the costs incurred by the Government in unsuccessfully defending forms in the Law Courts might be thrown upon the persons finally responsible for the terms of the forms, or otherwise relieving the taxpayers of the country from those costs?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Inland Revenue took the best legal advice available to them with regard to the forms in question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did the Board consult the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They acted in accordance with the usual practice.

    Royal Marine Officers.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as no Marine officers had at present joined under either the old or the new schemes, he would state the number of Marine officers who used to join from outside under the old scheme and the number of years that had elapsed since Marine officers joined the corps from outside sources; and whether there was any shortage of Marine officers at the present moment or likely to be in the near future?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The average number of Royal Marine officers who entered the corps under the old scheme for the seven years prior to 1907 was twenty. No officers have entered since September, 1907, with the exception of three who were specially transferred from Sandhurst and Woolwich, two in 1910 and one in 1911. The present number of Marine officers is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Fleet, nor is any shortage anticipated in the near future. As already announced, a public examination will be held next month for the direct entry of fifteen Marine officers.

    Greenwich Hospital Pensions.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked if men recruited to the Royal Marine Light Infantry in 1866 were so recruited upon the assurance that, in addition, to the usual pension, they would, upon attaining the age of fifty-five years, receive the Greenwich Hospital age pension of 5d. a day, and upon attaining the age of sixty-five years receive the Greenwich Hospital age pension of 9d. a day; whether men so recruited were informed that the receipt of such pension on attaining the respective ages named would be conditional upon funds being available for the purpose; and whether a considerable number of men who had fulfilled the conditions entitling them to the Greenwich Hospital age pension were not in receipt of such pension?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No assurance such as that suggested in the first part of the question was ever given by the Admiralty. It is quite true that a considerable number of men, eligible for age pensions in augmentation of their naval life pensions, cannot be assisted from Greenwich Hospital because the funds available are insufficient to provide for all. But I may remind the hon. Member that in recent years additions have been made to the funds at the disposal of the Admiralty.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these men are qualified to receive Greenwich age pensions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are a number eligible, but none entitled.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: "Qualified" was my word.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: "Eligible" was the word I used.

    Royal Navy (Second-Class Cruisers).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether all the second-class cruisers of the "Bristol" and "Dartmouth" classes were satisfactory as regards their machinery; and whether any of these ships had broken down?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The ships of the "Bristol" and "Dartmouth" classes are considered to be satisfactory as regards their machinery. The "Bristol" and "Dartmouth" have had some stripping of turbine blading since delivery from the contractors, one turbine in each ship being affected. This has temporarily reduced the power of these ships till repairs are made good by the contractors.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Are these ships effective now? If not, how long will they be before they are effective?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are now in process of having their turbines repaired by and at the expense of the contractors.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether any modern second-class cruisers were in the Reserve?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to my Noble Friend's question is in the negative.

    Portsmouth Dockyard (Workmen's Deputations).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that dissatisfaction existed at Portsmouth dockyard owing to all of the deputations from the workmen not having been received by the Admiralty upon their recent visit; whether the Admiralty were sending representatives to receive the other deputations from the workmen, and, if so, upon what date; and whether the representatives of the men would receive notification in sufficient time to enable them to make the necessary arrangements?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that it was not possible to hear all the petitions on the occasion of the recent visit of the Board. The remaining deputations will be heard before the end of the year, and full notice will be given.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar dissatisfaction prevails at other ports than Portsmouth?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then I will make him aware of it.

    Devonport Dockyard (Distribution of Newspapers).
    Mr. POINTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state the reason why the distribution of newspapers previously ordered was allowed to ships, offices, and residences at Devonport dockyard, whilst the privilege of distributing newspapers previously ordered to the workmen in the dockyard before the commencement of work was denied; whether he would inform the House why the "Liberal Monthly" could be distributed in large quantities in the dockyard, whilst the "Labour Leader" was debarred under exactly the same circumstances; and whether he was prepared to end this discrimination by allowing the distribution of all newspapers before the commencement of work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I informed my hon. Friend on 6th November, news-vendors are not allowed in the dockyards for the purpose of selling newspapers or other literature. What is allowed is the delivery to ships, offices, and residences of newspapers which have been previously ordered. Whilst I think such distribution to people living in and about the yards reasonable, I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that such distribution should also be made to the workmen at the commencement of their work. As I have already stated, I have no knowledge whatever of any discrimination either in favour of or against any newspaper.
    Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the past practice has been to allow workmen who had previously ordered their papers to receive them, and to pay the account at the weekend in the ordinary way? For what reason has that practice been interfered with?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into the whole matter, and communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are the "Liberal Monthly" and the "Labour Leader" papers at all, or only magazines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman is as well qualified as I am to answer that question.
    An HON. MEMBER: What is the "Daily Telegraph"?

    Royal Marines (Band).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the engagement of the band of the Royal Marines, thirty in number, Chatham division, to give four concerts at South Shields, at a fee of £67 10s., the sum of £13 only being allowed to cover the railway fares, he would state whether the men travelled on a Government Warrant; if so, whether this involved any payment by the Government to the railway company; and, if such was the case, whether he would take steps to prevent a repetition in the giving of facilities to bands of the Royal Marines to compete unfairly with civilian bands?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men in question did not travel on a Government Warrant, and the engagement in question did not involve any payment by the Government to the railway company.

    Customs and Excise (Hobhouse Committee's Report).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that over thirty meetings of Excise officials were held in different parts of the United Kingdom, on Saturday last, to protest against the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee dealing with the amalgamation of the Excise and Customs Departments, and the Treasury's recent interpretation thereof; and whether, in view of the unanimous discontent manifested by the Excise branch of the amalgamated service, and of the fact that these officials are responsible for the charging of nearly £40,000,000 of revenue and the disbursing of £13,000,000 under the Old Age Pensions Act, he will say what steps he proposes to take to put an end to this discontent among the Excise officials?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for North Sligo.

    Army Aviation.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the French Government prizes in the recent Army aviation competitions were confined to machines of French manufacture; whether he has had full reports upon such competitions; and, if so, what is his object in providing prizes for a competition which can only establish the same facts?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The report of the officers of the British Army who attended the recent French competitions has not yet been received at the War Office. I am not, therefore, as yet in a position to reply to the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider these reports before he issues the conditions of the Army tests?
    Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes, certainly. We shall consult them most carefully before we proceed finally.

    Munitions of War (Manufacture).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fixed policy of all Governments to manufacture munitions of war at home and of the desirability of encouraging the manufacture of English aeroplanes, which alone would be obtainable in time of war, he will reconsider the position before making the final arrangements for the proposed competition?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Member is presumably alluding to the forthcoming competition. The object of the competition is to find out the best pattern for military requirements, and it is therefore intended that the competition for the chief prize shall be open to all manufacturers, whether British or foreign.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What I wanted to gat at was whether it is not a fact that aeroplanes to be used in war must of necessity be manufactured in England; therefore will the right hon. Gentleman not confine the competition to the British manufacturer?
    Colonel SEELY: I have already stated in this House that the aeroplanes which we shall require must ultimately, for obvious reasons, be manufactured in this country. But that does not imply that it is wise to limit the competition. We want to find out the best type of machine.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask that, a competition having taken place in France that has satisfied the French Government, it will be very unfair to the industry in this country that it should have to compete against the finished industry in France?
    Colonel SEELY: We have to find out the best machine. We shall take the

    1391
    opportunity of encouraging British manufacturers of these engines of war as the occasion arises.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I give notice that I will move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to the matter.

    Reservists' Pay.
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what extra charge in administration would be involved annually were Reservists to be paid monthly instead of quarterly?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): The extra clerical staff required to make payments monthly instead of quarterly has not been estimated in detail. It would obviously be considerable, as it would involve about a million additional issues per annum.
    Colonel YATE: Considering this is only a question of a little extra clerical labour, will the Financial Secretary not take into consideration the great hardship and trouble that is inflicted on the wives and families of the Reservists by the quarterly instead of monthly payments?
    Mr. TENNANT: When the hon. and gallant Member says it is only a question of clerical staff he has forgotten that the initial outlay will be £200,000. I shall be glad to hear from him what actual hardships are suffered by the Reservists from the existing system.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Could the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to the business for the later days of next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill will be taken, and it will be continued on the other days of next week.
Lord BALCARRES: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce the procedure for the Debate (Foreign Affairs) on Monday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: A Motion will be put down to-night.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Does Friday count as a day in the consideration of the National Insurance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

COAL MINES BILL.
As Amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
COAL MINES BILL.
  Part I.
    MANAGEMENT.
      Managers.

        CLAUSE 2.—(Appointment of Manager of Mine.)
        (1) Every mine shall be under one 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.
        (2) If any mine is worked without there being such a manager for the mine as is required by this Section the owner and agent shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act:
        Provided that if the person appointed to be manager of a mine, by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, ceases to be manager, nothing in this Section shall prevent the mine being worked (for a period not exceeding four months) until a new manager is appointed, if in the meantime a competent person holding a first-class or second-class certificate is temporarily appointed to perform the duties and exercise the powers of manager.
        (3) A mine in which the total number of persons employed below ground does not exceed thirty shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section, unless the inspector of the division, by notice in writing served on the owner or agent of the mine, requires that it be under the control of a manager, and in any mine so exempt in which a manager holding at least a second-class certificate of competency has not been appointed the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the manager shall be exercised and performed by the owner or agent, and anything by or under this Act required to be done by or to the manager shall be done by or to the owner or agent.
        (4) The owner or agent of a mine required to be under the control of a manager shall not take any part in the technical management of the mine unless he is qualified to be a manager.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add,

        1393
        (5) For the purpose of this Section, workings having a common system of ventilation or any part of a system of ventilation in common shall be deemed to form part of the same mine.
        Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

        CLAUSE 3.—(Daily Supervision of Mine by Manager or Under-Manager.)
        (1) In every mine required to be under the control of a manager, daily personal supervision shall be exercised by the manager, and by an trader-manager, if any, nominated by the owner or agent of the mine. Provided that no person shall be appointed to be or be the manager of more than one mine, without the approval of the inspector of the division, if the number of persons employed underground under the same owner in all the mines of which he is manager for the time being shall exceed one thousand or if all the shafts or adits for the time being in use in working such mines are not within a radius of two miles, and where the same person is appointed to be manager of more than one mine a separate under-manager shall be appointed for each such mine.
        (2) In cases where, on account of the absence of the manager or under-manager on leave or from sickness or any other temporary cause, such daily personal supervision as is required by this Section cannot be exercised, arrangements shall be made for such supervision being exercised—

        (a) in the absence of the manager by the under-manager, if any, or by a person not under the age of twenty-five years and holding a first or second-class certificate under this Act, nominated in writing by the owner or agent;

        (b) in the absence of the under-manager, in the case of a mine for which a separate under-manager is required by this Section to be appointed, by a person not under the age of twenty-five years and holding a first or second-class certificate under this Act nominated as aforesaid:

        And any person performing the duties of a manager or under-manager whether under this or under the last preceding Section, shall have the same responsibility, and shall be subject to the same liability as the person for whom he is acting.
        (3) If in any mine there is a contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this Section, the mine shall be deemed to be not managed in conformity with this Act.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "In" ["In every mine"], and to insert instead thereof the word "At."
        The term "mine" includes both underground and surface workings; the tramways, sidings, etc. The whole area of the mine, above and below, is to be under the daily personal supervision of the manager. But the word "In" might imply that the manager was to be daily underground. That is absolutely impossible if the manager has to exercise proper supervision over the surface works, and we all know that surface works are being enlarged every day. A proper supervision of such works as winding engines, electrical installations for instance, and many other matters which are necessary for the safety of both those underground as well as on the surface, must have his care. TO these I would also like to add that there are many matters that are going to be added by this particular Act of Parliament. We are glad to see them added, but they all necessitate the manager having to superintend and inspect them. It will be absolutely impossible for him to do that if he is to be down the mine. The word "at" more suitably describes the area of the manager's duties than the word "in."
        Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, as it is unnecessary. If it were accepted it would lead to much misunderstanding and much alteration of the law. There is not the slightest doubt that "in the mine" refers to surface work of the mine as well. It has been the law for thirty years. It is the most comprehensive term to employ, and it means that the manager would have the whole of the mine under his supervision.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: We have had many instances lately showing that words used in Acts are not understood by all the parties. Here is an opportunity given by this Amendment of making the intention quite clear. "In the mine," I venture to think, suggests that the manager should be deemed to be below ground. The hon. Gentleman must know

        1395
        perfectly well that it is impossible for a man to carry out all his duties if he is always below ground. I do really hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude towards this Amendment.
        Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman opposite says that this would lead to a good deal of misunderstanding if the Amendment were accepted. If he objects to the substitution of the word "at" for "in," would he object to the words "in or at"? That would place the matter beyond doubt. If we are passing a measure which is to be a final and a complete measure, we should have words that are perfectly unambiguous.
        Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I hope the Under-Secretary will resist this Amendment. If "at" is substituted for "in" it would do away altogether for any need for the manager to make any supervision of the mine at all. Surely we do not want that. The term used must include the work at the surface and in the mine, and all the ramifications such as haulage, railways, etc. If the word "at" is inserted instead of "in" you will have the manager remaining entirely on the surface and losing all control over the work below ground. Therefore, the reason why the word "in" ought to be maintained.
        Mr. BAIRD: Would not the converse of that proposition put by the hon. Member also be true?—that is, if he is "in" the mine, might not the supervision of the surface be neglected. What we want to be clear about is that the manager should not be forced to be in the mine all the time. I am certain if the Under-Secretary would accept the words "in or at" it "would meet the case.
        Mr. BRACE: Is not the fact that this word has stood for thirty years the strongest argument in its favour? I hope that upon the Report stage of this Bill we shall not lose time upon non-essential points. The Under-Secretary cannot do better than maintain the word "in," which is supported by such long experience.
        Colonel HICKMAN: May I ask if the word "in" does not force the manager to go down every mine every day? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If it does not, then I think we need not press this Amendment.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: After the explanations given, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "that" ["provided that no person shall be appointed"], to insert the words "after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
        We were asked on the Committee stage to allow certain time in which managers might present themselves for examination. I therefore propose to allow them a year. That would give them four opportunities of sitting for examination.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "under the same owner."
        The object of this Amendment is to meet a point overlooked in Committee. The Committee, by unanimous assent, agreed that there should be a limitation of the number of mines controlled by one manager, but they left in the words "under the same owner."
        Amendment agreed to.

        CLAUSE 5.—(Qualifications of Managers and Under-Managers.)
        (1) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed or to be manager of a mine required by this Act to be under the control of a manager unless he is at least twenty-five years of age and is for the time being registered as the holder of a first-class certificate of competency under this Part of this Act.
        (2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed or to be an under-manager of a mine or manager of a mine which is not required to be under the control of a manager unless he is for the time being registered as the holder of a first-class or a second-class certificate of competency under this Part of this Act.
        Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (2), to add,
        (3) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed or to be a manager of a mine, or an under-manager of a mine, unless he has within the preceding five years obtained from a mining school or other institution or authority approved by the Secretary of State, or from a duly qualified medical practitioner, a certificate in the prescribed form to the effect that his eyesight and hearing are such as to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently, the expense of obtaining

        1397
        which shall, in the case of a person employed at the time as manager or under-manager, be borne by the owner of the mine.
        The object of this Amendment is to see to it that the managers or under-managers in the mines shall have the same qualifications as regards hearing and eyesight as are imposed by Section 15 on firemen and deputies. We feel it just as essential that managers and under-managers shall have the same first-class physical qualifications as in the case of firemen and examiners. The work of the firemen and deputies has to be checked from time to time by the manager and under-managers, and it would seem perfectly ludicrous that those people who are set in a position of higher responsibility should not possess the same qualifications as firemen and examiners.
        Mr. SUTTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. It was moved in Committee and withdrawn. The duty of a manager or under-manager is not the same as the fireman or deputy. The whole safety of the mine depends upon the firemen and deputies, and by their ability to examine the gas, and under our Bill these are to be their primary functions, and for that work they should possess the greatest physical capacity, which is not a primary duty of the manager or under-manager. They have to undergo very elaborate examinations in connection with their duties. Of course, we do want the manager and under-manager as a rule to be able to detect gas, and no doubt if they were not able to do so for any length of time they should give up this work. At the same time it seems quite unnecessary to accept this Amendment.
        4.0 P.M.
        Mr. RICHARDS: I think in framing this Clause we should be fully alive to the necessity of managers understanding all the apparatus used in mining. I might give the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary an instance in this respect that came within my own experience not many months ago. In exploring a colliery after a very serious colliery disaster we knew there was some gas present, and the manager was testing it, and after doing so he said there was only a quarter of an inch and it was all right. Another manager asked me to stay behind, and he told me that the quarter-inch had developed to one-and-a-half inches, and that it was
        1398
        highly dangerous. I do not know why a manager should be allowed to practice with defective eyesight and hearing, when a fireman suffering from the same defects has to have a certificate. I think the principal should be expected to have a certificate in regard to these defects just the same as his subordinate, and I hope the Home Office will accept this Amendment. If they do not we shall have to press for some regulations by the Home Office in this point.
        Sir C. CORY: May I point out that under Clause 9, paragraph (d), you have all that is required without accepting this Amendment, for it contains the following words: "That no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he has given satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, fitness, and general good conduct." If a man is deaf or blind he will hardly be fit for a colliery manager with a first-class or a second-class certificate. I think that provision covers all that is necessary.
        Amendment negatived.

        CLAUSE 9.—(Examinations for Certificates [1887, ss. 23 (1), 24 (2) and 25.]
        (1) The Board for Mining Examinations shall hold examinations at such times and in such places as may be fixed by the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
        (2) The Board may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, make rules for the conduct of the examinations and the qualifications of applicants for certificates. Provided that such rules shall amongst other things provide—

        (a) that the examination and qualifications of applicants for second-class certificates shall be suitable for practical working miners; and

        (b) that no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he is twenty-three years of age or upwards and has had such practical experience in mining (either in the United Kingdom or partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere) as may be required by the rules for a periol of not less than five years, except in the case of an applicant who has received an approved diploma, or has taken an approved degree, in which case the period shall be a period of not less than three years; and

        1399

        (c) for the holding, as a part of the examination, of vivâ voce examinations in different localities with a view to the practical knowledge of applicants for certificates in each locality being tested with reference to the local mining conditions, in which at least one of the examiners shall be personally acquainted with these conditions; and

        (d) that no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he has given satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, fitness, and general good conduct.

        (3) The Board may, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State as to number, appoint, remove, and re-appoint examiners to conduct examinations.
        (4) A person acting as examiner shall not take any part in the examination of the papers, or in the viva voce examination of any applicant for a certificate whom he has in any way trained or instructed in any of the subjects of the examination.
        (5) The remuneration to be paid to the examiners and the fees to be paid by applicants for certificates shall be such as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
        (6) For the purposes of this Section "approved diploma" means a diploma in scientific and mining training after a course of study of at least two years at an institution approved by the Secretary of State, and "approved degree" means a degree of any University approved by the Secretary of State which involves training in and knowledge of scientific and mining subjects; and the approval of the Secretary of State may be given subject to such conditions as he may think fit, and may be revoked by him at any time.
        Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) to omit the words "Except in the case of an applicant who has received an approved diploma, or has taken an approved degree, in which case the period shall be a period of not less than three years."
        We realise that it is impossible to give a mine manager's certificate on the ground of practical experience alone, and we agree that some technical training and examination is necessary for the post of a mine manager. We are anxious to see that the men who are put in possession of mine managers' certificates shall
        1400
        have sufficient practical experience to enable them efficiently to apply their technical training to the dangers of mines so as to secure the safety and the lives and limbs of those under their charge. When we were discussing this Amendment in the Committee we were met by the argument that if this Amendment was given effect to we should injure many of the mining schools of the country. We who represent the miners were not of the opinion that this was the principal reason why this provision had been included in Clause 9 of the Bill.
        At the present moment there are hundreds of young miners all over the country attending these schools who are working during the day endeavouring to get the necessary technical training to qualify them for the position they hope to fill in the future. Are these young miners entitled to get the advantage which is provided in this particular provision? I suggest that they are not entitled to get this advantage unless they have left off the work in the mines and are attending day classes at one or other of the institutions named in one of the paragraphs of Clause 9. There are not many young miners who can afford to leave off their work and attend these day classes. Therefore we think that this proposal is throwing a barrier between the sons of the working miner and the sons of the wealthy class. If my information is correct, quite recently even, some of the limited avenues that were open to the working miner for securing one of the degrees mentioned in this Clause has been entirely closed. A number of the miners attending one of the mining schools in Scotland have applied for the privilege of becoming students for a B.Sc. in Mining at the examination for external students in connection with the London University and they have been denied this privilege, the reason given being that the university authorities and the Home Office have been in consultation with regard to the matter. For the reason that I want to see all the applicants for mine managers' certificates put on an equal footing I make this proposal. We do not think mere scholastic attainment is a good substitute for the practical experience obtained in mines in dealing with the dangers of mining, and for these reasons I move this Amendment.
        Mr. WALSH: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This question was very fully debated in Committee, with the result that the proposed Amendment was rejected by 38 votes to 10. May I point out that by this Clause we are making no alteration in the law, although the hon. Member wishes to modify it. It is not an alteration of the law at all, because this Clause was passed eight years ago mainly on the application of Members representing South Wales who regarded it as essential to the building up of mining schools in connection with the university in South Wales. It was introduced by Sir Samuel Evans and supported by the mining representatives of South Wales. It allowed those who chose to take their technical training at the new mining schools and who were anxious to obtain the diploma to have the advantage of two years of underground work. That does not mean two years' less entire experience underground, because in most of these mining schools a good part of the work is spent in direct experience underground as the technical experience given. It is suggested that there is a competition in which preference is given to the wealthier classes instead of to the poorer classes. There are two answers to that. These certificates are not competitive at all; they are standard certificates, and every miner who comes up to the standard, whether through the diploma system of the university or through the general experience of the mine, if he reaches that standard will receive his certificate. No man is cut out from getting His certificate by the fact that there are students coming in from the mining colleges. I do not think in the future that these diplomas from university colleges or mining schools will be the preserve of any particular class. We now have mining schools recognised in all quarters of the country. There are very efficient mining schools in South Wales, Scotland, and in Lancashire, and if any other mining schools are established under similar conditions, which will enable the sons of those who are working in the mines to obtain the higher scientific knowledge, the Home Office will gladly recognise those schools. In all those schools, and more especially in South Wales and Newcastle-on-Tyne, owing to county council scholarships and private benefactions, an ever-increasing number of the children of the mining population are going to those schools, and not only have some of them obtained the diploma which is given, but they have obtained very high positions in the degrees given by the university.
        1402
        May I point out that there is not one of those university colleges which is not placed in very grave danger of being discontinued if the Amendment is carried. There is not one of them which has not asked us to resist this proposal. If you make the period eight years instead of five years, and give no exemption to the general condition of five years' underground for the spectacle training, the source of supply will be very considerably affected, because it is impossible for a man with limited means to prepare for the diploma in this way, as well as five years' experience underground. With regard to what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) said about the B.Sc. diploma, I may say that I had the Home Office file searched, and I have no knowledge of the circumstances stated by him. The list of colleges recognised by the London University come in the report of the chief inspector, and they include several colleges in Scotland. They include the University of Glasgow and the West of Scotland Technical College. I am informed that no change has been made there in the past few years. There has been a change in connection with the external degree, but that has been done to help those who are in these colleges to obtain the degree of the London University. That degree, however, is not necessary to obtain the qualifications for this examination. If the hon. Member can bring me any further information on the subject, I shall be very glad to look into it, and I may inform him that the sole object of the Home Office is to encourage amongst the mining population this highly technical and scientific training which is becoming more and more necessary for the efficient management of mines.
        Mr. ADAMSON: If I give him indisputable proof of the existence of a barrier against Scotch mining students ever sitting for this B.Sc. examination, will the Under-Secretary undertake to remove it?
        Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member can bring any facts to our notice, the Secretary of State and myself will do all we can to see that facilities are open to Scotch students as well as to West of England students.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment. It would be a very great blow to the universities of this country which have spent a great deal of money in establishing these mining schools. I would remind the hon. Member

        1403
        that these local colleges have long vacations, three or four months in duration, and that they compel the students during that time to acquire scientific experience at the collieries themselves. I sincerely hope he will not press his Amendment, because the Under-Secretary is correct. It would be a great discouragement to the local colleges which are doing their best to train our young men.
        Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

        CLAUSE 11.—(Inquiry into Competency of Holders of Certificates.)
        (1) If at any time representation is made to the Secretary of State by an inspector or otherwise that any person holding a certificate of competency under this Act is by reason of incompetency or gross negligence or misconduct in the capacity of manager or under-manager of a mine unfit to continue to hold a certificate of competency, or has been convicted of an offence against this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of that person, and with respect to every such inquiry the following provisions shall have effect:—

        (a) The inquiry shall be public, and shall be held at such place as the Secretary of State may appoint by such county court judge, metropolitan police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, or other person or persons (hereinafter in this Section referred to as the Court) as may be directed by the Secretary of State, and either alone or with the assistance of any assessor or assessors named by the Secretary of State:

        (b) The Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of the inquiry, furnish to the person into whose conduct inquiry is made a statement of the case on which the inquiry is instituted:

        (c) The person into whose conduct inquiry is made may attend the inquiry by himself, his counsel, solicitor, or agent, and may, if he thinks fit, be sworn and examined as an ordinary witness in the case:

        (d) The Court shall, on the conclusion of the inquiry, send to the Secretary of State a report containing a full statement of the case, and the
        1404
        opinion of the Court thereon, and such report of, or extracts from, the evidence as the Court may think fit:

        (e) The Court shall have power to cancel or suspend the certificate of the person into whose conduct inquiry is made, if it finds that he is by reason of incompetency, gross negligence, or misconduct, or of his having been convicted of an offence against this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act, unfit to continue to hold a certificate of competency:

        (f) The Court may require the person into whose conduct inquiry is made to deliver up his certificate. The Court shall hold a certificate so delivered until the conclusion of the investigation, and shall then either restore, cancel, or suspend the certificate according to its judgment on the case:

        (g) The Court shall have, for the purpose of the inquiry, all the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction when acting as a Court in hearing informations for offences against this Act, and all the powers of an inspector under this Act, and in addition the following powers:—

        (i) power by summons signed by the Court, to require the attendance of all such persons as it thinks fit to summon and examine for the purpose of the inquiry, and for that purpose to require answers or returns to such inquiries as the Court thinks fit to make;

        (ii) power to require the production of all books, papers, and documents which the Court considers important for the purpose of the inquiry:

        (h) A person attending as a witness before the Court shall be allowed such expenses as would be allowed to a witness attending on subpœna before a court of record; and in case of dispute as to the amount to be allowed, the same shall be referred by the Court to a master of the Supreme Court, who, on request signed by the Court, shall ascertain and certify the proper amount of such expenses.

        (2) If any person without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie on him) fails to comply with any summons or requisition of the Court, or impedes the Court

        1405
        in the execution of its duty, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and a person who is guilty of any such offence shall, in addition to any other fine to which he is liable under this Act, be liable to a fine not exceeding one pound for every day during which the offence continues.
        (3) The Court may make such order as it thinks fit respecting the costs and expenses of the inquiry, and such order shall, on the application of any party entitled to the benefit thereof, be enforced by any Court of summary jurisdiction as if such costs and expenses were a fine imposed by that Court.
        (4) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, pay to the person or persons constituting the Court, including any assessors, such remuneration as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
        Mr. PARKES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or otherwise" ["made to the Secretary of State by an inspector or otherwise"].
        I move this Amendment in order to ask what reason there is for the word "otherwise" being in this Clause. The Clause says who shall make representations to the Home Secretary as to any misconduct on the part of the managers. If the words "or otherwise" mean that some person other than the inspector will be able to make a complaint to the Home Secretary, then I think it is out of the question. The inspector is the proper and the only person to make complaints. I cannot conceive power being given to any workman in the mine, who may be an adversary of the manager or of the under-manager, to go about and make complaints. If it is to be possible for any person, no matter what his position or qualification, to make charges against the manager, then the position of the manager will not be a very comfortable one. He will be constantly fearing almost any person in the mine may make charges against him. It will weaken his position and cause him great anxiety. Then, I understand, in certain cases of the manager being brought before the Court for misconduct he has no power of appeal. The inspector can get his information from all sources, and there is no doubt he should be the only person to make representations to the Home Secretary. I sincerely hope what I have said will appeal to the Under-Secretary, and that he will see his way to delete the words "or otherwise."
        Mr. BAIRD: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: These words are in the Act of 1870, and it is for the hon. Member to show they work harm in practice rather than for us to amend the law. They merely allow representations to be made to the Home Office or to the inspector for a preliminary inquiry. No harm can result from that. There is no need for the Home Office to order an inquiry unless it thinks it necessary. This has been in operation ever since 1870, and no injustice has arisen, and we do not see why, under those conditions, we should weaken the position of the inspector and of the Home Office.
        Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I hope the Government will stand by this Clause. An inspector can only visit a mine once in six or twelve months, and, if these words were struck out, it would prevent the men in the mine making representations, and the provision for examination would become a farce. If an examination of a mine takes place by practical workmen, and they see it is not managed as it ought to be, they must have someone to make representations. We look upon this as an important matter. The inspector is kept away from the colliery for long periods, owing to the great work he has to perform, and we ought to have power to make representations to him, and call his attention to any dereliction of duty
        Mr. PARKES: That is exactly the point. The whole of these representations should come through the inspector.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider his decision on this point. The fact that the words have been law for thirty years is no argument for opposing this Amendment. My hon. Friend said very clearly he wanted all the representations to come through the inspector, but, according to the Bill, anyone can make representations, and they need not come through the inspector at all.
        Sir COURTENAY WARNER: If the Amendment were carried, no complaint could be made, even if there was something dangerous in the mine, except through the inspector. The inspector might be careless, or he might be very busy over other things, and put the communication aside and delay the matter for a long time You would delay matters by having first representations to the inspector. He might forward them or not. If he forwarded them,

        1407
        you would then have to wait for the decision of the Home Office. In some cases the complaint might never get to the Home Office at all. I think it is much more reasonable the men should have the right of complaining direct to the Home Office. The Home Office is perfectly able to judge whether a complaint is well founded or not. It has worked well in the past, and I do not think there is the least occasion for this Amendment.
        Viscount WOLMER: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in this Amendment. We are here to protect the lives of those working in our mines, and it seems to me the more reasonable inquiries, apart from vexatious inquiries, that can possibly be made the better. These words have stood for the last thirty years, and have not been abused, and I do not see what good can be brought about by altering them.
        Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "under-manager" ["gross negligence or misconduct in the capacity of manager or under-manager of a mine"], to insert the words "deputy, fireman, or examiner."
        The object of the Amendment is to afford protection to deputies and firemen of the same character and quality which is afforded to managers and under-managers. The duties imposed upon firemen and deputies by Clause 15 are of a responsible and onerous character. They are bound to be holders of a certificate to show they have had a certain amount of experience and they are obliged to submit to an examination as to their physical condition. There are many other precautions taken before a person can be appointed a fireman. Although I do not for one moment suggest the grievance is frequent, the deputies and firemen, feel they ought to be protected against capricious dismissal by the manager.
        Mr. T. RICHARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I have had considerable discussion with some of the hon. Member's friends and the representatives of the firemen and deputies from various parts of the country with regard to this matter, and I think I shall be able to assure him there is no necessity for this Amendment. In fact, the Amendment
        1408
        would not read in the Bill. There is no provision requiring firemen and deputies to obtain certificates as to experience at all. The certificate of competency under Clause 11 is a very simple one: it provides that the manager shall have had five years' experience before he can take a post of this kind, and that he can see gas and hear adequately. It has nothing whatever to do with mine management. It is a certificate of efficiency in certain directions. I explained that fully to the deputations, and they told me at the end that they were satisfied with my explanation. I hope, under the circumstances, my hon. and learned Friend will not press the Amendment.
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: May I point out that by Clause 15 the position is that a person shall not after the first day of January, 1913, be qualified to be appointed as fireman or examiner or deputy unless he is twenty-five years of age or is the holder of a first or second class certificate of competency. I wish to especially impress that last provision upon the House. I do not desire to press the Amendment unless it be the wish of my hon. Friends around me. I know that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government has given great consideration to the representations made to him, and all I ask him to consider is whether there should not be the fuller protection afforded by my Amendment against powers that may be exercised capriciously.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Firemen, Examiners, and Deputies.

        CLAUSE 14.—(Appointment of Firemen, Examiners, and Deputies).
        (1) For every mine there shall be appointed by the manager in writing one or more competent persons (hereinafter referred to as firemen, examiners, or deputies) to make such inspections and carry out such duties as to the presence of gas, ventilation, state of roof and sides, checking and counting the number of persons, and general safety, as are required by this Act and the regulations of the mine.
        (2) A fireman, examiner, or deputy shall be required to devote his whole time to such duties as aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as his statutory duties), but this provision shall not apply in the case of a fireman, examiner, or deputy in—

        (a) any mine in which the total number of persons employed below ground at one time does not exceed thirty; or

        1409

        (b) any mine in the counties of Durham or Northumberland; or

        (c) any mine exempted by the inspector of the division on the ground of the special circumstances of the mine;

        and nothing in this provision shall prevent any fireman, examiner, or deputy in any mine being employed in measuring the work done by persons in his district, or in firing shots in his district:
        Provided that any duties assigned to or undertaken by any fireman, examiner, or deputy in addition to his statutory duties shall not be such as to prevent him carrying out his statutory duties in a thorough manner; and if any question arises whether any additional duties are such as to prevent him carrying out his statutory duties in a thorough manner, that question shall be decided by the inspector of the division, whose decision shall be final.
        (3) The district of a mine assigned to a fireman, examiner, or deputy shall not be of such a size as would prevent him from carrying out in a thorough manner all such duties as aforesaid.
        (4) A mine in which there is a contravention of this Section shall be deemed not to be managed in conformity with this Act.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member is apparently in the wrong place. It may be intended to go in somewhere else.
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Perhaps I may be allowed to move it in another form in which it can be grammatically and logically read into the Clause. I beg to move to insert, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), after the word "mine" ["circumstances of the mine"], to insert the words,
        "and a deputy's hours in Durham and Northumberland shall not exceed eight hours from bank to bank."
        This is an Amendment of very considerable importance, and one which, I hope, will receive favourable consideration from the Government. I may say at once to my hon. Friends around me that, although I have confined the application of this provision to the counties of Northumberland and Durham, I personally have no reason whatever to object to its extension beyond those counties and to make it generally applicable throughout the mining centres of England, Scotland, and Wales. The reason why I thought to confine it to these counties was that I thought I was following the line of least resistance, but I
        1410
        rather gather that it will prove to be the line of strongest resistance. The House is perfectly conscious of what the duties of firemen are, and I need only make this observation, that undoubtedly these duties are, next to those of the manager or under-manager of the mine, the most important and most responsible of any duties of any person or persons in the mine. These officials are responsible for the condition of the roads and working places; they are responsible for their freedom from gas, and for the proper timbering of the roof, and they have many other duties of a scarcely less important character to perform. We have got established an eight hour day generally in mines for underground workers. The intention of those who co-operate with me in this matter is not, from an economic point of view, either to promote or to argue the question of eight hours in a mine. We make this proposal in the interests of safety, and we believe it is imperative in those interests that the number of hours which firemen work in the mines should not exceed those in which they are able to perform their duties with full physical vigour and alertness. We think that eight hours is a sufficiently long period for a man to work these onerous and responsible duties. I do not believe that this will affect the economy of the mines. I have gone into the matter carefully, and I will not weary the House with figures or calculations. But when I refer to the economy of the mines I mean the financial aspect, and I am told by both employers and employed, who have knowledge of this matter, that it can be adjusted without any additional expense, or any supplementary rearrangement of the conditions of work in the mine. If I am right in that I anticipate hon. Members opposite will raise no objection. On the contrary, I think I may hope for the assistance of the representatives of the mine-owners in effecting this reform. It is purely a case of safety, and on this ground I ask for their co-operation and assistance. I am told that the Home Office have given assurances on this matter which are at any rate encouraging. [Mr. Masterman dissented.] At any rate I hope that the Under-Secretary will allow this matter to be discussed as an open question, and, if the Government oppose it, that they will do so only by way of speech. I may inform my hon. Friends behind me that it is my intention to alter the form of my Amendment so as to make it generally applicable throughout England.
        Mr. SPEAKER: Where does the hon. Member propose to insert it?
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: What I propose to do is to leave out the words "in Durham and Northumberland."
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think the Amendment would best come in in Sub-section (2), after the word "manner" ["statutory duties in a thorough manner,"] and then it will read "nor shall he be employed for more than eight hours from bank to bank in any twenty-four hours."
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am willing to accept that. I will then move in Subsection (2), after the word "manner" ["statutory duties in a thorough manner"], to insert the words "nor shall he be employed more than eight hours from bank to bank in any twenty-four hours."
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I take it my hon. Friend will have surmised that it is quite impossible for us to offer Government support at this stage. When the Bill was first introduced into Committee I made a special appeal to both sides of the House not to attempt to re-open generally the most difficult question of the Eight Hours Act. That was promised, with one solitary exception, and the appeal was loyally responded to by both sides of the House—by representatives of the Miners' Federation on the one hand and by representatives of the Mining Association, who held equally strong views, on the other hand. I knew that if we once commenced to tinker with that Act, which has only been in operation two or three years, there would be very little chance of getting a Safety Bill through this Session. This Amendment rips up the Eight Hours Act from top to bottom, and its adoption would make complete chaos. Under the Eight Hours Act it was specifically settled that the hours of deputies and firemen should be nine and a-half, and that was because, in the Coal Mines Act, 1887, there was a provision—which I hope we shall re-enact in the Coal Mines Act of 1911—a provision in Clause 63, which specifically declares that inspections are to be made by firemen or deputies before the workmen are allowed down in the mine, and within a period not exceeding two hours immediately before the commencement of the working shift. On that provision the whole deputy system of Northumberland and Durham was organised, and if you upset it, as you would do by this Amendment, I really do not know what would
        1412
        happen. When we come to amend the Eight Hours Act we may be able to devise some scheme whereby this number of hours, which I grant is rather long, may be lessened. No doubt these officials in that respect have a grievance as compared with the eight hours worked by other workers, but that grievance would have to be dealt with in a very different fashion from this clear prohibition limiting them to eight hours and leaving no one apparently to do the work of inspection in the one and a-half hours before the men go down, unless it be done by doubling the staff of deputies, or indulging in perpetual contraventions of the Act. The coal mining industry at the present moment is in a sufficiently disturbed condition, and I cannot take the responsibility of advising this House, at this stage of the discussion upon a Safety Bill, to add a new and very serious bone of contention to a very difficult question.
        Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I spent two months upstairs on this Grand Committee, and I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just stated. It was almost an accepted maxim on both sides of the Committee that no matter should be introduced which in any way interfered with the Eight Hours Act. I hold a very strong opinion about the Eight Hours Act, and as to its result, but as it was clearly understood in the Committee that this Bill only dealt with provisions for insuring safety in mines, and that nothing which appertained to the Eight Hours Act was to be considered, and the Government were extremely loyal in that sense, we on this side accepted that arrangement and loyally acted up to it. I was rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones), who was on the Committee, should now come down and cast this bombshell into the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to create a heated discussion as to whether or not the Eight Hours Act has been a success, and whether or not it has caused a very great addition to the price of coal, and great friction amongst the men and the masters, he cannot do better than move this Amendment. I trust that he will see that in his anxiety to shorten the hours of labour he is departing from the understanding agreed upon upstairs, and that it would be advisable to withdraw the Amendment. Although we differed on a good many points, we had a most amicable discussion in Committee, and it is to be hoped the same feeling will

        1413
        prevail in this House during the Report stage. Seeing that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite do not want to introduce foreign matter I trust the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment.
        Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I think the Under-Secretary is under a misapprehension when he speaks of deputies being under the absolute necessity of working nine and a-half hours a day in order to make the inspection which is necessary according to the Eight Hours Act. As a matter of fact in Durham County the hours of the deputies under that Act are eight hours plus one winding. The reason why the Amendment as it originally appeared on the Notice Paper was placed there, was because the actual arrangement in Durham was eight hours plus one winding, whereas the Act of Parliament said that the firemen's hours were not to exceed nine and a-half hours. The deputies have made representations to the miners' representatives on the Grand Committee and in this House, and they submit that there is no need for them to come under the nine and a-half hours' regulation. They are able to meet all their obligations with the working which is in actual operation now, and they do not see any necessity for the nine and a-half hours to apply to Durham deputies. To say that it shall be nine and a-half hours gives the management the right, if there are special circumstances, to call upon these deputies or firemen to remain for nine and a-half hours. It is of importance that the House should know that it is not essential for the ordinary working of the mine that they should have to go on working nine and a-half hours. I regret very much that the Under-Secretary should have taken up the attitude he did, and I shall certainly support the Amendment.
        Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I would point out to the last speaker that, as the Amendment stands in the altered form, it does not apply to the deputies in Northumberland and Durham only, but that it applies to the whole country. His remarks as to the firemen who do nine and a-half hours' work do not apply to the whole country. This question should be dealt with in an Act amending the Eight Hours Act. It was carefully discussed when that Act was being passed, and it was decided, owing to the peculiar duties of the firemen and deputies, that it was desirable that the management should be allowed to keep them down nine and a-half hours. This is
        1414
        not the place to deal with that question, and I trust the Under-Secretary will hold to his guns.
        Mr. W. E. HARVEY: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has introduced matters into the Debate which should not have been introduced. The question, of course, is the working of the Eight Hours Act. There is some evidence I am now going to give on that. I happened to be at an election in Manchester, and I saw on a lorry a big bag of coal, which was supposed to represent our present system; and there was also a little bag of coal, which was supposed to represent the working of the eight hours' system; and it was stated that the prices were going up 5s. per ton.
        Mr. SPEAKER: What has that to do with the Amendment? This Amendment relates solely to a limited class of people: it does not relate to all coal mines.
        Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I was referring to the hon. Baronet's remarks about the cost of the Eight Hours Act, and I want to show that the price of coal has not gone up, but that it has been reduced.
        Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the House.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I think it is very unfortunate that the question of the Eight Hours Act has been brought up at all. I accept what the Under-Secretary has said with regard to the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation. The undertaking was loyally adhered to in Committee, and in proof of that I may say that no Amendment on this point was put before the Committee upstairs.
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: There was no undertaking in the Committee.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: There was an understanding between Members on both sides. This Amendment was not brought forward on the Committee stage. The hon. Member brings it forward on Report. I think it will be most unfortunate if the question of hours is brought in at all.
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: So far as I am aware there was neither undertaking nor understanding. If there was an undertaking or understanding it was performed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and persons other than myself.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It was within the general knowledge of the Committee. If any hon. Member represents a constituency in Durham he should realise that the Eight Hours Act has not been an unqualified success in Durham. If he endeavours to rake up difficulties of this kind it will only increase the difficulties with which the owners and the men are faced.
        Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

        CLAUSE 15—(Qualifications of Firemen, Examiners, and Deputies.)
        (1) A person shall not, after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen, be qualified to be appointed or to be a fireman, examiner, or deputy unless he—

        (a) is twenty-five years of age or upwards, or is the holder of a first or second-class certificate of competency; and

        (b) has had at least five years' practical experience underground in a mine, of which not less than two years shall be at the face of the workings of a mine; and

        (c) has obtained a certificate from a mining school or other institution or authority approved by the Secretary of State as to his ability to make accurate tests so far as practicable with a safety lamp, for inflammable gas, and to measure the quantity of air in an air current and that his hearing is such as to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently; and

        (d) has within the preceding five years obtained from such approved school, institution, or authority as aforesaid, or from a duly qualified medical practitioner, a certificate in the prescribed form to the effect that his eyesight and hearing are such as to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently, the expense of obtaining which shall, in the case of a person employed at the time as fireman, examiner, or deputy, be borne by the owner of the mine:

        Provided that—

        (i) the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not apply to any person employed as a fireman, examiner, or deputy at the date of the passing of this Act; and

        (ii) a person shall not be required to obtain a certificate as to ability to
        1416
        make tests for inflammable gas or as to eyesight if he is employed in a mine in which inflammable gas is unknown.

        (2) The certificate as to the eyesight and hearing of a fireman, examiner, or deputy employed in a mine shall, whilst he is so employed, be deposited with the manager, who shall, whenever required to do so by an inspector, produce the certificate for his inspection.
        Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "expiration of twelve months from the coming into operation of this Act."
        This Clause relates to the qualifications of firemen examiners, and deputies. My Amendment is simply to postpone the time when the new qualifications will come into operation. The Amendment is necessary on account of the Bill having been postponed to this late period of the Session. When the Bill was first introduced the time was twelve months after the Bill came into operation. It will be the same under my Amendment. I see that the Under-Secretary is going to propose later an Amendment that the Bill should come into operation on 1st July next, and my Amendment is that this qualification should not operate for twelve months after that time. It is very necessary, because it will be unjust to the deputies concerned, as well as most inconvenient to the managers, if they have to make these alterations suddenly. Time must be given in order that the qualifications can be obtained.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to Second the Amendment.
        Mr. RICHARDS: All of us have desired for some time that these officials should qualify. May I ask when the Bill is to come into operation? The Under-Secretary has an Amendment down that the Bill is to come into operation on 1st July next year.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: In any case that is not quite relevant to this Amendment, because the words the hon. Member proposes to leave out have nothing to do with the date upon which the Bill comes into operation. The Clause says the first day of January, 1913. I have been through all the various Amendments dealing with times and dates, and I hope I

        1417
        shall be able to satisfy hon. Members with regard to that. In this case I suggest there is no need to press the Amendment, for this reason: it does not depend upon the time of the commencement of the operation of the Act, and therefore there is no need to change the date. The time given for this qualification depends upon the time when the men know that they will have to get it. From this December everyone will know that they will have to obtain a certificate. A year is very full time for that. I am told that already the various mining colleges are making the necessary arrangements so that the men will be able to get their certificates in time. If we have men working as firemen and deputies in the mines who are unable to obtain a certificate, that is a danger to the men, and the sooner we require that they shall be qualified the sooner the men will be free from the danger.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "is twenty-five years of age or upwards, or."
        This Amendment, with two consequential Amendments, will have this effect. Under the Bill as it stands now it will be impossible for a man who has obtained his certificate when he was twenty-three years of age to act as a fireman or deputy until he is twenty-five. It was thought in the Grand Committee that it was very undesirable that the young man who had just got his certificate at twenty-three years of age should be practically thrown on his own resources, with nothing useful to do, until the time when he should be qualified to act as manager of a mine. That is what would happen under this Clause, because a young man who obtains a certificate of qualification by attending a mining school, and who therefore has three years' experience, would foe disqualified because of the wording of paragraph (b), which says that he must have had five years' practical experience.
        5.0 P.M.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment. Here we have the case of a young man of twenty-three obtaining his first-class certificate and having his time unoccupied, waiting until such time as he is able to act under the present Clause. It is certainly very desirable, and it is quite in the same lines as almost
        1418
        any other profession, that a man who has a certificate, while he is not entitled to the chief post, is certainly entitled to a minor post where he has men over him to see that he does his work. It is a perfectly proper course, and it is an inducement to young men to get that certificate, because they are not entitled to act as managers until they are twenty-five.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This is a small point which arose on the Committee stage of the Bill by a change which allowed a manager to obtain his certificate at the age of twenty-three, but not to act as a manager until twenty-five. Under these circumstances what are the young men who obtain certificates of competency going to do between the two years? It is much better that they should be working in the mine and obtaining still further experience than spending their time in voyages round the world or visits to London on deputations to the Home Office. If a young man has obtained his certificate of competency fitting him for a manager, he is fit to take the place of a deputy or fireman. I am willing to accept the Amendment.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is perfectly obvious whom the Under-Secretary has in his mind when he speaks of young men who obtain a certificate at twenty-three years having no other way of occupying their time than by voyages round the world. He is clearly not thinking of the sons of working men. The point of view that the miners hold is that twenty-five is an early enough age at which a man should have the responsibility which managership casts upon him. The two years between twenty-three and twenty-five, in the case of a working collier who has his certificate, would be filled in by useful work in the pit, thereby acquiring extra experience necessary to qualify him for his position. If the Amendment is being accepted in the interests of those who will have nothing to do between the ages of twenty-three and twenty-five except going voyages round the world, that is surely a good reason for opposing it from these benches.
        Mr. W. ABRAHAM (Rhondda): I hope the Home Secretary is not going to accept this Amendment. Comparing a managership in other trades with the managership of a colliery is very illusory indeed. For managing a colliery practical experience is required, and we miners are against the idea of placing men too young in that position at all, and without having any wish

        1419
        to keep back or do an injury to any young men we honestly believe that this will give them the extra qualification, and will place them in a better position and make them more competent. The more experience he gets the better he will be at managing the colliery. It will be better for the owners and better for the workmen too. If the Government accept the Amendment we shall have to take this to a Division.
        Sir C. CORY: I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman, but it is rather absurd to expect a man to have the same qualifications for a deputy that he is to have for manager of a pit. He has only to be twenty-five years of age in order to be qualified to manage a colliery, and yet it is insisted on that he must be equally old only to be a fireman. If he has taken a certificate at twenty-three, and aspires at twenty-five to take charge of a colliery, I believe the lives of the men will be much more secure by allowing him to act for two years as a fireman before he takes a managership at twenty-five, after he has his certificate and his experience of the duties of a manager which he gets by being a fireman, than if he went straight into the position of manager without the previous experience.
        Sir A. B. MARKHAM: It was an unfortunate remark of the Under-Secretary to talk of young men travelling round the world. I do not know of a single man who has ever filled the position of a deputy or examiner of any mine who has had sufficient money to be able to travel round the world. This question is one which affects working men only because well-to-do people do not take the position of deputy or fireman. What is the position? A young man goes into the mine at sixteen or seventeen, and gets a certificate at twenty-three. He has had his scientific training, and you are going to say that, although he has had a scientific education and obtained this difficult certificate, for two years he is not to earn a shilling unless he works in the pit. You are going to shut this man out, who has probably done years of hard work. I shall certainly support the Amendment, and I hope the Government will stick to what they have said.
        Viscount WOLMER: I think the opposition of the Labour party to this is provoked by the unfortunate remark of the Under-Secretary with regard to tours round the world. It seems to me to be an
        1420
        interference on the part of the House to keep a man, who has qualified and obtained his certificate, in idleness for two years when he might, as a deputy, have the best possible opportunities of learning the duties of a manager. There is no position in the mine in which a man can get so much experience as a deputy, and as the Clause stands he would be prohibited from getting that experience. I hope the Government will persist in their attitude.
        Mr. WALSH: The hon. Baronet spoke about a particular kind of experience being required. On the very first Amendment I moved this afternoon I am bound to say the Under-Secretary had a very strong answer to make, that the particular qualifications required by a manager or under-manager were essentially different from those required by a fireman. The fireman is a man who must of necessity, if he is a good fireman, make himself acquainted from day to day with all the actual working conditions of a mine. To be effective he must have undergone a long experience, and he must really have qualified himself in every way to make a faithful report in the report book. These qualifications are not the same. But when we say that young men who are really to be the eyes and ears of the mine, because that is the vocation to which the fireman submits himself, must at least be twenty-five years of age, we are simply following the ordinary laws of human experience, for two or three years in the acquisition of this most important essential make all the difference. It is not the case that a man to become a fireman must possess a first or a second-class certificate of proficiency. He need only acquire the special qualifications which are mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) plus the practical experience that we say is absolutely necessary. Two added years make inevitably for increased efficiency. A man widens his area of knowledge, and sees many things which he had not seen before. He is able to add two more years of real experience to that which he had already gained, and it is because after all it is true that these are the most important men in the pit, that upon their efficiency in carrying out their functions depends in the highest degree the safety of the mine, that we say that it is a step in the wrong direction altogether to lessen the time necessary for the proper performance and fulfilment of their duties. I do not know that in the Committee upstairs there was a single suggestion made from our side of a willingness to lessen the time required

        1421
        in this particular case, and although I should be the very last person in the world to say that the Under-Secretary's memory is defective, I do not remember, having paid very considerable attention, that the Under-Secretary himself had made such a promise. Though a young person might have become very highly qualified technically, passed all the requisite examinations, and taken a good degree at his university, or a diploma at his mining school, and passed an examination at twenty-three for a manager, that does not qualify him to act as a fireman. Every man who is engaged in the work of fireman has an enormously important daily function imposed upon him. It has been suggested in this House that the qualification for the suffrage might be raised from twenty-one to twenty-five years of age, and surely that suggestion is only based upon the ground that experience, knowledge, and efficiency come with years. I think we are, not overstating our case when we say that the increasing dangers of the mines brought about by the mechanical and scientific developments of late years have rendered greater experience on the part of officials all the more necessary. The horrible loss of life which has resulted in late years in the mining industry, and the tremendous outpouring of public sympathy on the occurrence of a disaster makes it necessary that this House shall take no step backward, but shall see that the responsible officials connected with the mines shall at least have the experience which is required to enable them to carry out their functions properly. We shall resist any reduction of the age limit in this case.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I would support the protest of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway if I in any way thought that this Amendment would allow a manager who passes an examination to become a fireman, but my recollection of what took place in the Committee is that that is not so. In order to be quite certain in this matter, I have refreshed my memory, and I will read Clause 9, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b). It provides:
        "That no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he is twenty-three years of age or upwards and has had such practical experience in mining (either in the United Kingdom or partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere) as may be required by the rules for a period of not less than five years, except in the case
        1422
        of an applicant who has received an approved diploma, or has taken an approved degree, in which case the period shall be a period of not less than three years."
        Therefore it is absolutely clear that any person who desires to qualify himself and obtain a certificate for the position of manager must have spent either three or five years in practical experience in a mine. That being so, if a man has three or five years' practical experience and has obtained the qualifying diploma to become a manager, can it be contended that that person is not qualified to become a fireman? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. Abraham) said he desired that managers should have every possible experience they could obtain. I quite agree with him. I think a man who is to be in the position of manager will be all the better manager if he thoroughly understands the business he is to superintend. If he has been brought up to work in that business, he will probably understand it more than if he has simply passed an examination. Therefore, the practical effect of being two years a fireman does give the manager the experience which the right hon. Gentleman desires he should have. It seems, to me that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that this Amendment in any way does away with the experience which he and I believe a manager ought to have. Supposing I am right in that contention, the only possible argument that could be used against the Amendment would be that this qualified manager of twenty-three years of age was qualified, not because he had practical experience, but because he had passed an examination. I have shown that he is obliged to have practical experience before he gets a certificate. Therefore, under these circumstances, the difficulties which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley and the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) do not apply to this particular case. I am afraid hon. Members below the Gangway have been a little bit led away by what the Under-Secretary said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then why did the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) begin talking about the sons of working men. It has nothing to do with the sons of working men. Our desire is to get competent men.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Another Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, would impose the twenty-five years' age limit on

        1423
        the sons of working men. The object of the Amendment we are now discussing is to bring in men two years earlier.
        Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member say that a man who is qualified and has obtained a certificate cannot become a fireman because his father is a working man?
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Unless he holds a first-class certificate, that is so.
        Sir F. BANBURY: That is the whole contention. I am contending that if a man holds a first-class certificate he ought to be allowed to become a fireman. I feel sure that, no hon. Member on the other side of the House can traverse such a reasonable proposition. I trust the House will see that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
        Mr. BOOTH: I think this is somewhat of a controversy between theoretical training and practical training. I am not quite sure that I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil as to the object of the Amendment. I would prefer to give the Mover and Seconder credit for a little better intention, bait if the hon. Member says that the practical working out of the Amendment will be as he indicated, I rather agree with him. The effect of the alteration undoubtedly would be in almost every case that a working youth would wait until he was twenty-five years of age, and that those who would get the benefit of the proposed reduction in age would
        be the sons of middle-class parents who were giving them more or less a theoretical training. I would appeal to Members of the House to remember that the object of this Bill is to enable miners to feel more comfortable as regards their own safety when in the mines. Surely they will feel more safe if the older men are performing the responsible duties of firemen. We are aiming at satisfying the miners in this matter, and it is quite clear that if this Amendment were carried there would be uneasiness caused among the miners of the country.
        Mr. EDGAR JONES: I understand that twenty-five years is an alternative. Unless a man is twenty-five years of age, or is the holder of a first or second-class certificate of competency, he cannot undertake the duties of fireman. If a man is twenty-five years of age, or has a first or second-class certificate, it appears to me that fulfils the conditions. The Clause does not say that he has to be twenty-five years of age and possess a certificate. I take it that if he has a certificate of competency at twenty-three he can act. I do not see what the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) is driving at.
        Sir C. CORY: If a man has a diploma he will not necessarily require to have more than three years' practical experience.
        Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 203.

        Division No. 403.]

        AYES.

        [5.30 p.m.

        Adamson, William

        Glanville, H. J.

        Neville, Reginald J. N.

        Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

        Goldstone, Frank

        Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

        Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

        Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

        O'Grady, James

        Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

        Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

        Palmer, Godfrey

        Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

        Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

        Parker, James (Halifax)

        Barnes, George N.

        Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Pointer, Joseph

        Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

        Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

        Pollard, Sir George H.

        Bethell, Sir J. H.

        Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

        Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

        Booth, Frederick Handel

        Hayward, Evan

        Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

        Bcwerman, C. W.

        Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

        Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

        Brace, William

        Henry, Sir Charles S.

        Rendall, Athelstan

        Burn, Col. C. R.

        Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

        Richards, Thomas

        Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

        Hudson, Walter

        Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

        Clynes, John R.

        John, Edward Thomas

        Rowlands, James

        Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

        Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

        Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

        Jowett, F. W.

        Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

        Crooks, William

        Kellaway, Frederick George

        Snowden, P.

        Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

        Kilbride, Denis

        Spicer, Sir Albert

        Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

        King, J. (Somerset, N.)

        Sutton, John E.

        Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

        Lansbury, George

        Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

        Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

        Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

        Taylor, John W. (Durham)

        Elverston, Sir Harold

        Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

        Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

        Esslemont, George Birnie

        Martin, J.

        Thorne, William (West Ham)

        Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

        Mason, David M. (Coventry)

        Wadsworth, J.

        Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

        Millar, James Duncan

        Walters, John Tudor

        Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

        Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

        Wardle, George J.

        Gill, A. H.

        Neilson, Francis

        Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay.

        Watt, Henry A.

        Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

        Whitehouse, John Howard

        Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

        Walsh and Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda).

        Wilkie, Alexander

        Yate, Col. C. E.

        Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

        Yoxall, Sir James Henry

        NOES.

        Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

        Falconer, J.

        Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

        Acland, Francis Dyke

        Falle, Bertram Godfray

        Nannetti, Joseph P.

        Addison, Dr C.

        Ferens, T. R.

        Newdegate, F. A.

        Agnew, Sir George William

        Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

        Nield, Herbert

        Aitken, Sir William Max

        Forster, Henry William

        Nolan, Joseph

        Alden, Percy

        Foster, Philip Staveley

        Norman, Sir Henry

        Amery, L. C. M. S.

        Gardner, Ernest

        Norton, Captain Cecil W.

        Anderson, A.

        George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

        O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

        Anstruther-Gray, Major William

        Gibson, Sir James P.

        O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

        Arkwright, John Stanhope

        Gilmour, Captain J.

        O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

        Ashley, W. W.

        Gladstone, W. G. C.

        O'Sullivan, Timothy

        Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

        Goldman, C. S.

        Parkes, Ebenezer

        Baird, J. L.

        Goulding, Edward Alfred

        Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

        Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

        Grant, J. A.

        Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

        Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

        Greene, W. R.

        Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

        Balcarres, Lord

        Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke

        Pirle, Duncan V.

        Baldwin, Stanley

        Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

        Power, Patrick Joseph

        Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

        Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

        Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

        Banbury, Sir Frederick George

        Hackett, J.

        Pringle, William M. R.

        Banner, John S. Harmood-

        Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

        Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

        Barton, W.

        Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

        Radford, G. H.

        Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

        Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

        Rawson, Colonel R. H.

        Beckett, Hon. Gervase

        Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

        Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

        Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

        Harris, Henry Percy

        Reddy, Michael

        Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

        Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

        Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

        Boland, John Plus

        Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

        Remnant, James Farquharson

        Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

        Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

        Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

        Bridgeman, William Clive

        Helmsley, Viscount

        Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

        Bryce, J. Annan

        Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

        Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

        Bull, Sir William James

        Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

        Roche, Augustine (Louth)

        Burns, Rt. Hon. John

        Higham, John Sharp

        Roche, John (Galway, E.)

        Butcher, John George

        Hill, Sir Clement L.

        Roe, Sir Thomas

        Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

        Hills, J. W.

        Rothschild, Lionel de

        Byles, Sir William Pollard

        Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

        Rowntree, Arnold

        Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

        Hughes, S. L.

        Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

        Carr-Gomm, H. W.

        Hunter, W. (Govan)

        Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

        Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

        Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

        Sanders, Robert A.

        Cassel, Felix

        Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

        Sanderson, Lancelot

        Castlereagh, Viscount

        Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

        Scanlan, Thomas

        Cautley, H. S.

        Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

        Sheehy, David

        Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

        Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

        Sherwell, Arthur James

        Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

        Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

        Smith, Harold (Warrington)

        Chancellor, H. G.

        Joyce, Michael

        Soames, Arthur Wellesley

        Chapple, Dr. W. A.

        Joynson-Hicks, William

        Stanier, Beville

        Clough, William

        Kennedy, Vincent Paul

        Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston.)

        Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

        Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

        Summers, James Woolley

        Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

        Kirkwood, J. H. M.

        Swift, Rigby

        Condon, Thomas Joseph

        Lambert, G. (Devon, S. Molton)

        Talbot, Lord E.

        Cory, Sir Clifford John

        Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

        Tennant, Harold John

        Cotton, William Francis

        Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

        Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

        Cowan, W. H.

        Levy, Sir Maurice

        Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

        Cripps, Sir C. A.

        Lewis, John Herbert

        Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

        Crumley, Patrick

        Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

        Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

        Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

        Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

        Valentia, Viscount

        Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

        Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

        Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

        Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

        Lyell, Charles Henry

        Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

        Dawes, J. A.

        Lynch, A. A.

        Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

        De Forest, Baron

        Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

        Weigall, Capt. A. G.

        Denman, Hon. R. D.

        Macpherson, James Ian

        Wiles, Thomas

        Denniss, E. R. B.

        MacVeagh, Jeremiah

        Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

        Devlin, Joseph

        M'Callum, John M.

        Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worc, N.)

        Dillon, John

        McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

        Wolmer, Viscount

        Donelan, Captain A.

        M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

        Wood, John (Stalybridge)

        Doris, W.

        M'Micking, Major Gilbert

        Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

        Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

        Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

        Worthington-Evans, L.

        Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

        Mason, James F. (Windsor)

        Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

        Essex, Richard Walter

        Masterman, C. F. G.

        Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

        Mooney, J. J.

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

        Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

        Munro, R.

        Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

        Amendments made: At end of paragraph (a) leave out "and (b)," and insert instead thereof the words "or is twenty-five years of age or upwards and."—[Mr. S. Roberts.]
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to propose, in paragraph (b), after the word "at," to insert the word "about."
        The experience of an actual coal face is not the most useful for a fireman, because

        1427
        he has to look after timbering and other matters as well, the knowledge of which is quite as useful to a fireman as the physical act of getting coal.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. These were the words actually suggested by people speaking for the same association as he speaks for. The Amendment was agreed to in Committee by general consent without a Division. "About the face" is rather a vague phrase, and may extend beyond what we intend. The fireman, whose office is to detect danger, should have had experience at the working face, where the greatest danger is.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Further Amendments made: In paragraph (d) omit the words "and hearing are," and insert instead thereof the words "is such as to enable him to make accurate tests for inflammable gas, and that his hearing is."
        In paragraph (i) omit the words "and (b)." Omit the word "paragraphs" and insert instead thereof the word "paragraph."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to propose in paragraph (i) to leave out the word "passing" and to insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."
        If the present words stand no time will be given to make necessary arrangements, because the Bill will be passed in three weeks' time. Some time should be given. The Under-Secretary is going to move later on that the time of coming into operation will be the 1st of July next. I think that that is a reasonable period.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment is moved under a misapprehension. This paragraph was inserted in Committee in order to protect firemen now serving from certain requirements. I do not see in the least why we should set ourselves to make similar provision for those who are to become firemen after the passing of the Act. Everyone will know the qualifications, and if firemen are appointed after the Act passes they ought to possess these qualifications.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 16.—(Periodical Inspection on behalf of Workmen).
        (1) The workmen employed in a mine may at their own cost appoint two of their number or any two persons, not being mining engineers, who are or who have been practical working miners of not less than five years' experience, to inspect the mine, 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 officials of the mine, to go to every part of the mine, and to inspect the shafts, roads, levels, workings, air-ways, ventilating apparatus, old workings, and machinery, and shall, where an accident has occurred in a mine of which notice is required under this Act to be given, be allowed to go together with any legal representative of the workmen, or with a mining or electrical engineer selected by the workmen, accompanied as aforesaid, to the place where the accident occurred, and to make such inspection as may be necessary for ascertaining the cause of the accident.
        (2) 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 manager shall on demand produce to the persons appointed the certificates to all firemen, examiners, or deputies employed in the mine, and the persons appointed shall, except where the inspection is an inspection for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident, forthwith make and sign a full and accurate report of the result of the inspection in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose; and the owner, agent or manager shall forthwith cause a true copy of the report to be sent to the inspector of the division.
        (3) If the owner, agent or manager or any other person refuses or neglects to afford such facilities as aforesaid, or if the owner, agent or manager fails to send a true copy of the report in accordance with this Section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
        Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "at least."
        I think the wording here does not express what is intended. The workmen in a colliery in South Wales took the view that they had the right to inspect the colliery every day, and that would not seem to be inconsistent with this Clause as at present worded. In that particular

        1429
        case the inspector of the district upheld the view that the men were right. They did appoint one of their body to make a daily inspection, but owing to their not having appointed two as laid down in the Act it was not able to work. Then other difficulties arose and the thing was dropped. The incident, however, shows that it is quite possible for them to appoint two of their number and keep on inspecting the mine every day and several times a day if they thought fit. Surely everybody, including the Labour representatives, will agree that that is not what is desired or intended, or would be desirable, because if officials have to accompany these men on inspections every day or several times a day going round the workings with them the safety of the mine would suffer very much. I trust that the House will see the reasonableness of the Amendment.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. BRACE: I am afraid we should be guilty of a serious blunder if we listened to the appeal of the hon. Baronet to delete these words from the Clause. If they were deleted the effect would be to confine the men whom we represent to simply one inspection a month. There are collieries where it is desirable on occasion that there should be inspection more than once a month. The Clause is not what the men would like to have had, and what my colleagues and the men worked and argued for in the Committee, but we accepted the Clause as it at present stands as providing a kind of compromise, and I hope the Under-Secretary will not commit himself or allow the House of Commons to commit itself to a proposal which is against inspection being undertaken more than once a month. Within my own experience I have known collieries where it was proper that there should be a further inspection after the lapse of a short time in order that it might be seen that all was right in the mine. If we accepted the Amendment of the hon. Baronet it would prevent a second inspection from being made. This provision is supposed to be for the safety of the men. No expense is put upon the employers; the men pay their own expenses. Under this Clause the miners have a right to make a second inspection if, from the standpoint of the safety of the men, whose lives are at stake, a second inspection is necessary. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would like to know what would happen under Sub-section (2) of this Clause if the Amendment were accepted. Sub-section (2) provides for inspection in the case of an accident. If the Amendment were adopted would it not prohibit the seat of the accident being examined by the men's representatives? Under Sub-section (2) that inspection is provided for, but if you say that the inspection is only to be once a month would not that prohibit inspection after an accident? I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider seriously what the effect would be of accepting this Amendment?
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I am advised that the omission or inclusion of these words makes not the slightest difference. The only obligation, whether these words remain or do not remain, is that the manager shall allow the workmen to inspect the mines once a month, and the rest is an act of grace on his part. I am also advised that it would have no effect on inspection dealt with under Sub-section (2) as to accidents. On the other hand, this has been in the Clause since 1887. I have not heard that it has done any harm; therefore, I see no reason, unless stronger arguments are advanced, why the words should be struck out. I fall back once more upon the argument I used again and again in Committee, that when we are re-enacting a long and complicated measure, which has been worked for thirty years, we should not make alterations unless it is specifically shown that they are necessary.
        Sir C. CORY: I quite accept what my hon. Friend has said, but the reason why the Amendment has been proposed is that it has been already claimed by the workmen in a certain colliery that under this Clause they have the right to make a daily inspection. They have appointed one of their men with a view to making that daily inspection, and the inspector upheld them in their assertion that they have this right under the Clause. There you have an instance where they claim, and obtain, the permission. I would further remark that in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary promised that he would amend this Clause in this respect, and he gave an undertaking to that effect. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I certainly understood that it was not the intention that the men should make a daily inspection, and that the hon. Gentleman undertook to put it right on the Report stage. I must really

        1431
        press my hon. Friend to fulfil the undertaking, which I certainly believe he did give. It really is a matter which will cause the greatest trouble and difficulty in the management of collieries if inspections are to be made daily.
        Mr. W. ABRAHAM (Rhondda): I hope and trust the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment, and the reason why the words should be left in is that the workmen should have a right to more than one inspection a month.
        Sir C. CORY: I am prepared to alter my Amendment by adopting the words "at reasonable intervals." The inspections certainly ought to be at reasonable intervals.
        Mr. ABRAHAM: The hon. Baronet's Amendment would curtail the right of the workmen to inspection once a month if the words "at least" were deleted. The hon. Baronet does not always show his hand, but it is quite evident that it is his intention to limit the inspections to one a month. If hon. Members read the evidence which was given before the Commission, they will find that the complaint all over the kingdom was that the workmen were not using the Clause as well as they ought to do. The employers considered that the examinations made by workmen were of enormous value. I have often noticed, where an inquest has been held after an accident or an explosion, that there is always introduced into the inquiry the report of the inspection made by the workmen, in order to prove how good and how safe was the condition of the colliery. That in itself constitutes a sound reason why my hon. Friend should preserve the advantage derived from these inspections, and why he should not accept the Amendment. Hon. Members on the other side, I am certain, will not accept any suggestion which would have the effect of curtailing the right of workmen, under all circumstances, to simply one inspection a month.
        Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I remember on the occasion of the Grand Committee that the Under-Secretary undertook to consider this point, but I must admit that the Amendment is rather of an unsatisfactory character. We are all agreed upon the point that the last thing we desire is anything in the nature of factious inspection, but I think what is wanted is that some words should be introduced which will permit of inspection at reasonable
        1432
        intervals. To omit the words "at least" would, to my mind, confine the men to one inspection a month. I think that would not be satisfactory, and that some words should be introduced which would allow the miners, at reasonable intervals, to inspect the mines.
        Mr. BUCKMASTER: I cannot help feeling that there is some misapprehension in the minds of my hon. Friends below the Gangway as to the effect of the Clause as it stands, and it is very important that they should bear in mind what the Clause now does. I fear that they will be under an entire mistake if they imagine that the Clause as it now stands, if it were passed, would give them the right to inspect the mines more than once a month.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: They have the right now under the same Clause.
        Mr. BUCKMASTER: However this Clause has been acted upon in the past, it provides nothing but the minimum obligation, which is cast upon the manager, and once that obligation is discharged, there is no breach whatever if a second inspection is refused. The words of the Clause are that the workmen may appoint two of their number who have certain experience to inspect the mines, and those people being appointed they shall be allowed once at least in every month to inspect the mine. Suppose they have inspected once in the month and they require to inspect-again and are refused, and that then they say they have the right to inspect under this Section, the answer to the men by the manager would be, "I have complied with the terms of the Section, because once at least I have permitted inspection, and I am under no statutory obligation to do anything further." Therefore, as the Clause stands, I feel quite certain that the men have no statutory right to anything further than the one inspection a month. None the less, it seems to me the deletion of the words "at least" might be unfavourable, because whatever the obligations cast upon the manager, these words have led to the practice of inspection more than once a month, and if once you take out of the Clause the words "at least," the argument would be very strong indeed that this House intended that there should never be inspection more than once a month. In the interests of the men the words should remain, though hon. Members interested in this matter should not believe that they give the men an actual right to further inspection.
        6.0 P.M.
        Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary promised to consider this Amendment, and he stated that his intention was that inspection should take place at a shorter interval than once a month. The hon. Gentleman opposite has put the matter most clearly, and I think everybody must understand that if these words are left in, legally the men only have the right to inspect the mine once a month. I am not a mine owner, and, therefore, I do not express an opinion upon the merits of the case. I am not attempting to argue whether there should be an inspection once, twice, or thrice a month; but I do want the Bill to be made as clear as possible, so that there shall be no possibility of misconception. I understand that there has been misconception in the past, and that the workmen have been under the impression that the words "at least" cover a meaning which they do not possess, and that under those words they have the right to more frequent inspection than once a month. If that be so, the best thing we can do is to remove the misconception. If it is necessary to have inspections more than once a month, then put in words which will allow them once a fortnight, or once in three weeks, or whatever the necessary period might be Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite must know how often an inspection should be made. I do not pretend to say. If hon. Members opposite state that there should be an inspection every fortnight or every three weeks I, for one, shall support them, but in order to avoid misunderstandings or disputes between masters and men, words should be put in to make the point as clear as possible.
        Mr. WADSWORTH: I hope that the Government will stand by the words as they are at present. I do not understand the alarm of the hon. Baronet even if an inspection were going to be made every day, because I do not think that the colliery owners have anything to fear from it if they are doing what they possibly can to keep the mine safe. I worked at a colliery for thirty years, and it is not long ago since the managing director asked the men to make one of those inspections. It is a very extensive colliery, and I believe there were seven or eight men, instead of two as mentioned in the Clause, making the inspection; which occupied them seven weeks. The managing director since then has actually
        1434
        asked me to use my influence to request the men to make another inspection. He pointed out to me that if at any time I received a complaint from the men that they could make an inspection at any time.
        Sir C. CORY: After the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman I am quite willing to withdraw.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: We have had the position as it seems at present explained by an hon. and learned Member who in the near future is likely to be a Law Officer of the Crown, and under those circumstances we ought, I think, to be very careful as to what we do. I always understood that the men had the right under the Clause as it stands to make any inspection when they liked. I think the hon. Member who spoke last referred to a mine in which I gave him authority to make an inspection any time he liked. That has been done in all the collieries with which I have any connection. I believe that the owners are anxious to have these inspections, and if there is danger it is much better that the men should know. As there is some doubt about it, and after the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Buckmaster), if this Amendment is withdrawn I will, in order to make the matter perfectly clear, move to delete the word "month" and to insert instead the word "week." If the men were taken to the Law Courts by some cantankerous individual and were placed in the position that they could not make an inspection more than once a month I think that would be disastrous, in the interests of safety.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "month" and to insert instead thereof the word "week."
        Mr. BRACE: I would much prefer the Amendment moved toy the hon. Baronet. Suppose the examiners, in going round to-day, find gas all over certain sections of the mine, and the officials say, "We must have time to clear it," and the men say, "Before we shall have parties of men working in this section we must have another examination," then, in that case, there would be another examination the next day. If the word "week" is put in would it prevent the workmen having that

        1435
        second examination on the second day, so as to be quite sure that the gas is cleared and that the place is such that the men can go down safely? I look upon it as vital and important that the men shall at their own expense be at liberty to protect themselves in this direction.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I would ask the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) not to press this suddenly sprung Amendment upon us. This is the law as it stands at present and as it has stood for thirty years, and the only alteration we make is to enable two persons to be appointed regularly. No one imagines that the inspection will be made in a day; it probably may not be made in a week; and I think that is the answer to the hon. Member for Glamorgan. Some of those inspections go on for ten days or more. As explained by my hon. and learned Friend, as a statutory right you can demand an inspection every month. That does not mean one day in the month. An inspection might go on for the whole of the month. By retaining the words "at least" we also suggest that it may be desirable to have more than one inspection, and the great majority of the managers and inspectors are quite prepared to allow the men more than one examination.
        Amendment negatived.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), at the end insert the words "subject, however, to the provisions of this Act requiring the place where an accident has occurred to be left as it was immediately after the accident."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "to" ["to all firemen"] and insert instead thereof the word "of."—[Mr. Harmood-Banner.]
        Returns, Plans, Notices and Books.

        CLAUSK 17.—(Reports by Officials).
        (1) In addition to the reports specially required by this Act, it shall be the duty of every person on whom responsible duties are imposed with respect to safety or to the condition of the roadways, workings, ventilation, machinery, shafts, shot-firing, safety lamps, electrical plant, or animals at a mine, and who shall be required to do so by the regulations of the mine to make at such intervals as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine full
        1436
        and accurate reports in the prescribed form of the matters falling within the scope of his duties.
        (2) Copies of such of the reports required to be made under Sections sixteen and sixty-four of this Act as may be prescribed, shall be posted up at the pit head not later than ten o'clock in the morning on the day following the day on which the reports are made and remain posted until ten o'clock in the morning on the following day.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "mine" ["regulations of the mine"], insert the words "in a book to be kept at the mine."
        Leave out the words "in the prescribed form."—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 20.—(Plans of Mine and Ventilation [1887, s. 34; 1896, s. 3]).
        (1) The owner, agent or manager of every mine shall keep in the office at the mine—

        (i.) a plan of the workings of the mine, up to a date not more than three months previously, showing—

        (a) the boundaries of the mine, where possible, and the position of the workings with regard to the surface and variations of level on the roadways from the Ordnance basis of ten feet or any multiple of ten feet; and

        (b) the general direction and rate of dip of the strata: and

        (c) the position, direction, and extent of every known fault of every seam with its vertical throw, and of every known washout and intrusive dyke; and

        (d) the depth of every shaft; and

        (ii.) a section of the strata sunk through, or, if that is not reasonably practicable, a section of every seam.

        (2) The owner, agent, or manager of every mine shall also keep in the office at the mine a separate plan showing the system of ventilation in the mine, and in particular the general direction of the currents, the points where the quantity of air is measured, and the principal devices for the regulation and distribution of the air, and on every such plan the intake airways shall be coloured blue and the return airways red.
        (3) Every such plan must be on a scale of not less than forty inches to the mile, and must be prepared by or under the

        1437
        supervision of a surveyor possessing the prescribed qualifications, and shall be of a durable character:
        Provided that in the case of a mine opened before the passing of this Act it shall be sufficient if the scale of the plan is not less than the Ordnance scale of twenty-five inches to the mile.
        (4) The owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall, on request at any time of an inspector, produce to him at the office at the mine such plans and section, and shall also on the like request mark on such plans and section the then state of the workings of the mine as respects the particulars required to be shown on the plan under Subsection (1) of this Section; and the inspector shall be entitled to examine the plans and section, and, for official purposes only, to make a copy of any part thereof.
        (5) If the owner, agent, or manager of any mine fails to keep, or wilfully refuses to produce or allow to be examined or copied, any such plan or section, or wilfully withholds any portion thereof, or wilfully refuses, on request, to mark thereon the state of the workings of the mine, or conceals any part of those workings, or produces an imperfect or inaccurate plan or section, he shall (unless he shows that he was ignorant of the concealment, imperfection or inaccuracy) be guilty of an offence against this Act.
        Further, the inspector may by notice in writing (whether a penalty for the offence has or has not been inflicted) require the owner, agent, or manager to cause an accurate plan and section, showing the particulars hereinbefore required, to be made within a reasonable time, at the expense of the owner of the mine, in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore contained, and if the owner, agent, or manager fails within twenty days after the requisition of the inspector, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Secretary of State, to cause such plan and section to be made as hereby required, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
        Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "roadways" ["level on the roadways"], and to insert instead thereof the words "main haulage roads."
        The reason I move this is to make the Clause clear, and so that there will be some point in the mine which will compare with the Ordnance map. On the ordinary roads it would be almost impossible to do so.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This is a very small point, and I would ask my hon. Friend not to press it. We have no definition of haulage roads, and there would be no variation in levels shown. My hon. Friend knows how important it is that they should be shown.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 24.—(Books and Copies thereof [1887, s. 49, rule 37]).
        (1) All such books as are by this Act required to be kept at a mine shall be provided by the owner, agent, or manager, and shall be in the prescribed form, and the books, or a correct copy thereof, shall be kept at the office at the mine and any inspector, and any person employed in the mine or anyone having the written authority of any inspector or person so employed, may at all reasonable times inspect and take copies of and extracts from any such books; but nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose the obligation of keeping any such book or a copy thereof for more than twelve months after the book has ceased to be used for entries therein under this Act.
        (2) Every report required by this Act to be recorded in a book kept at the mine for the purpose shall be submitted to the manager and under-manager of the mine, and shall be countersigned by them on the day on which the report is made or the day following.
        (3) Any mine in which there is a contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be not managed in conformity with this Act.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "manager" ["and under-manager"], insert the words "if any."—[Colonel Hickman.]
        After the word "mine" ["manager of the mine"], insert the words "or in the absence of the manager or under-manager to the person performing the duties of manager or under-manager, as the case may be, in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to insert the words,
        "Where two or more mines are grouped under the charge of one manager, it shall

        1439
        be a sufficient compliance with this requirement if every such report is submitted to and countersigned by the under-manager of the mine to which it relates, or, in his absence on leave or from sickness or any other temporary cause, by the person representing the under-manager under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of this Act."
        This Amendment is to allow where there are several mines grouped in one manager the certificate to be signed by the under-manager in case the manager is not there. I think it is consequential on Clause 3, where we allowed mines to be grouped and where we put the under-manager of a small mine with one single manager over him.
        Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: Recent experience has shown the necessity of keeping the Bill as it stands. In the last two or three of the great explosions the result of investigation has shown a very great deficiency in the keeping of reports and the result of that deficiency. Especially in connection with the most disastrous explosion in Lancashire last December this very system to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes was in operation. There was a general manager over three or four mines, and an under-manager over each specific mine, and it was criticised by the chief inspector as being a very bad system. Although the under-manager or the manager of each separate mine knew what was going on, the man who was really responsible, the manager over the group of mines, did not see some very vital reports in connection with changes in the mine which ultimately resulted in the explosion. So long as the manager holds his responsible position there ought to be a statutory obligation that he should see the various reports.
        Mr. BAIRD: I quite see the point of the Under-Secretary's remarks, but in some cases it may be physically impossible for the manager to be present. It is impossible for him to guarantee, year in and year out, that he will be there every day in the week. Therefore it is necessary to make some kind of provision for occasions which must inevitably arise when the manager cannot be on the spot. He may be sick, or he may be in London to see the Under Sec—
        Mr. MASTERMAN: We have provided for that in an Amendment already carried.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I only wanted to provide that in case of the sickness of the manager another man might sign the report for him. If that is provided for, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 25.—(Division of Mine into Parts.)
        (1) Where two or more parts of a mine are worked separately, the owner, agent, or manager of the mine may give notice in writing to that effect to the inspector of the division, and thereupon each such part shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate mine:
        Provided that, where each of such parts of a mine has not a separate system of ventilation, a mine shall not be so divided except with the permission of the inspector of the division and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe.
        (2) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that the division of a mine in pursuance of this Section tends to lead to evasion of the provisions of this Act, or otherwise to prevent the carrying of the Act into effect, he may object to the division by notice served on the owner, agent, or manager of the mine; and if the owner, agent, or manager refuses to acquiesce in such objection, the matter shall be determined in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
        Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (1), insert,
        (2) Every notice given under the foregoing provision must specify the points of separation on all roads connecting the different parts of the mine.—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 26.—(Fencing in Case of Abandoned Mine.)
        (1) Where any mine is abandoned or the working thereof discontinued, at whatever time the abandonment or discontinuance occurred, it shall be the duty of the owner thereof, and of every other person interested in the minerals of the mine, to cause the top of every shaft and outlet to be kept securely fenced for the prevention of accidents:
        Provided that—

        (i.) Subject to any contract to the contrary, the owner of the mine shall, as between himself and any other person interested in the minerals of the mine, be liable to carry this Section into effect, and to pay any costs,

        1441
        charges, and expenses incurred by any other person interested in the minerals of the mine in carrying this Section into effect:

        (ii.) Nothing in this Section shall exempt any person from any liability under any other Act, or otherwise.

        (2) No person shall be precluded by any agreement or otherwise from doing, or be liable to any injunction, damages, penalty, or forfeiture in respect of, such acts as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of this Section.
        (3) Any shaft or outlet which is not fenced as required by this Section shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "top," insert the words "or entrance."
        Leave out the words "securely fenced for the prevention of accidents," and insert instead thereof the words "surrounded by a structure of a permanent character sufficient to prevent accidents."
        In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "fenced," and insert instead thereof the words "kept surrounded by a structure."—[Mr. Masterman.]

  Part II.
    PROVISIONS AS TO SAFETY.
      Ventilation.

        CLAUSE 29.—(Standard of Ventilation.)
        (1) An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and noxious gases to such an extent that all shafts, roads, levels stables, and workings of the mine shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein, and in particular that the intake airways up to within one hundred yards of the first working-place which the air enters shall be kept normally free from inflammable gas. Provided always that an abandoned road or level not used in connexion with the working of the mine shall, if properly fenced off, not be deemed to be a road or level within the meaning of this Section.
        (2) In the case of mines required to be under the control of a manager, the quantity of air in the main current and in every split and at such other points as may be determined by the regulations of the mine shall at least once in every
        1442
        month be measured and entered in a book to be kept for the purpose at the mine.
        (3) For the purposes of this Section a place shall not be deemed to be in a fit state for working or passing therein if the air contains either less than nineteen per cent. of oxygen or more than one-and-a-quarter per cent. of carbon dioxide: Provided that the Secretary of State may by order exempt any mine or mines from the foregoing provision on the ground that they are liable to spontaneous combustion of the coal, but subject to any conditions specified in the order.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "working-place," insert the words "at the working-face."
        At the end of Sub-section (1), insert "and (b) No person shall be liable in respect of any contravention of or failure to comply with the provisions of this Section if he shows that the ventilation was interrupted in consequence of an accident, and that no persons were employed in any part of the mine in which an adequate amount of ventilation was not being produced, except such persons as it was necessary to employ in that part of the mine for the purpose of restoring the ventilation."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section. (3), after the word "dioxide," to insert the words "and an airway shall not be deemed to be normally kept free from inflammable gas if the average percentage of inflammable gas found in six samples of air taken by an inspector in the air current in that airway at intervals of not less than a fortnight exceeds one quarter."
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "an" ["and an airway"], to insert the word "intake." In Sub-section (1) there is a reference to ventilation in the intake airways, and this Amendment will bring the proposed Amendment into harmony with the first part of the Clause.
        Mr. BAIRD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: The word may make the proposed Amendment a little clearer; therefore I accept the suggestion.
        Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
        Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

        CLAUSE 30.—(Classification of Mines for purposes of Ventilation.)
        (1) General regulations under this Act shall provide for the classification of mines according to the amount of the inflamemable and noxious gases in the main return airway, and the amount of air passing into a mine shall be such amount, proportionate to the number of men and animals employed underground in the mine, as may be prescribed by the general regulations as respects mines of the class to which the mine belongs.
        (2) The obligation imposed by this Section shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the obligation to provide an adequate amount of ventilation imposed by the last foregoing Section.
        Amendment made: Leave out the words "be such amount, proportionate to the number of men and animals employed underground in the mine," and insert instead thereof the words "not be less than such amount."—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 31.—(Requirements as to the use of certain Methods of Ventilation.)
        (1) Where a fire is used for ventilation in any mine the return air shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway, unless the mine is one in which inflammable gas is unknown.
        (2) Where a mechanical contrivance for ventilation is used at any mine it shall not be placed beneath the surface and means shall be provided for reversing the air current and maintained in readiness to be put into immediate operation:
        Provided that this provision shall not be construed as preventing mechanical contrivances for ventilation being placed underground when such contrivances are auxiliary only and the contrivance whereby the main ventilation is produced is placed on the surface and is capable of producing such amount of ventilation as in an emergency would be sufficient for the safety of the persons employed underground:
        Provided also that this provision shall not be construed as preventing mechanical contrivances for ventilation being placed underground when such contrivances afford a complete additional system of ventilation, and when a complete ventilating appliance is provided on the surface capable of producing adequate ventilation for the mine, and immediately available for use in the event of accident, and is kept
        1444
        in an effective condition and is used once at least in each week.
        (3) No fire or furnace shall be placed underground in any new mine or seam after the passing of this Act.
        Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "and means shall be provided for reversing the air current and maintained in readiness to be put into immediate operation.—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (2), to insert,
        "(3) After the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen, or such later date as, in view of the circumstances of the mine, may be fixed by the inspector of the division, there shall in every mine, in which a mechanical contrivance for ventilation is used, be provided and maintained in a condition to be put into immediate operation adequate means for reversing the air current."
        This is to meet a point raised by the hon. Member opposite. We promised to allow a certain limit before the carrying out of this operation. After consultation, as the conditions in the mines are so different, we propose, as a general rule, the 1st day of January, 1913, or such later date as may be fixed in view of the circumstances of the mine.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Further Amendments made: In Subjection (3), leave out the words "or furnace shall be placed underground in any new mine or seam," and insert instead thereof the words "shall be used below ground for ventilation in any mine or seam newly opened."
        After the word "Act," insert the words, "except in the case of a mine in which the total number of persons employed below ground does not exceed thirty, and in which the upcast shaft contains no inflammable material."—[Mr. Masterman.]

      Safety Lamps.

        CLAUSE 32.—(Use of Safety Lamps in Certain Places.)
        (1) No lamp or light other than a locked safety lamp shall be allowed or used—

        (a) in any seam, where the air current in the return airway from any ventilating district in the seam is found normally to contain more than one half per cent. of inflammable gas; or

        1445

        (b) in any seam (except in the main intake airways within two hundred yards from the shaft) in which an explosion of inflammable gas causing any personal injury whatever has occurred within the previous twelve months unless an exemption is given by the Secretary of State on the ground that on account of the special character of the mine the use of safety lamps is not required;

        (c) in any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous;

        (d) in any working approaching near a place in which there is likely to be an accumulation of inflammable gas;

        (e) in any place where the use of safety lamps is required by the regulations of the mine.

        (2) Where in pursuance of this Act or the regulations of the mine the use of safety lamps has been introduced in any part of a ventilating district it shall not be lawful to use naked lights in any other part of the same ventilating district situated between the place where such lamps are used and the return airway, except when the use of safety lamps in that part of the district was introduced as a temporary precaution, and the conditions are not such as to render necessary the introduction of the use of safety lamps throughout the district.

        (3) Where in pursuance of this Act or the regulations of the mine the use of safety lamps has been introduced otherwise than as a temporary precaution against apprehended danger in any part of a mine, no lamp or light, other than a safety lamp, shall subsequently be allowed or used in that part without the sanction of the inspector of the division, which sanction shall not be withheld unreasonably, and any question as to whether such sanction has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.

        Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), after the word "any" ["in any seam"], to insert the words, "ventilating district of a."
        The object of this Amendment is to localise the area of a mine in which open lights may be used. Some portions may be quite safe, while in other portions it may be undesirable to use naked lights. When the point was discussed in Committee
        1446
        the Under-Secretary promised to consider the question. I trust he will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This Clause was really made by the Committee, and by unanimous agreement—I do not think there was a Division—it was determined that if in the return airway of any ventilating district of one mine there was normally more than half per cent. of inflammable gas, the whole mile should have safety lamps. The Clause was produced largely because of the strong opposition taken to the mixed lights system. The suggestion was made that in view of recent discoveries there was really very little security if there was inflammable gas in one ventilating district. An explosion might be started and spread through the whole mine in all the ventilating districts. In consequence of representations very strongly urged by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), and accepted by the whole Committee, we decided that if any ventilating district in a mine was showing a normal half per cent. of inflammable gas there should be safety lamps in the whole mine. I would suggest that the verdict of the Committee should be upheld.
        Amendment negatived.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
        The paragraph as it stands obliges the use of safety lamps in a mine where the slightest accident has occurred during the previous twelve months. It appears to me that it ought not to depend on the character of the accident that has taken place, but rather on the quantity of inflammable gas remaining in the mine whether or not safety lamps should be used. They might have a very slight accident, indeed, such as a man's whiskers being singed, and they would be obliged, to the great detriment of the men working in the mine, to use safety lamps instead of naked lights. In many cases the men would find great difficulty in carrying out their work efficiently with safety lamps, as compared with the ease with which they now work with the naked lights, and unless it is absolutely necessary, because of the amount of gas in the mine, it would be a great pity to oblige them to use safety lamps simply because there might have been a small ignition in the mine. I beg to move.
        Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment. I am very anxious indeed that we should have a further opportunity of impressing upon the Government the views of practically all the Scottish miners on this question. They are very anxious indeed to have this Sub-section either deleted or substantially modified. When the Clause was discussed in Committee, it was carried only by a majority of one. There was also this singular fact that the deletion of the Clause met with the approval of practically all the representatives of the miners and, with one notable exception, of the mine-owners also. That shows that those who, after all, are chiefly concerned about their own safety, and those whose chief interest it is to avoid such accidents as might arise, were united, and they are the best judges as to what policy should be adopted in this matter. I should like to say that we are agreed that it is necessary to have safety lamps in the mines wherever necessity dictates it. That is the view represented by those who voted for the deletion of this paragraph (b). But we do say if you put in these lamps—as you will in this Sub-section in time practically in every mine throughout the country—you are thereby introducing considerable additional risks, and it is uncalled for at the present time.
        I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Clause 32 already does deal very fully under the other Sub-sections and paragraphs with the question which we are discussing, that of the prevention of accidents underground from explosions. In paragraph (a) you have provisions made in regard to ventilation. In paragraph (c) you have power given in the mines to place safety lamps where there is likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous. Paragraph (d) also gives very considerable power in regard to the placing of safety lamps in any working approaching near a place in which there is likely to be an accumulation of inflammable gas. Paragraph (e), taken in conjunction with the other Subsections which deal with the question of ventilation, Clauses 29 and 30, and also Clause 66, which permits of the withdrawal of men from the mine where the atmosphere is in a dangerous condition, appeared to many of the Committee amply to safeguard the situation. I should like to point out that the exemption which is included in the Clause at present, that given by the Secretary of State on the
        1448
        ground that on account of the special character of the mine the use of safety lamps is not required, hardly meets the case, because it is extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to discharge a responsibility of that character by picking out or selecting individual mines in a district such as the West of Scotland. You have there the same character in the mines, and also the same views expressed in a large portion of the district. I should like to add further that in Scotland there is unanimous testimony among the miners themselves in favour of naked lights.
        In Scotland we have 71.8 per cent. of naked lights against 8.4 per cent. in England. There is also a strong view expressed that these lamps avoid serious risk to the miner which would otherwise arise from the use of safety lamps, because of their portability, and because of their great illuminating power. The naked light gives something like four times the amount of the light of the safety lamp. It is thought also—and I think with some reason—if you had safety lamps introduced into the mines where it is not absolutely essential that they should be, that the ventilation of the mine would not be sufficiently considered. That is a matter of importance to those working underground. I do not propose to trouble the House with all the figures which were produced in support of our view in Committee. But I would like to say that the last ten years has shown how favourably situated Scotland is with regard to accidents as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. That was proved to the Committee by reference to the total figures in Scotland, where the average to the total output was 15.93, and the accidents from the three main causes—death by explosions of gas, falls of the roof and sides, and haulage—was only 13.48 per cent. of the total.
        Since the discussion in Committee we have had the figures for 1910. These later figures are very important because they show that our contention was sound. They are stronger for our case than were the figures of the ten years previous. These statistics for 1910 show that Scotland contributed 16.56 per cent. of the total output of the United Kingdom, and that the total deaths from all causes underground were only 11.40 per cent. of the total. There were 185 in Scotland, against 1,622 for the United Kingdom. If we test it again by the question of deaths

        1449
        from haulage, which, after all, is a matter which is closely associated with good lighting in pits, you find that in Scotland there were only, out of a total of 285 deaths in 1910, there were only twenty-nine in Scotland—a percentage of 10.14. If you take the total number of persons in Scotland injured or disabled for seven days we have 10.30 per cent., whereas if you take the proportion according to the output we should have had some 9,178 more men who should have been injured during that period. I think these figures are themselves fairly conclusive. But I should like also to refer to the fact that we in Scotland have a very large proportion of accidents caused by falls of the roof and sides, and also from haulage. Take the Report for last year. Of 185 deaths the inspector (Mr. Walker) tells us that there were eighty-nine falls of the ground, fifty-four falls of the face, twenty-nine deaths from haulage, and only thirteen from explosions of firedamp or coal gas.
        That brings me to a very important point in connection with this Bill—that is, the question of ventilation, which is dealt with in many previous Clauses. I do think that, the true remedy which would permit the omission of this paragraph would be to secure that adequate ventilation was secured in the mines. We have special reference made to Mr. Walker's Report. On page 11 of that Report mention is made of the precautions which are taken in Scotland in regard to ventilation. Where naked lights are used he has found that by securing that certain special regulations should be carried out there has been no necessity for introducing a system which involves the giving up of naked lights. In fact, he has made it quite clear on page 11, dealing with the question of explosions—
        "That many of these accidents, as will be seen by the figures given in Appendix (1), are due to carelessness and disregard of elementary precautions by officials and workmen. I hope I shall be able in future years (continues Mr. Walker) to report that by better ventilation, and the exercise of forethought and care, that ignitions of gas have been done away with."
        In other words, if we secure better ventilation we shall not be in a position of requiring such a paragraph as that proposed. I think that is a striking fact. Further, in those districts where safety lamps have been most used we have had the largest number of serious disasters due to explosions of gas. In Scotland there has not been an explosion due to naked lights in a pit causing the death of ten persons for the last thirty years. I do hope, having regard to the strong feeling expressed in
        1450
        the Committee, and having regard to the number of those in Scotland who feel strongly on this subject, that the hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us on this point and give us some undertaking that he is prepared to delete the paragraph, or to modify it in such a way as to meet the views which have been expressed.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I very much regret that I cannot entirely agree with the views put forward by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. We have now reached one of the most important points in the Bill, and one which gave rise in the Committee to a very large and important Debate. I rise to speak as one of those who, after the most careful consideration, came to the decision that it was right to support the paragraph which it is now proposed to omit. I want very briefly to state why I cannot entirely agree with the views which have been put forward to-day. The justification for the Clause in the form in which it now appears in the Bill is that without it there may be serious explosions which cannot be guarded against, in mines, and that these will result in the most serious loss of life. The Royal Commission gave careful attention to the point, and presented what, I believe, was a unanimous report on this question. The Royal Commission affirmed in the plainest language that such a provision as this was necessary. The Royal Commission went on to consider the point that my hon. Friend has referred to as to whether the introduction of safety lamps would mean an increased number of accidents from other causes, such as the falling of roofs, and that Commission, after considering that, and making expert inquiries, records its opinion that there is no ground for the supposition that the introduction of safety lamps would mean danger of accidents and an increase in them in other directions and from other causes.
        I have not only to refer to the Report of the Royal Commission, but I have to refer to the Report for 1910, issued by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for Scotland. I refer to this report particularly because my hon. Friend gave a number of statistics. I want to quote some figures from this report, and to call the attention of the House to the fact that in 1910, as a result of eleven accidents caused by naked lights there were thirteen deaths, and as a result of seventy explosions caused by the use of naked lights there were injuries sustained by no less than ninety-six persons. My reply to the statistics that have been quoted is that it is clearly established

        1451
        that the use of naked lights in certain dangerous mines means an annual death roll, and a considerable annual roll of persons injured. The percentage of these accidents in Scotland is far higher than in mines where safety lamps are used. The introduction of safety lamps in certain mines means that these accidents, practically speaking, are brought to an end. It is urged that they are brought to an end at the cost of an increase in other accidents, that the explosions are brought to an end at the cost of an increase of accidents from such causes as falling roofs. I have already quoted the Royal Commission to show that that is not so. An examination of the statistics of the whole kingdom shows that such a result does not follow the introduction of safety lamps. The melancholy fact is indeed established that in Scotland the percentage of accidents from other causes than explosions is higher than the percentage in other parts of the kingdom. In considering statistics, too, I would remind the House that it is hardly fair, at least, I will not say fair, but it is hardly adequate, to take the percentage of accidents to the quantity of coal produced. We require the percentage of accidents to the number of persons employed underground. My remarks have been based upon a most careful consideration of the statistics drawn up on that basis. Therefore, the case for this Subsection is, I think, clearly established.
        I want briefly to refer to the only possible objection which I think has been raised against it, namely, that an explosion in the mine, although it may result in accidents to some person working underground, may be of such a trivial description as not to warrant the introduction of the safety lamp. I think there was a great deal of point in that objection. There may be a trivial explosion, which does not show the position of the mine generally is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the presence of gas, and might lead to the introduction unnecessarily of safety lamps. I plead, therefore, not for the omission of this Clause, which I would strongly oppose, but to inquire whether it is not possible to reach the object we have in view—there is no difference in principle—that is, the safety of the men. One hundred miners in Scotland lose their lives or are mutilated annually, and I ask the House to consider whether, by the alteration in this Sub-section, and not its omission, we
        1452
        may not reach the end in view, and meet the objections properly urged against it, and institute such a condition as will ensure that safety lamps will only be introduced when the condition of the mine really warrants it. I think in that way the end we all have in view will be accomplished. I shall, at a later stage of the proceedings, suggest that if we apply certain tests to this class of mine, not tests as to what may prove to be trivial and slight explosions, but tests repeated at due intervals, we shall establish beyond doubt whether or not the conditions existing are such as to warrant the introduction of safety lamps.
        Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It is rather a waste of time to argue that in the presence of inflammable gas naked lights should not be used. That is not in dispute. The question is this Sub-section, and whether it is better protection or diminishes the existing precautions. The House must remember that this Sub-section must stand by itself. It is an alternative condition and not accumulative, and, therefore, before you examine what is to take place if this Sub-section remains as an enactment, you are to suppose under paragraph (a) you have not more than one-half per cent. inflammable gas specified in paragraph (c) "in any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous," and in paragraph (d) "in any working approaching near the place in which there was likely to be an accumulation of inflammable gas, and either condition existing will prescribe the use of safety lamps." In these circumstances, what possible use can there be to inquire whether the condition is limited to a time where there has been no accident. It is clearly an unscientific ground to confine your attention to that. It is a ground that may be described as a lack-of-confidence ground. As a sentimental reason to search for, I should like to know what the Under-Secretary has to say, but I thing it right to say that I think the danger of these words of Sub-section (b) is this: It is no use going in search on sentimental and unscientific ground because the words in paragraph (c) and (d) are already so wide that they must cover all possible cases that can exist to render the use of safety lamps necessary, and therefore the danger is that the tribunal before which the construction of these words must come, as to the existence of inflammable gas or the probable cause for the use of safety lamps,

        1453
        are so obscure, that the tribunal has difficulty in coming to a decision. Their attention may be diverted to seeing whether within twelve months you had any accident and whether there is any ground for protected lights. You therefore diminish the amount of your security, and you take away from the security you have in the wide and searching words of paragraphs (c) and (d) on lines that are scientific.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question. I think the criticism in his last words are based upon a misapprehension of the meaning of the Clause. In the words of paragraph (b) as it now stands in the Bill, there is no tribunal at all in the matter. The words are the same as the words we used when we ask for accidents to be reported in a later Clause in the Bill. It does not mean we are in any doubt as to whether there is an accident in the mine, but automatically it is reported to the inspector, and if (b) remain in the Bill then automatically and not subject to any tribunal the same thing would be put in force. The right hon. Gentleman asked perfectly legitimately and fairly the question, "Why, with the presence of the qualifications (c) and (d), we also require (b)"? It is because of the inadequacy as reported by our inspectors of the working of (c) and (d) that we keep (b), and because in a succession of cases there have been men killed and injured by naked lamps used in mines, and because in a succession of cases we tried to obtain under (c) and (b) the introduction of safety lamps in these mines, and in a succession of cases we have been told the conditions were not such as to warrant the inspectors to make that order. Let me take the most prominent example which occurred since this Bill has been under discussion. In a mine in Scotland an accident took place recently to the injury of certain men owing to the use of certain lamps. Nothing was done, and in the year that followed there were 723 reports of cases of gas in this mine. In the same months another accident took place owing to the use of naked lamps, in which, I think, one man was killed and a man and a boy injured. A month after that our inspector examined this mine and found that naked lamps were still being used. He took a test prosecution to the Court, and the Court ruled there was no necessity for safety lamps in this mine. Under any kind of test in the world, so long as any inspection is to go on, there
        1454
        ought to be safety lamps in that mine, and if there were the lives of the men would be safe.
        As to the whole question of naked lamps as against safety lamps in this particular class of mines unaffected by Clause 32, I do not want to repeat the arguments or revive the controversy going on through the whole of the mining world since the introduction of this Bill, and fought out at great length in the Grand Committee, in the various technical papers and by the various deputations, but I would say this to the House. This is a question in which there is hopeless disagreement amongst all classes of men thoroughly familiar with all the conditions. Each side produced statistics, and each think their statistics convincing, but I view both classes of statistics as entirely unconvincing, because they cover such wide fields of variation. They do not prove the particular point that their advocates try to make them prove. The question was fully argued before the Royal Commission, and the Royal Commission came to no conclusive resolution, but they came to the conclusion that they found no reason to suppose that where safety lamps were used in mines there was a larger percentage of other types of accidents either from falls or haulage than where safety lamps were not used. Against that conclusion we have the fact already stated in this House that upon this particular point the representatives of the miners in the Miners' Federation were solid against the Home Office suggestion, and I believe in Scotland the mineowners and men alike are solid against the introduction of safety lamps.
        Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: That is not so.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no representation from the other side, whereas I have had strong representations not only from those who represent the owners, but those who represent organised labour in the mining districts of Scotland who are very strong against this particular class of light in the mines in which they deal. There is equal solidity of opinion, however, on the other side in connection with all this work of the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, in a most important speech delivered before the Committee, gave a long series of statements made by inspectors of the Home Office, examined every single inspector without any exception, was in favour of the substitution of safety lamps

        1455
        for naked lights, wherever there is any danger of the presence of gas in the mine; they fully take into consideration and recognise the possibility of other accidents and all that can be said in favour of a better light given by the naked lamps. I agree there is some point of criticism of Clause 32 (b). It has been stated that the test as to whether there has been any personal injury whatever is not really a satisfactory test of the presence of gas, and it was because of certain cases which were advanced, including the case given by my hon. Friend, that we put into the Bill in Committee the proviso (b) in the latter part of Clause 32, which will allow exemption by the Secretary of State. Strong exception has been taken to that proviso. On the one hand, it is held to be a benefit, but there is not a guarantee that it will be so. On the other hand, our inspectors, and I think the Secretary of State, would feel great reluctance to make this particular discrimination in a Bill designed for safety. The case which was advanced, and which I think ought to be met, is a case where, for example, in a mine for forty years there has been no serious accident. Owing to the presence of gas in a corner in that mine there is slight danger, but it does not do much harm, and it is submitted that it would be very unfair to put in safety lamps in the whole of that mine.
        7.0 P.M.
        Various alterations were suggested, and I promised to consider this matter before the Report stage, but I have found no satisfactory solution. One suggestion was that we should allow more than one system to be established, but that was very unsatisfactory. If any modification of Clause 32, paragraph (b), is to take place, I should be rather inclined to accept some such modification as that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark not to make the number of accidents the standard, but to take as the test the standard of the presence of gas. You may have gas present for many times in a mine without an accident, and yet you might have one accident which would kill not one man, but perhaps 100 men. Another class of mine which I promised to consider was the class represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman), and it relates to the thick coal seam of South Staffordshire. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) has approached me on this point, and the Royal Commission
        1456
        makes a specific recommendation in regard to it. They say that they could not recommend the introduction of safety lamps on account of the peculiar conditions under which the fixing is worked, and we have put in words to allow the Secretary of State to give an exemption. I submit to the Committee that we are not prepared with the expert advice we have to accept the removal of this particular Sub-clause unless we can put something satisfactory in its place. The experience we have had as reported by the inspectors is that Sub-clauses (c), (d) and (e) did not meet the case in the old day. There have been repeated ignitions—I prefer to call them explosions—and they have caused the death of ten, twelve, or fourteen men each year. Although they may be able to boast that the condition of these mines is such that they have avoided any big explosion, if you add up the total you find that in ten years over seventy men have been killed in Scotch mines through naked lights, and that makes up very nearly the same death roll reached by some of the explosions we have had in this country. We recognise that it would be unfair in mines with a clean record for many years to put safety lamps in on account of a casual accident owing to the existence of a pocket of gas, but we want power to deal with those mines I have mentioned where they are obviously still able to defy the other provisions of the Act with regard to the introduction of safely lamps. Where we cannot obtain a conviction for prosecution where gas is being given off in dangerous quantities and where men are killed by what has been called ignition, I think we should be unfaithful to the position which the Secretary of State holds as the guardian of the safety of the miners if we did not deal with these cases. If the House can give us some Amendment in the event of our finding a repetition of gas existing in those mines from time to time without any explosion at all, and under those conditions we may be able to insist on safety lamps going into those mines, we might be able to make an arrangement, but if the House is unwilling to give such an Amendment I shall be compelled to vote for the retaining of the Clause as it stands at the present time.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No one can complain of the position in which the Under-Secretary to the Home Office has left us. In South Staffordshire, where we

        1457
        have a thick coal seam, what has been suggested is of great importance to us. We feel in mines like that, when you work a thick coal, the introduction of safety lamps instead of naked lights does infinitely more harm than good, and would cause more accidents. The safety lamp cannot throw the light upwards, and unless you have some method of lighting up the top of the mine you are bound to have, through falls of the roof, a good many more accidents than you have now by the use of naked lights. In a district like that there are no real explosions in the ordinary sense, although you occasionally get what is called a "burn." You may occasionally get someone hurt by the explosion of a small pocket of gas; sometimes fatal accidents have occurred; but so far as I have been able to ascertain from employers and from the men, they will certainly be subjected to far greater danger if safety lamps are introduced in lieu of naked lights. Having regard to this fact, I must earnestly press upon the Government, in the interests of the safety of the men, either to agree to the leaving out of this Sub-section, or else to insert some words such as the Under-Secretary has suggested.
        You ought to specifically leave out of this provision the thick coal found in districts like South Staffordshire. I cannot speak from any experience of the Scottish mines, but from the facts put before me I imagine very similar conditions obtain to what is the case in South Staffordshire. As we are all animated with one object, and that is to get the greatest condition of safety we possibly can, I think it is most undesirable that we should have a Clause like this, which, in the opinion of many people, will compel the use of safety lamps in a great many mines where they will do more harm than good. I am aware that the Under-Secretary has inserted in this Sub-section certain words which would enable the Home Office to give an exemption in certain cases. The words are:—
        "Unless an exemption is given by the Secretary of State on the ground that on account of the special character of the mine the use of safety lamps is not required."
        I fully recognise that the Under-Secretary is animated by the desire to leave out these particular mines, but I am told by the people in the district that they do not think these words go far enough. What will happen? The Home Secretary must be advised by his inspectors, and I
        1458
        do not believe there are many inspectors, and probably there are none who would be willing, in view of all the difficulties and dangers and changes that take place in mines, to state on their own authority that the use of safety lamps is not required in those mines. We believe that those exemptions which were put in for our benefit will be inoperative, and the result will be that if in any one of those mines there happens to be a slight explosion within twelve months it will be necessary, under the Bill, to introduce safety lamps. We think that will do greater harm than good, and I most strongly urge the House to leave out Sub-section (b) or further amend it so as to make it perfectly clear that in special cases of this sort the use of safety lamps will not be required.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: In rising to join in this discussion I feel that I have never been in a more unenviable position, and I do not think the position of any Government has ever been more cowardly than the position occupied by the Government with regard to the proposal. This Government seems to be a Government which has more regard to votes than to the interests of the people they profess to serve. The position is a very extraordinary one. We discussed this Bill upstairs in Committee, day after day, and it left the Committee, as the Under-Secretary told us, as the Bill of the united Committee, and we were all agreed on that basis not to oppose the Bill, but to give it every facility in passing when it came back to this House. But what has happened in the meantime? A most remarkable change has come over the Government. I am not going to read the speeches made by the Under-Secretary. I feel convinced that there is no stronger advocate for this Clause in the House than the hon. Member, but being a member of the Government he is placed in a false position in the speech he has already delivered to the House. I do not know what the position may be, but from the statement the hon. Member made in Committee, and made to me at the Home Office during the period when this Bill was being negotiated, no one was more strong and more anxious to see this Clause pass than the Under-Secretary, and now at the last moment, for electioneering purposes only, and no other, the Government are going to destroy what is one of the most useful and valuable Clauses of what we term a

        1459
        Safety Bill, in order that the Scottish Members may not be alienated from His Majesty's Government.
        What is the position of Scotland on this matter? We have had a combination of all the Scottish Liberals who have been log-rolling in the lobbies during the last few days, and they are here to see that the interests of Scotland are protected. I am going to trespass on the time of the House I fear for some time, and I am going to show, not by words of mine, but by the words of the inspectors of mines, that Scotland to-day is the one part of the United Kingdom more backward, and more antiquated in its methods, and where more accidents occur in the mines, owing to the antiquated methods adopted, than any other part of the kingdom. I am going to show this from the reports of the inspectors themselves. Why has this combination been entered into? I am told one of the chief reasons people are against this Amendment is that it is an interference by England in the affairs of Scotland. We have enough Scotch Government in this House already, and I think the poor Englishman, at all events, might have something to say when we have an Amendment down which has the effect of omitting Scotland altogether. An hon. Member on the other side of the House said to me not long ago, "If this Bill is to pass, I become a Scotch Home Ruler." If he had to put safety lamps into his mine he would become a Home Ruler for Scotland.
        On the merits of the question itself there are no two sides at all. There is the side of the people who want to make money, and who want to make it at the expense or the lives of the people who are making it for them. There is not a single one of the Government Inspectors in the United Kingdom, men who have spent their whole lives in attending to the safety of those who follow the occupation of a miner—and there is no finer body of men in the world than the inspectors of mines in this country—who is not opposed to the use of naked lights where gas is present. I think they are a little better acquainted with the facts than the hon. Member, who has probably never been down a mine in his life. The whole body of inspectors are unanimous. Every one of the inspectors of mines the Home Office has spread about the whole of the United Kingdom is in favour of this Clause, and opposed to the use of naked lights where gas is present. You are going to throw over all your technical staff and the report of all the chief witnesses who
        1460
        gave evidence before the Royal Commission, and you are going to take action due to log-rolling in the Lobbies, independent of the merits of the question. You are taking this action, first, because certain powerful interests in Scotland are opposed to this measure, and, secondly, on account of the ignorance and prejudice of the workmen themselves. As to the ignorance and prejudice of these poor workmen who know no better, the House has many times in its long career taken steps to protect men who in their ignorance do not understand the scientific questions which lead to explosion. I cannot go through one four-hundredth part of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, but I will take the evidence of the leading inspectors. The chief inspector, I might say, in his Report this year merely confirms what he has time after time stated in previous reports:—
        "While you allow mines to be worked where inflammable gas is given off in small quantities, explosions will occur and loss of life will result."
        Let the House remember all these explosions can cease. There is no question about that. All these explosions, due to naked lights, which in recent years have caused such an appalling loss of life, can cease. The only question is whether other accidents will occur, and on that question the Royal Commission found that all the evidence available tended to prove exactly the contrary. How is the House going to arrive at its decision? Those who come up from the lobbies and who take no part in the discussion are going to vote according to the Government order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—in exactly the same way as you do. We are all tarred with the same brush. When hon. Members are going to troop up and vote on this question I want the House to ask itself this simple question, and to put to itself this common-sense proposition: On what basis are you going to vote? You are not going to vote on the merits of the question at all. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is not going to rise and controvert the facts; he admits them. On what evidence, therefore, are you going to vote? What do your inspectors say and what do the Royal Commission say? Where is your evidence upon which you base your alteration? It is purely, solely, and only a log-rolling policy for votes. The House in deciding this question must, if we are not going to be mere machines and vote according to order, come to some decision, at all events, on the merits of the question. This is not a party question.

        1461
        Why we should make this matter a party question I cannot for the life of me understand. Sir Henry Cunnynghame, who as hon. Members are aware is now at the Homo Office, was Chairman of the Royal Commission. Mr. Atkinson, who was one of the chief inspectors of districts, stated, in reply to question 5803:—
        "Do you think safety lamps ought to be more largely employed than they are?—Yes. I think the general Rule 8 is a very weak rule, being based on the likelihood of the presence of gas, which is a matter of opinion. The saner rule would be one requiring safety lamps to be used in all mines where fire damp had ever been found, but mining opinion is not advanced enough for such a rule. All concerned are willing to take a certain risk in order to be able to use naked lights.
        "Does not this rule somewhat follow the same principle as giving a dog his first bite?—That is so; it is a compromise. It is not the rule that I wanted, but it was the best I could get at the time."
        Up to recent years the principle has been that you had to give the dog his first bite, and, after you had done that, then the question arose whether safety lamps ought or ought not to be put in the mine. Mr. Martin, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines in South Wales, was asked this question:—
        "In the case Mr. Abraham referred to, you gave advice which was not accepted?—Which was not acted upon,
        "Several times Mr. Robson and Mr. Gray gave advice to the manager at Llest as to the introduction of lamps when the men had been burned?—I can give you instances myself without going to Llest.
        "There the advice was not accepted, and they had an explosion in which nineteen men were killed?—Yes, I believe so.
        "There was a very strong feeling in the locality amongst the workmen against the introduction of lamps?—I cannot speak as to that, but I would imagine it to be so."
        He was then asked again:—
        "Do you think inspectors have sufficient authority at the present time conferred upon them by the Act of Parliament?—Perhaps not in some respects, but I am not very much in favour of inspectors having too much power. It is far better to lay down what is to be done in the Act of Parliament."
        [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I agree, and that is what I am asking for now, and the hon. Baronet is going to vote in the other Lobby.
        "Everybody knows where they stand, and the inspector has power to intervene if these regulations are not carried out.
        "It was put to you to-day, that in one case the inspector of mines had advised the use of safety lamps, the manager refused, and an explosion took place?—Yes.
        "Do you think inspectors ought to have power to enforce the use of safety lamps where they fear there is a real danger?—Yes."
        Mr. Walker, the Chief Inspector for Scotland at the present time—an admirable Englishman, who has been sent up to Scotland, and is going to bring them at an early date up to a better standard—who
        1462
        came from the Durham district, was asked this question:—
        "What do you say with regard to the use of safety lamps in general Rule 8?—As a rule we have had no difficulty in getting safety lamps introduced where it has been necessary—
        that is at Durham—
        "but I think the rule should state, where gas has been found in a coal mine, lamps should be adopted afterwards.
        "For how long?—For ever. The fact you have had gas shows you it might be there again. That is the danger signal, and it may occur at any time in that mine.
        "What would be your test of the quantity of gas?—It is difficult to say the quantity, because I think any quantity of gas is dangerous; any indication of gas is indicative of danger.
        "Mr. Cunnynghame: If there is any indication of any gas on any lamp, you think they ought to have safety lamps always?—Yes.
        "If you have not safety lamps, what other indication would you have?—You would have an ignition or injury to a person. I mean on gas being detected.
        "The Chairman: Where gas has been detected, even in small quantities, you say for ever afterwards the mine ought to be worked only by safety lamps?—That is my opinion."
        Then we had Mr. Gray, an inspector in Scotland, and he was asked:—
        "If you had a rule to say that whenever gas has appeared in a mine that then safety lamps should be always used, those explosions Mould not have happened?—That would be so.
        "You would be content, if gas had been found in a mine, for the next year or so, that safety lamps should be used, and that if during that time there was no appearance of gas, then they might be discontinued?—No, I think once introduced they should remain.
        "I thought you said you would have them only for a year. Do you think they should remain for ever after when once introduced?—Yes, I think so."
        Then we had Mr. Robson, another inspector of mines. He said this, in reply to a question:—
        "You go as far as to say that wherever fire-damp is found in any infinitesimal quantity, however infinitesimal, the mine thenceforth ought always to be worked with safety lamps?—That is what I mean. I say that whenever you get fire-damp, you must put in lamps.
        "Do you mean fire-damp of infinitesimal quantity? If you like to put it that way. I want to get rid of these terms, such as 'indicative of danger' and other terms that have been introduced and which you can ride a coach and four through. You had better keep to general terms.—If you say in mines broadly where fire-damp has been found, I think it will be right."
        I will just give one quotation from the late Mr. Stokes, an admirable inspector of the Midland district. This is what Mr. Stokes said in answer to question 9621:—
        "The miners have always objected to the use of safety lamps on the ground of increased danger from falls of roof and side. I have occasionally placed before them statistics showing that such anticipated increase was groundless. I took a group of six mines, some of them with bad roof, where they worked eight years with candles. They raised, roughly speaking, 5,000,000 tons. The deaths from falls were thirteen during that eight years, and the tons per life lost 371,640. This group of six mines in consequence of the heavy explosion had to go under safety lamps. I then took another period of eight years during which time they worked with safety lamps, and they raised nearly the same quantity of coal, and only had but 12 deaths, the tons raised per life lost

        1463
        being 391,000. Therefore the safety lamps beat the candles by one death in eight years. The same group of six mines in the eight years when they worked with candles had fourteen explosions, fifteen injured, and forty-six killed. Then they worked with safety lamps during the next eight years and there was no explosion and not a single person was killed or injured. It that is not a strong argument for working with safety lamps I cannot rind a stronger one."
        That is Mr. Stokes's evidence. I think the House will admit that the whole of the inspectors are unanimous on the point. What is the opinion of mining men other than people from Scotland and from the Swansea districts? What is the opinion of the best mining engineers in this country? Take the view of the late President of the Institution of Mining Engineers, one of the greatest mining authorities in this country. He says that the use of safety lamps should be made compulsory where gas is found. He was asked, "Are you of opinion that the use of these lamps should be compulsory whether there is gas or not?" and his reply was, "Yes, that is my opinion"; and he added that when once these lamps had been put in they should never be taken out. Mr. Pilkington, from Lancashire, held the same View, and many other mining engineers concurred that where gas had been found safety lamps should always be employed. What did the employers think about it? The secretary of the Mutual Indemnity Society in Lancashire stated that the rule was that safety lamps should be used whether or not gas was found in the pit, and he suggested that they were not going to pay compensation to people who did not choose to put safety lamps in their mines. But when it comes to compensation for human life another attitude is at once adopted.
        It was alleged in the Committee that Scotland occupied a different position altogether to any other part of the United Kingdom in the coal trade. It only occupies this position, however, owing to the fact that the natural conditions are much more favourable in Scotland than they are in many of the coalfields in England and Wales. To compare Scotch coal mines with South Wales coal mines is to compare the impossible, because in Wales the conditions are infinitely more dangerous than they are in Scotland. What are the facts about the death rate? The average production of coal in these islands is 260 tons per person employed. You can get far more coal in Scotland per man employed, and therefore it is necessary to take the death rate, not per ton, but per thousand persons employed. On that basis how does Scotland come out? The hon. Member
        1464
        opposite argued that Scotland occupied a fairly high position. I submit that that is not so, and that the facts show that Scotland last year exceeded the average of the whole of the United Kingdom. That average per thousand persons employed was 1.7 for the United Kingdom, and for Scotland it was 1.49, Scotland being much lower apparently. But then a further investigation was made. There was the small gas coalfield in Cumberland, where, unhappily, a deplorable explosion took place at Whitehaven, by which a large number of lives were lost. There was also the explosion at Hulton last year. These brought up the death rate in those two districts to 6.7 per thousand persons employed. You come down to the northern coalfield in the county Durham, and there you find the lowest death rate for any county in the United Kingdom. It was .88 per thousand employed. In the Yorkshire coalfield the figure was 1.09. In Lancashire and Cheshire 1.8, in the Midland coalfields 1.19, in North Wales 1.99, and in South Wales 1.58. Last year, owing to the explosions at Hulton and Whitehaven, the rate was much increased, but still on the actual merits of each coalfield Scotland had as high a record if not worse than other districts.
        I am not going to say that where gas has not been found in a mine that mine ought to be worked with safety lamps, but when inflammable gas has been found, then from that time forward the use of safety lamps should be insisted upon. What you are asking under this Clause is that if a man is injured during the course of his calling, whether his arm is broken or his body mutilated, or whether he be only slightly singed, that mine where an explosion of inflammable gas has taken place shall not be worked except with safety lamps for a period of twelve months. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, and really, when I read it, I failed to understand what it meant. It seemed so perfectly ludicrous that I came to the conclusion that the hon. Member did not know what he was talking about. What is this proposal. It is to introduce the words—
        (b) in any ventilating district in which the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in any part of the district has, on not less than six occasions within the previous twelvemonths, been found by an inspector to be two and a-half or upwards.

        1465
        That is to my mind a marvellous state of affairs. Up to the time of the Report of the Royal Commission the standard was that where water appeared in the cap of the safety lamp the men were to be withdrawn. It was an established rule, and has been so for years. Yet we now have the Miners' Federation coming to the Home Office to complain that that standard is not sufficient. The standard is 1½ per cent. in safety lamp mines. The hon. Member says now, "Not If per cent. but 2½ per cent. in the naked light mines." We have already provided in the Bill that if there is 1½ per cent. in naked light mines, then that mine must be worked with safety lamps, but the hon. Member, in his desire to please the Scottish miners, wants 2½ per cent., and he will allow mines to be worked where there is 2½ per cent. of inflammable gas, though they are being worked with naked lights.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The only desire is that where there is 2½ per cent. the men must be withdrawn. The proposal does not interfere with the provisions of the Bill. The men must be withdrawn when 2½ per cent. is found and safety lamps must be used when they are working.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: If they were withdrawn they would only be withdrawn dead; they could not withdraw themselves. If the hon. Member would take the trouble to read the results of the experiments at Newcastle-on-Tyne a fortnight ago he would notice that associated with coal dust even at 1½ per cent. there were practically 50 to 60 per cent. of ignitions, while at 2 per cent. 100 per cent. of ignitions took place.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to point out to the hon. Member that Clause 66, Sub-section (2) reads:—
        "For the purposes of this Section a place shall be deemed to be dangerous if the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in that place is found to be two and a-half or upwards, or, if situate in a part of a mine worked with naked lights, one and one-quarter or upwards."
        Sir A. MARKHAM: That has nothing to do with the naked light line but with the safety light line. When you get to 1¼ per cent. you have to withdraw the men. That is the standard of withdrawal. Now you are going to make it 2½ per cent. with a naked light. It is perfectly ludicrous. I
        1466
        should like to read to the Committee what Mr. Walker, the Chief Inspector for Scotland, said in his report issued last week:—
        "The Scotch lamp, carried as it is in the men's caps, is a distinct danger, as the flame of it comes in contact with the accumulations or feeders of gas, however small they may be. The frequency with which these ignitions occur has, I am afraid, made both officials and workmen regard them as being trifling and of little consequence, whereas in districts where the majority of mines use safety lamps, an explosion of gas is looked upon as a reflection on both the management and the workmen. The latter is the spirit in which such ignitions should always be regarded, as, apart from the danger of the explosions causing serious loss of life and injury to the workmen, the dicipline is always better in mines where every precaution is taken to prevent the ignition of even the smallest quantity of fire-damp, and accidents from other causes are thereby prevented. The frequency with which these ignitions have occurred in this district is not creditable to anyone connected with mining,—"
        That is strong language for a Government inspector—
        "and I hope the matter will be thoroughly investigated and such measures taken"—
        No doubt he was there referring to Parliament—
        "as will materially reduce the number of accidents occurring from this cause."
        What was the number of accidents last year? In Scotland there were nine fatal accidents due to naked lights. There were eleven deaths due to naked lights and eighty-seven persons were injured, some of them very seriously and some being maimed for life. The evidence given before the Royal Commission showed there was a deplorable state as affected Scotland, not only in regard to safety lamps, because the same tale runs all through. When we come to Scotland we find that things are not, at all events, up to the standard. I ask the House to take note of these figures. They are given by the Royal Commission and relate to the explosions in Scotland. They do not call them ignitions, they call them explosions. In the years 1906 to 1907, 2,050 people were injured, many of them having their eyes blown out. Two hundred and ninety-six people were killed. How many of these were in Scotland? You cannot get rid of the fact that Scotland produced only 14 million tons out of the total production in 1907 of 280 million tons. Out of a total of 296 deaths due to naked lights Scotland had 97; out of the non-fatal accidents, 1,016 persons were injured in Scotland, while in England and Wales, with five times the output, had only 999. The argument of the Scotch people has been: "If you work with safety lamps you will got more falls from roofs and sides." The

        1467
        same argument was used in South Wales. When the question was raised before the Royal Commission we were told on every side that "if safety lamps are put in here you are going to have a calamity in the way of falls from roofs and sides." As a matter of fact it was all unfounded, and there were no falls. The Royal Commission, found in fact that:—
        "After careful consideration of all the evidence that has been placed before us, we think there is some force in the argument that the naked light has some advantage over the safety lamp on the ground of its giving better illumination, but we do not think it follows that the replacing of naked lights by safety lamps is calculated to increase the accidents from falls of ground. The available evidence tends to prove that this is not the case. Where a naked light is used the miner no doubt forms the habit of ascertaining the safety of the sides and roof by his eyesight rather than by his ears, but when he is provided only with a safety lamp he is bound to depend mainly on sounding, and for this reason perhaps he is disposed to exercise the greater caution.
        "There are, moreover, dangers in the use of naked lights which do not exist in the case of safety lamps. For instance, in naked-light mines a number of accidents occur from the ignition of explosive by sparks from naked lights. In the two years (1907–8) for which statistics are available, there were 133 such accidents, causing the death of seven persons and injury to 136 persons. The use of naked lights also seriously increases the risk of underground fire, and in this connection we may refer to the recent disaster at the Hamstead Colliery in Staffordshire, caused by the use of candles."
        8.0 P.M.
        The Scottish Members before the Committee upstairs produced as evidence two small mines, one producing 120,000 tons and the other 150,000 tons, which I described as tinpot collieries—a remark which apparently gave great offence to the Scottish Members of the Committee. It appears to me to be ludicrous that when you are dealing with millions of tons of output they should, after careful selection, select these two collieries and put them forward for the purposes of comparison. The number of deaths, in mines where safety lamps are used, due from falls has been no more. Safety lamps are used in the deeper mines which must of necessity be more dangerous than the surface mine. I will take the case of the Mansfield colliery, which has the largest output at one pit in eight hours of any mine in the world. The general manager of that colliery said in his evidence before the Royal Commission that in a colliery in Yorkshire which had been worked with naked lights for twenty-three years gas had hardly ever been reported, and suddenly one morning the place blew up, and sixty-four lives were lost. That taught him a lesson which will never be forgotten. I can go on quoting. There is no evidence in the volumes of the Report of the Royal Commission justifying the use of naked lights in mines. The only reason it is done,
        1468
        is that where safety lamps are put in place of candles the men require more money, which represents approximately 1d. to 2d. per ton. The Clause means this, that where a man has been killed in a mine you only say you shall not kill another man for a period of twelve months. The Government have allowed the dog to have his first bite, which they ought not to have allowed. The action of the Government in this matter has been more than contemptible. They had their Clause in the Bill, why did they not stick to it? I have got several speeches of the Under-Secretary in which he said time after time, that this Clause was essential. It has been the great fight in the Bill. What have we now at the last moment? We have had all this log-rolling—it is going on now—by the Scottish Members. It is going on at present while we are in here, and when we come to vote on this question these Gentlemen, who have not had an opportunity of hearing any one side of the discussion, will vote according to which way the Government wants them to.
        Really I think, even at this late hour, there might be some death-bed repentance on the part of the Government. My right hon. Friend is new to the Home Office. He goes there with the best wishes of us all. He has been associated with a mining constituency, and he knows in a great measure the needs and requirements of people in mining districts. I know that he, at all events, being new to the place, cannot be expected at so late a stage to have entered into the merits of the question. But who has taken the responsibility of going back on this Clause? I think we are entitled to ask that. Is it the Cabinet as a whole or on whose responsibility is it being taken? I cannot believe it can be the Under-Secretary, because he has fought so strenuously for this Clause. He has done his best at every stage of the Bill. It was with amazement that I was told last night, "We have beaten the Government. They have given in on account of the Scotch Members, who have squared them." Really my right hon. Friend has shown admirable courage in another office which he occupied. He has been a strong man and if he had been here as a strong man to deal with this question he would have fought it as a Cabinet question, and won it. Will he tell us whether it is the Cabinet who have done this or whether it is

        1469
        due to pressure from the Scotch Members? He is far too wise to open his mouth. This Clause is worth all the rest of the Bill. I do not care for anything else in the Bill except this and the electricity Clause. I trust that when the Home Secretary has heard the facts now, as he has not heard them before, he will throw over these Scotch gentlemen who have been bringing all this backstairs influence to bear on the Government, and give a straight vote in accordance with the evidence in his Department, the evidence of the inspectors of mines and all the best thought in this country. In France, in Germany, and all over the civilised world, with the exception of America, where human life is of no value, there is a standard of withdrawal of 1 per cent., and no naked lights are allowed at all. When we are talking so much about adopting the scientific methods of Germany, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to turn his attention to that point. I see he has in his hands a report, published by the Miners' Federation, of a meeting that took place at Stirling, and I suppose he will quote certain words in which I refer to this matter. He will probably say, "You said you would give such exception in a case where a mine had been worked for forty years." I said that. I said I had not considered the case, but where there was a case where a mine had been worked for forty years without any explosion, there might be a question for investigation, but after thinking it over I came to the conclusion that I was wrong to have made the statement and I withdraw it. The Amendment was put in at my suggestion, but that is not what we are striking out now. The Scotchmen want to strike out the whole Clause, and if you do not strike it out the Scotchmen could not work their mines with safety lamps.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I did not have the advantage of taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill, I have not intervened before in the discussion to-day. We all recognise the great knowledge, the sincerity, and the real desire that my hon. Friend has to ameliorate the condition of miners, and to promote their safety, therefore we excuse him if he is carried away a little by his feelings and uses language which I think the whole House must agree goes somewhat beyond the mark. He charges the Government with being
        1470
        cowards, with being more than contemptible, and with being guilty of a logrolling policy, and in support of those statements he has no more evidence than a speech of the Under-Secretary an hour ago. What did my hon. Friend say? He repeated his support of paragraph (b). He stated the arguments in defence of it, and recognised that there had been considerable opposition on both sides of the House raised against it, and he went on to say that unless a satisfactory substitute could be found for paragraph (b) he would have to support it. That statement is the ground upon which my hon. Friend charges the Government with being worse than contemptible, with being cowards, and with having adopted a log-rolling policy. I am afraid my hon. Friend and I understand langauge in a somewhat different sense. The position that the Under - Secretary took in the matter was a very simple one. It is obvious that there are alternative methods of discovering whether a mine is likely to have such an amount of inflammable gas in it as to require the use of a safety lamp. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) pours great scorn on paragraph (b) as it stands, because it allows the dog one free bite, and he considers that bad. What is the alternative? An alternative method of discovering whether a safety lamp is required or not is by measurement of the amount of gas. That is the method proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). The hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Markham) has himself disclaimed a proposal in the Bill to compel the universal use of safety lamps and he is not entitled now to defend himself behind that point. What is the third alternative which he suggests the Government ought to adopt? He says, "I think the one free bite is bad, and I do not like the system proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) under which the amount of the inflammable gas is periodically measured." When driven now, he says the right thing is no naked lights.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: No, I am quite content with the Clause.
        Mr. McKENNA: In the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman threw a great deal of scorn on it.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: I am very fond of it.
        Mr. McKENNA: I suppose on the same principle that he is very fond of the Government. I do not think he has been fair

        1471
        to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitehouse). Whether his percentage is too high or too low is another point, but his system is that you should proceed by measurement rather than by the principle of giving a free bite. For myself, I prefer paragraph (b), though I am not going to say for a moment that the question is free from difficulty. The Under-Secretary warned me—he knows the Bill better than I can possibly know it—that this would be a subject of great difficulty, and I have done my best in consequence to inform myself fully on the subject. I came to the conclusion that paragraph (b) is the best method, but I do not think the subject is so free from difficulty that I should be justified in asking those who support the Government to go into the Lobby under what is known as the pressure of the Government Whips. My hon. Friend referred to what was stated in the Committee, but he did not really give an exact account of what his speech was. I will quote his words in order to show that the subject is not free from difficulty:—
        "Last night I had an interview with the general manager of a large concern in Scotland whose mines I had been down. He pointed out to me that for forty years they had never had a man seriously injured or a fatal accident. 'It does seem hard,' he said, 'that in this case, where they have never had a bad accident in that long period, they should be forced to adopt these safety lamps.' Now I think there is a case for argument in that. I am not sure whether the Amendment meets a case like that where you have a mine which only occasionally, very rarely, has an accident, and where there is no accumulation of gas."
        So that my hon. Friend, who is admittedly a great expert himself, agreed that in those mines where accidents are extremely rare, or where they are not very serious in character, it would not be wise to press the conditions of paragraph (b). I go further than my hon. Friend, although he is a much greater expert in the matter than I can possibly be, and I say for myself, upon the evidence that I have received, that I am firmly convinced of the value of paragraph (b), but I am equally convinced that there is very strong expert opinion against it.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote a single case from England—not Scotland?
        Mr. McKENNAIt is not so easy to dispose of a great country and its experts, and I certainly do not propose to do so. The inspectors are unanimously in favour of paragraph (b), but many of them go a good deal further.
        Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman might be honest, and say where the inspector comes from.
        Mr. McKENNA: He comes from England. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield wishes to take a purely anti-Scottish view. The inspectors go further than paragraph (b). Some of them go so far as to say that no naked light should be used in any mine. We are acting on their recommendation in that matter, and therefore I suggest that the opinion of the House should be taken on the question of the retention of the first part of paragraph (b) without any regard to party ties. Personally, I shall vote for the retention of paragraph (b) as it stands, and I hope that many hon. Members on this side and on the opposite side will go into the lobby with me. I hope we shall win, but if, on the other hand, I fail to retain paragraph (b) through a majority deciding against the first part of the paragraph, I shall then support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), who has given notice of an Amendment. I do not commit myself to the exact words of the Amendment, but I shall support him in a proposal which would give some security which I think is not sufficient, but which others think is sufficient. I have referred only to the first part of paragraph (b). I think the second part of the paragraph which gives discretion to the Secretary of State should be retained. We all know very well that there are mines in South Staffordshire where, owing to the particular circumstances, we should probably be doing more harm than good if we insisted on safety lamps. Therefore the discretion must be left to the Secretary of State to deal with cases of that sort. I do not suggest that the Debate on this matter should come to a close now, but when we divide it should be understood that if the paragraph (b) is not retained, then we who represent the Government would give our support to an Amendment somewhat like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark.
        Colonel HICKMAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if this Amendment in my name goes to a Division, and the Clause is struck out, he will introduce another Clause in its place?
        Mr. McKENNA: I do not know in what form the question was put from the Chair.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I understand it was that the whole paragraph be deleted.
        Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark has an Amendment down which will retain the second part of the paragraph.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The question put from the Chair was, "That the words 'in any' stand part of the paragraph."
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand that, as the second part stands now, it is a safeguard in such places as South Staffordshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the intention of the Government to exclude these mines from the operation of the Sub-section?
        Mr. McKENNA: The Royal Commission has a recommendation in regard to these particular mines. In their Report, at page 137, they say:—
        "The use of naked lights also seems to us an advantage in very thick seams, such as those in Staffordshire, where the extra, illumination given by the naked light is an advantage in examining the roof."
        The Secretary of State would exercise his discretion in regard to those particular mines.
        Dr. CHAPPLE: I can scarcely allow the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) to pass unnoticed. He scolded very severely Scottish Members for what he called log-rolling in that they made representations to the Home Office in favour of the deletion of this Sub-section. He accused the Scottish Members of representing ignorant men in this matter. The Scottish Members represent the absolutely unanimous view of those engaged in mining in Scotland. Here we have a Coal Mines Bill designed to confer safety on those occupied in the mining industry of Scotland, and yet we are imposing on those miners something which they say is useless to them. It is the unanimous view of those engaged in mining in Scotland that there would be more accidents if naked lights were withdrawn than if they are allowed to continue. They are not ignorant men. They are intelligent men who have represented these things at Westminster. Moreover, the accidents which take place in Scottish mines will probably be less in future, because under this measure better conditions of ventilation will obtain. Under these conditions, therefore, safety lamps will be less necessary. If 71 per cent. use naked lights today, they will use them in future under the conditions of the measure we are now considering. Statistics have been quoted
        1474
        in regard to the number of accidents from explosions. I maintain that they are absolutely useless unless you can compare, say, five years' experience of naked lights with five years' experience of safety lamps in the same mine. I am disposed to allow the mine owners and the miners of Scotland to be judges in this matter, and not to impose on them regulations and conditions which they say are absolutely insufferable. They are not ignorant men without any experience of safety lamps. If they had no experience, the House might impose these lamps upon them, but having had experience of both lights they have decided that the danger would be greater with safety lamps. I am prepared to leave the matter to them. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield referred to a report of Mr. Walker, inspector of mines for Scotland. Mr. Walker, in the whole of that statement, only detailed conditions and rules for the safety of miners in mines where naked lights are used. After giving the lists of rules and regulations, he winds up:—
        "Many of the accidents, as will be seen from the description given in appendix (1), are due to carelessness, and disregard of the rudimentary precautions by officials and workmen. I hope I shall be able in future years to report that, by better ventilation and the exercise of forethought and care, ignitions of gas have been done away with—"
        that is in mines that have used naked lights. So that if the hon. Member had read on he would have seen that Mr. Walker was giving rules and regulations which, if observed, would have rendered mines where naked lights are used comparatively immune from accident.
        Mr. BAIRD: I particularly wish to answer some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Mansfield, who attacked all the Scottish owners, none of whom were present. The introduction of the question of cost was a matter which it was agreed to exclude by all Members and all parities. As the hon. Member thought fit to introduce that question in an exceedingly, I do not like to say offensive but exceedingly wrong, manner, I think we are entitled to hear the other side of the case. I told him that I was going to attack him and I hope he will return. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I do not like to say hard things of people when they are not present, and therefore I hope he will return. In addition the hon. Member quoted a great many figures, proving, as he thought, that Scotch mines were carried under most unsafe conditions, and that it was necessary to introduce the use of the safety lamp. It does seem a

        1475
        strange thing that hon. Members opposite, who are such strong supporters of Home Rule, and believe that people in every part of the United Kingdom should be allowed to manage their own affairs, when they find that all sections of opinion in Scotland, masters and men, unanimously desire to maintain a system which they consider to be the safe system, should seek to impose on Scotland a system which they in Scotland consider a less safe system. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lanark were extraordinarily striking, and if they only had been quoted with the same amount of vigour and zest as was displayed by the hon. Member for Mansfield, they would have had a far greater effect. But the main fact is, whether you take the basis of number of men employed or output, coal mining is carried on in Scotland under conditions which are safer than in any other part of the British Isles.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member refers to page 153 of the Chief Inspector's Report of last year he will find that the deaths in the Scottish field are bigger than in any other fields.
        Mr. BAIRD: I have got here the Report for 1910. The proportions for Scotland are:—Employed, 13½ per cent.; output, 16½ per cent.; number of deaths, 11.4 per cent. If those figures do not satisfy the hon. Member what other figures does he want?
        Mr. J. WARD: There have been two big disasters.
        Mr. BAIRD: That makes it all the better for us. If they are included it knocks the bottom out of the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
        Mr. J. WARD: They were disasters in England.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: Quoting figures for one year is really worthless. In a case of this kind figures must be spread over a large number of years.
        Mr. BAIRD: I entirely agree. I did not want to produce figures that have been already quoted, and I was only replying to the hon. Member. In the year 1909, whereas the total output of Scotland was 15.93 of that of Great Britain, the deathrate from explosions was only 12.2 of the total. Those figures go right through the whole thing. There is no possible cause
        1476
        why anyone should advocate one view or another except that he imagines it is going to produce good. The hon. Member for Mansfield attacks the Scotch coal-owners on the ground that they objected to the use of the safety lamp because it was going to cost money. I regret that he should have introduced this subject. The hon. Member should have recollected that people who live in glass houses had better not throw stones, and that he, as is well known, is largely interested in some of the largest and most up-to-date mines in the country, and that when he says that Scotch coal-owners are afraid of the cost he lays himself open to the charge that this legislation is bound to close down a certain number of these mines in Scotland that are not up to date, and that this attack will certainly be to his benefit and the benefit of the mine in which he is personally interested. That is a complete answer to what he has said. I did not desire to bring up this question, but I feel bound to do my best to defend the men who are not here.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not interested in any coalfields nearer Scotland than South Yorkshire. Does South Yorkshire compete with Scotland? The two are perfectly distinct.
        Mr. BAIRD: The hon. Member must know perfectly well that if the output of Scotland is diminished it is to the benefit of the coal-owners in other parts of Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is not so, perhaps the hon. Member will say why? It is to the benefit of the up-to-date mines that what he calls these tinpot mines should be closed. I should not be opposed to them being closed if keeping them open meant working under unsafe conditions, but it is impossible to show that the proposals of the hon. Baronet will make mining safer in Scotland, and, on the contrary, all Scotsmen think that mining will become less safe. I venture to remind him of the very striking support of the continuation of naked lamps which came from Mr. Smiley, who cannot be accused of having any bias in favour of the owners. Mr. Smiley has three sons working in pits where nothing but naked lights are used, and if he thought it was dangerous he would not have his sons working there. At the same time it will not be denied that a man who has the interests of the men at heart, as opposed to the owners—it is impossible to separate the interests of the two, but if it is possible, if there is any man anxious for the interests of the men as against the

        1477
        owners, it is Mr. Smiley—does not the hon. Member imagine that if this plan were going to be a benefit to the working man Mr. Smiley would not be in favour of introducing safety lamps? The hon. Member cannot quote any man of standing in Scotland as in favour of this change. Many other Members say that because a certain system is adopted in Yorkshire therefore it must be adopted in Scotland. But it strikes me that we here shall be incurring very great responsibility if we are to impose upon the men who go down the mine legislative conditions which, without the slightest exception, they say will conduce not to safety, but increased danger. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Fife, who spoke so well and with such authority in Grand Committee, would have given us the benefit of his experience in this discussion, because, after all, experience is worth a good deal more than theory, and we have had nothing but theory so far on both sides of the House. Everybody knows that experts are obstinate people, and no one is more obstinate than the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). If the Government are prepared for a compromise on this subject, and prefer that the paragraph should be deleted, I understand that whatever way the Division goes, the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
        Mr. McKENNA: I stated that for myself I should vote for the retention of paragraph (b), but I did not propose to bring any party pressure to bear on Members, who would vote according to their own wishes, without regard to party ties. If paragraph (b) is deleted from the Bill, as to judge from those who have spoken it probably will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all; we have kept silent."]—then we shall support with the whole strength of the Government an Amendment similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark.
        Mr. BAIRD: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, and I thought I was right in saying that whichever way this Division goes, the Amendment will stand. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
        Mr. NEWDEGATE: I disagree with my hon. Friend below me on this occasion, and I shall support the retention of the Clause for this reason. In the first place, I think it would be a very great misfortune that any person interested in collieries, as I am should help to pass anything which
        1478
        would be likely to operate against the safety of the men's lives. I say that with a clear conscience, because although I represent a certain number of miners in my Division, they are not at all an overwhelming power. I know a good deal of miners, and I think it would have a very bad effect if we supported anything considered to be against the safety of the men. The Clause as it stands, unless exemption is given by the Secretary of State on account of the special character of a mine, requires that safety lamps shall be used, but where exemption is given the safety lamp is not required. That seems to have been forgotten in the whole of this Debate. In the mines where there is a very thick seam naked lights may be allowed, if the inspector thinks that can be done and the Secretary of State grants exemption. I do hope that hon. Members will remember the pledge the Home Secretary has given as regards the very thick seams, where extra light is necessary, but I, for my part, if there is the slightest doubt about the safety of the lives of the miners, shall certainly support the retention of the paragraph.
        Sir HENRY DALZIEL: It is advisable that we should rightly understand what is the meaning of the vote we are about to take. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he is going to leave the question of paragraph (b) to the House. No Government pressure will be brought to bear and the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the decision. If paragraph (b) is deleted, I understand it is still his intention to support with modification the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark. If Sub-section (b) is retained, is it the policy of the Government to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, with any modification he considers necessary.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: My understanding of the statement of my right hon. Friend is not that. My understanding is, that if the House decides to retain Sub-section (b) the Government will accept the decision, and retain Sub-section (b) as it stands, and not Sub-section (b) as amended. I understand, if defeated in this Division, and if Subsection (b) be retained, it is the policy of the Government to stand by their Bill and not accept amendment. On the other hand, if Sub-section (b) be deleted, then it is intended to insert in its place the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark.
        Mr. McKENNA: The position is perfectly clear. If paragraph (b) be deleted on this vote, the Government will support an Amendment similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark. If, on the other hand, the first words of the paragraph are retained, then we should have to consider any subsequent Amendment that might be moved. My statement only went to the point that if paragraph (b) is deleted, the Government will support an Amendment similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark.
        Mr. BOOTH: I do not want it to be supposed that because Members on these benches have not taken part in this discussion, therefore they are in favour of deleting this provision which has been under discussion. We have not taken part
        in the discussion because we want the Bill to become law.
        Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: May I also call the attention of the House to the fact that there are some of us on these benches who have not yet said anything on this question, but it must not be taken that everybody on this side is in favour of the deletion of this Clause. Personally I am in favour of it standing as it is. I think it carries out the expressed desire of the Bill making for safety in coal mines, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby with those who are in favour.
        Question put, "that the words; 'In any' stand part of the paragraph."
        The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 43.

        Division No. 404.]

        AYES.

        [8.45 p.m.

        Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

        Hackett, J.

        Pollard, Sir George H.

        Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

        Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

        Power, Patrick Joseph

        Agnew, Sir George William

        Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

        Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

        Aitken, Sir William Max

        Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

        Raffan, Peter Wilson

        Alden, Percy

        Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

        Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

        Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

        Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

        Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

        Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

        Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

        Rawson, Col. Richard H.

        Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

        Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

        Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

        Balcarres, Lord

        Hayward, Evan

        Rendall, Athelstan

        Baldwin, Stanley

        Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

        Richards, Thomas

        Barton, William

        Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

        Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

        Booth, Frederick Handel

        Henry, Sir Charles S.

        Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

        Brace, William

        Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

        Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

        Bridgeman, William Clive

        Higham, John Sharp

        Roche, John (Galway, E.)

        Burns, Rt. Hon. John

        Hinds, John

        Roe, Sir Thomas

        Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

        Houston, Robert Paterson

        Rowlands, James

        Butcher, J. G.

        Hudson, Walter

        Rowntree, Arnold

        Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

        Hughes, S. L.

        Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

        Byles, Sir William Pollard

        Hunt, Rowland

        Rutherford, Watson (L'pool. W. Derby)

        Carr-Gomm, H. W.

        Illingworth, Percy H.

        Sanders, Robert A.

        Cassel, Felix

        Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

        Sanderson, Lancelot

        Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

        John, Edward Thomas

        Sheehy, David

        Clynes, John R.

        Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Sherwell, Arthur James

        Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

        Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

        Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

        Condon, Thomas Joseph

        Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

        Smith, Harold (Warrington)

        Cotton, William Francis

        Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

        Snowden, Philip

        Crean, Eugene

        Jowett, Frederick William

        Spicer, Sir Albert

        Crooks, William

        Joyce, Michael

        Stanier, Beville

        Crumley, Patrick

        Keating, Matthew

        Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

        Donelan, Captain A.

        Kellaway, Frederick George

        Summers, James Woolley

        Doris, William

        Kilbride, Denis

        Sutton, John E.

        Doughty, Sir George

        King, J. (Somerset, N.)

        Swift, Rigby

        Du Cros, Arthur Philip

        Kirkwood, John H. M.

        Taylor, John W. (Durham)

        Duke, Henry Edward

        Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

        Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

        Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

        Levy, Sir Maurice

        Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

        Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

        Lewis, John Herbert

        Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

        Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

        Lynch, Arthur Alfred

        Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

        Elverston, Sir Harold

        Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

        Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

        Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

        MacVeagh, Jeremiah

        Wiles, Thomas

        Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

        McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

        Williams, John (Glamorgan)

        Foster, Philip Staveley

        M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

        Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

        Furness, Stephen W.

        Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

        Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worc, N.)

        Gardner, Ernest

        Nannetti, Joseph P.

        Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

        Gastrell, Major W. H.

        Neilson, Francis

        Wolmer, Viscount

        Gill, Alfred Henry

        Neville, Reginald J. N.

        Wood, John (Stalybridge)

        Gladstone, W. G. C.

        Newdegate, F. A.

        Yate, Col. C. E.

        Glanville, H. J.

        O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

        Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

        Goldman, C. S.

        O'Sullivan, Timothy

        Yoxall, Sir James Henry

        Goldstone, Frank

        Palmer, Godfrey

        Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

        Parker, James (Halifax)

        Greene, Walter Raymond

        Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

        Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

        Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

        Armitage and Mr. Wadsworth.

        Gretton, John

        Pointer, Joseph

        NOES.

        Adamson, William

        Gibson, Sir James Puckering

        Parkes, Ebenezer

        Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

        Gulland, John W.

        Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

        Ashley, Wilfrid W.

        Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

        Pringle, William M. R.

        Baird, J. L.

        Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

        Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

        Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

        Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Scanlan, Thomas

        Barnes, George N.

        Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.)

        Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

        Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

        Hodge, John

        Tennant, Harold John

        Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

        Howard, John

        Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

        Bryce, J. Annan

        Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

        Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

        Castlereagh, Viscount

        Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

        Whitehouse, John Howard

        Cautley, Henry Strother

        Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

        Wilkie, Alexander

        Chapple, Dr. William Allen

        Macpherson, James Ian

        Clough, William

        M'Callum, John M.

        Cory, Sir Clifford John

        Millar, James Duncan

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

        Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

        Munro, R.

        Hickman and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.

        Dawes, James Arthur

        O'Grady, James

        Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

        9.0 P.M.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move in Sub-section 1 (b), to leave out the words "seam (except in the main intake airways within 200 yards from the shaft), in which an explosion of inflammable gas causing any personal injury whatever has occurred within the previous twelve months," in order to insert instead thereof the words,
        "Ventilating district in which the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in any part of the district has on not less than six occasions, at intervals of not less than a fortnight, within the previous twelve months, been found by an inspector to be two and a-half or upwards."
        I feel that it is especially urgent in view of the last Division that I should make clear the position of myself and my Friends in this matter. There is no point of difference between us and the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham). We are anxious to secure by the best means possible the safety of our mines. I need only say that I gave to the object aimed at in the original Sub-section, my most strenuous support during the proceedings in Grand Committee. But it may be that there is an even better way of securing the end we have in view than the limited proposal in the Sub-section before us. The proposal in my Amendment substitutes a definite test for the existing proposal, which is simply that safety lamps are to be introduced when an explosion has occurred in the previous twelve months and resulted in any sort of injury whatever. I pointed out when the hon. Baronet was speaking, that at present the law provides that men shall be withdrawn in safety lamp mines when 2½ percentage of gas is found. The hon. Baronet very properly observed that they had to be withdrawn in naked light mines when a percentage of 1¼ was found, and he rather ridiculed the proposal I am now making. In
        1482
        naked light mines it frequently happens that men are withdrawn when there is a far greater percentage of gas than 1¼. Changes in the condition occur very rapidly, and it may be found on trial that as much as 3 per cent. or even more of gas exists. I do not attach vital importance to the precise form of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It may be that the House will feel that a percentage of 2½ is too high. I should raise no objection whatever to the percentage being reduced to 1¼ or to any other point that the House thought proper. But I suggest that a definite scientific test is possibly better than an arrangement under which no definite test exists. For instance, under the Sub-section as it stands there might be an explosion due to the presence of gas in a pocket of the mine, but which would not necessarily show that there was gas to a dangerous degree in the general body of the mine, and it might in consequence be one of those cases so strongly urged by representatives of the mining industry in Scotland where safety lamps would be introduced without adequate cause. I am suggesting a basis for an Amendment which would give security to miners in all dangerous mines, ensuring that in all such mines safety lamps should be introduced, and which in some respects would be an improvement upon the Clause as it stands. I therefore earnestly hope that the Government will consider the spirit of the Amendment and give it their support.
        I can only repeat, with all sincerity and earnestness, that I stand here to plead that we should take the most scientific means possible for the safety of the men who work in our mines. Under existing conditions, and it might happen under the Bill as it stands, men are withdrawn from the mines because a certain percentage of gas is found to exist; but that does not mean

        1483
        that safety lamps have to be introduced. The gas is dispersed and the men go back to work with naked lights. Thus you have the continually recurring danger of men being allowed to work with naked lights in a mine in which a sudden recurrence of gas may result in a most serious disaster. In the interests of the safety of the miners, I plead that a scientific test should be applied to mines in which naked lights are now allowed. If by the application of this test gas is found to recur on a given number of occasions or under given conditions, the mineowner would be required to introduce safety lamps. I beg to move.
        Mr. ADAMSON: In seconding this Amendment, I want to say that I am approaching this question entirely from the standpoint of the safety of the men that I represent. I am quite as anxious to secure the safety of the lives and limbs of the mine workers of the country as is the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield. In this attitude I am supported by the whole of the mining population of Scotland. While I am dealing with the fact that I am supported by the whole of the mining population of Scotland, let me say that the miners of Scotland are not what the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has described them as, "as a lot of ignorant men who have given no consideration to this question that we have under discussion to-night." The miners of Scotland have given due consideration to this question, and what they are afraid is that if we have the introduction of safety lights into the mines, which are dealt with by the particular portion of the Bill that we are now discussing, that the increase in the number of accidents from other causes will be out of all proportion to any saving that might be effected by the safety lights.
        Many figures have been quoted both by the Mover and Seconder, and by some of those who have replied to them, and the figures of both one party and the other have been called very seriously in question. One of the speakers suggested that to take the figures on the tonnage of production was not a true basis. I want to point out that one of the leading Home Office officials, in giving his evidence before the Royal Commission, based his figures on the output of coal, so that if one of the Home Office officials did that, surely it cannot be very seriously called in question. I might just quote from those figures with a view to replying to some of the figures that have been quoted by the
        1484
        hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield. He tried to make out that the percentage of accidents in Scotland was very much higher than it was in other parts of the Kingdom. According to the figures which I have before me, and which were given by Mr. Delevingne before the Royal Commission, the three principal causes of accidents produced the following results: From explosions of gas for England and Wales the average was .33 per cent. for the years 1901–6. The average for Scotland only amounted to .20. From falls of roofs and sides the percentage of accidents in England and Wales, calculated, of course, on the output, was 2.09; while for Scotland it was 1.98. In haulage accidents the percentage for England and Wales was .81, while for Scotland it was only .52.
        This shows clearly and distinctly that, taken on the basis of output, according to the figures given to the Royal Commission, Scotland occupies in the matter of percentage of accidents a very superior position to England and Wales. In order not to minimise the point which has been put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield that that was not a true basis on which to take a percentage of accidents, I have here also the percentage of accidents for 1909, calculated on the basis of the number of persons employed. I think the hon. Baronet gave the figures for 1910. While doing so he actually admitted that Scotland was rather in a favourable position. But he began to give some explanation as to a large explosion having taken place in one of the English districts during last year. Though I take the figures for 1909 they are produced on the same basis, and I find that Scotland occupies even a more favourable position than it did last year. The percentage of persons employed in Scotland for 1909 was 16 per cent., while the percentage of accidents only amounted to 13.34, giving Scotland for the year before last a rather superior position compared with England. We are of opinion that the reason why Scotland occupies this superior position, so far as these percentages of accidents is concerned, is because of the use of the naked light. In Scotland we have 71.8 per cent. of naked lights, and in England there are only 8.4 per cent. We consider that it is because of the larger percentage of naked lights used in Scotland that we occupy the superior position compared with other parts of the Kingdom. The naked light gives four times the light of a safety lamp, and from the standpoint of durability there is no comparison

        1485
        between the naked lamp and the safety lamp. Our small Scotch lamps which is stuck upon the cap of the Scotch miner, in addition to giving a superior light, gives him no trouble and leaves both hands free and leaves him in a position to attend to his work in a much freer manner than if he had a safety lamp in his hand. That is, we believe, the principle why we are in so favourable a situation so far as the percentage of accidents is concerned in Scotland as compared with the other parts of the kingdom, and we are anxious that we should be in a position to retain as large a percentage of our open lights as possible.
        The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) during his long speech, stated that the percentage of gas that was dangerous in dry and dusty mines was one-and-a-half. So far as the mining section in Scotland for whom I speak are concerned, we believe that wherever a mine is dry and dusty and gas makes its appearance, safety lamps ought to be in the hands of the men. And it is because we realise that the mines in Scotland can be described as naturally wet throughout, that we so strongly contend that we should be allowed to continue the use of our naked light. We agree that when mines are dry and dusty throughout safety lamps ought to be used. An hon. Member says that we have not put that into our Amendment, but we consider that without this paragraph (b) there is sufficient power under Clause 32 to give the Government the necessary power to order safety lamps where they are absolutely necessary. We quite agree that where safety lamps are necessary they ought to be put in, but as the vast majority of the Scotch mines can be generally described as naturally wet throughout we contend that there is no such serious danger in Scottish as there is in most of the English mines. If we had the same set of circumstances as the English mines I would not be an advocate for the retention on a large scale of naked lights. For the reasons I have given we hope the House will see its way to vote in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark.
        Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: This House a few minutes ago averred by an overwhelming majority that in addition to the four conditions in which safety lamps must be introduced into the mine, a fifth condition was necessary, and the only question which the House has now to decide is the form that condition shall take. What is
        1486
        to be the test of if? Is it to be what is suggested by the Government in their Bill and adopted by the Grand Committee, or is to be what is suggested by this Amendment? We start upon the basis that the object of this Bill is to secure the safety of the mines: that is the expression which is upon the lips of every hon. Member who rises to take part in this discussion. I do not think it can be too often reiterated, and I do not think it can be too clearly kept before us that the real object with which this Bill was introduced, and the motive which guided the Members of the Grand Committee was to secure, regardless of expense, the greater safety of those who go down into the pits to earn their livelihood. The two propositions which this House has got to decide is which of the courses suggested makes for the greater safety of the workers in the mines. On the one hand the Government suggests that it should be an absolute condition where there has been an explosion of inflammable gas causing personal injury within twelve months, safety lamps shall be introduced. I should have thought that is about as mild a condition as anyone could wish to see incorporated in an Act of Parliament, I should have thought that patience had been protracted to a length of time when it becomes more than a virtue in the circumstances. But what is the suggested substitute for that test of the Government? That you shall upon six occasions find gas in the mine in such a quantity as to be dangerous, and as to be likely to cause an explosion and injury to persons if a light was brought into contact with it. The first occasion it is not sufficient, according to this Amendment, to justify the Government insisting upon safety lamps being introduced; tests must be made six times before it can be said that the mine is in such a condition that safety lamps should be introduced.
        I hear with gratification the fact that in the Scotch mines naked lamps can be used to the extent they are, and used apparently with safety. On the other hand, we have figures which show that it is not always safe to use them in Scotch mines, and I very respectfully suggest that when we are determining solely from the point of view of the workers, which is the proper test to adopt, it is better when you have an accident happening once to put the safety lamp regulation into force than it is to pass over conditions under which an accident may happen once, twice, or three times, or up to half a dozen times, before you do anything. I hope the Government

        1487
        will insist upon the standard set up in Grand Committee, and not give way or allow the Clause to be altered in any manner.
        Mr. McKENNA: After what took place on the previous Motion, my hon. Friend cannot expect that the Government will accept the Amendment he has proposed. He askes that instead of the adoption of the three-bite system we should have the test of 2½ per cent. of gas being found on six occasions at intervals of not less than a fortnight. I do not complain of the test he proposes as regards the intervals of time. In the words he has used he is following the words of the Bill itself in the next Sub-section. I do not complain upon that score, but 2½ per cent. of gas is obviously excessive. The men are withdrawn from the mine if there is l¼ per cent. of gas if they are working with naked lights. In these circumstances, how could we be expected to accept a proposal under which if 2¼ per cent. of gas is present the men are still to be allowed to work with naked lights in a mine which by our definition may be said to have in it inflammable gas habitually found? It cannot be suggested that it is safe to allow the 2½ per cent. standard. I quite recognise what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who I know is as anxious to secure safety in mines as we are. He speaks on behalf of the men and he believes that it would be sufficiently safe with this 2½ per cent. standard. I regret to say that I cannot agree with him. If he would alter his Amendment and substitute a standard of 1¼ per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. of gas, I should be prepared to vote with him.
        I admit that the one-bite system is not particularly good. You may have a mine by good fortune escaping for years and years, but it may all the while be more or less dangerous, and its condition might be detected under a more scientific system. It may escape as a matter of fact because no serious accident has occurred. The inspectors are fully informed as to the mines which are likely to be dangerous, and they would see that the air was frequently tested in those mines, and provided the inflammable standard was sufficiently low I think you would get quite as good and a more scientific form of detecting danger in the mines by fixing the standard of the gas instead of waiting for accidents to happen. Therefore if my
        1488
        hon. Friend will alter his Amendment and put it on the basis of 1¼ per cent., up to which it is admitted there is no danger—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I thought that was admitted. At any rate, I think below 1¼ per cent. is considered safe. There are not a great many mines of this kind, and where an inspector has any doubt he would inspect the mine sufficiently frequently to ascertain whether it was dangerous. This form of Amendment I know is more troublesome than the three-bite system, but we must have regard to the danger of the loss of life. If my suggestion is adopted by the hon. Member I think the House would be fairly justified in accepting the proposal of my hon. Friend if the standard is sufficiently low, but I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment on the 2½ per cent. basis, but I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend on the basis of 1¼ per cent.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: May I say that I accept that suggestion?
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): It is already before the House.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: I am quite prepared to recognise that this more scientific standard may have some merits to recommend it, but it is not necessarily an alternative matter, and it might be put in an additional Sub-section if this Clause is not sufficient to cover all the cases. Why I dislike the Amendment as it stands is that it is going to leave out one test of safety in those mines. We spent a very long time on the Committee upstairs on this very issue, and we put in these Subsections simply and solely from the point of view of the safety of the mines, and I rather object to the treating of this question as if it were merely a question of the Scotch mines. Though it is perfectly true Scotch mines may suffer more, they will suffer because they are less safe than the English mines. I do not like the first-bite system, and I think my right hon. Friend emphasises that point. On the Committee upstairs I suggested to some of the right hon. Gentleman's officials and others that I did not like the first bite, but instead of allowing the first bite in a mine I would insist on safety lamps the moment it showed its teeth—namely, whenever an explosion of inflammable gas had occurred without waiting until there had been some injury to the miners. I was told that was too extreme a standard, and that you always get an ignition of some kind. I do

        1489
        not agree with that view. I am bound to say that I think the difference between the two sides on the whole question is between those who regard the presence of inflammable gas as a thing which under any circumstances may happen once and not again, and those who think that once inflammable gas has been found, it is a sign of danger which can on no account be disregarded ever afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman said the inspectors knew very well which were the dangerous mines. I tell him from my own knowledge that some of the worst explosions have occurred in mines which were not suspected by anybody at all, and in mines which have been working perfectly safe for twenty, thirty and forty years. I have no particular liking for the first bite, but the reason I like Sub-section (b), as it stands, a good deal better than the Amendment of my hon. Friend, though I have no objection to it as an addition to the Clause of the Government, is that there has only to be one sign. When one explosion has taken, place, safety lamps are to be introduced. I have got in my hand a circular sent out by the National Association of Colliery Managers in Scotland, and on this Sub-section they use these remarkable words:—
        "If allowed to stand, it will have the effect of introducing safety lamps into many of the Scotch mines where a little gas exists and where such accidents as occur from ignition seldom cause more than slight injury to one or two persons."
        I think that sentence reveals the attitude of mind with which Scotch managers approach this question. An ignition is not a thing to be treated lightly. It might just as easily cause death to hundreds of persons as injury to only one or two. We have to make the presence of inflammable gas in a mine in almost any quantity at all the test for the safety lamps. I would rather like to ask my hon. Friend whether he intends to put on the Government Tellers in support of the Amendment, because if he leaves the House free I have not much doubt what the result will be. We should retain Sub-Section (b) to the rest of its extent. I would ask my hon. Friend to leave the House to decide this question itself, and not to put on any Government pressure in favour of this Amendment. I am a most obedient servant of the Government and I admire it, but at the same time it is the first thought of the Government that in this case I admire. I ask them to stand by their own Bill as it has come down from Grand Committee, where this question was thoroughly thrashed out; at any rate, I ask
        1490
        my hon. Friend if he thinks this not sufficient scientific treatment of the question to add a new Sub-section and leave us the double safeguard, because I believe you cannot make the mines too safe.
        Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend has put in a most excellent way what ought to be the position of the Government. By all means, accept the Amendment, not as a substitute, but as an addition to Sub-section (b) as it stands. I am not impressed with the case made for Scotland. If the Scotch mines are half as safe as has been testified in this House this evening, then they need have no fear from Sub-section (b). The Sub-section is not a very drastic one; it is not half as drastic as some of us would like to see it. It is, however, a kind of rough and ready test under which an inspector can act. Supposing you have a test of 1¼ or 2½ per cent., does my right hon. Friend know the general attitude of the mining engineer? Why, bless your life, if there was any dispute at all you would have as many scientific witnesses to swear there was 1 per cent. as there was 1½. I am rather against a scientific test. I prefer this test, but I wish the Clause could have left out the words "causing personal injury," because I believe the presence of gas is a danger and ought to be accepted as primâ facie evidence that the mine ought to be treated in a special manner and that safety lamps only should be used until the mine is free from gas.
        Those who have spoken earlier in the Debate upon this matter seem to have omitted to take notice at all of this fact. Supposing a mine is classified under this test, that does not end the matter entirely. The employers and men, singly and jointly, can then bring their case to the Home Secretary, because power is here sought, and will be given if the Clause is passed, to allow the Secretary of State to grant an exemption on the ground of the special character of the mine. Put into every day language, it means this: There is a mine where gas has not been found before. A man has been burnt, and, under the first Section of this Clause, the mine is brought within the category of dangerous mines-Before the mines inspector, however, can insist upon the use of safety lamps the right is given to the interested party, whether it be employers or workmen, or both, to appeal to the Home Secretary to say whether because of the special circumstances of that particular mine they ought to be exempt from the operation of this

        1491
        Clause. I do not think this House ought to grant more liberty than is granted by this Sub-section. This is really a safety charter, and, when we argued upon this Clause in Grand Committee, this was a kind of compromise. I ask my hon. Friend to stand by the Clause or accept the Amendment, not as an alternative, but as an addition to Sub-section (b), as it stands in the Bill.
        Mr. S. WALSH: I object to it even as an addition, and I can assure the House it is a much more serious matter than appears upon the face of it. What we want to do is to act as far as possible on the same lines that a sensible, well-informed colliery manager would himself act. What would he do if he found on the first occasion gas existing to such a degree as to be highly dangerous? Would he wait for five more occasions? Does anybody on the face of the earth think that that is the way in which collieries have been managed. There are ninety-nine collieries out of every hundred to-day in which these particular conditions cannot be found where safety lamps are being used. Nine-tenths of colliery managers could, if this particular Amendment were carried, and if, indeed the views which the Home Office seem now to entertain are to be given effect to, introduce into their collieries the naked light to-morrow.
        Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member forgets paragraph (c).
        Mr. S. WALSH: I have not forgotten that. I repeat that there is not one colliery in England to-day that can show in the general body of the air an average on six occasions of 2½ per cent. It means that on the whole of these occasions at least 15 per cent. of gas must have been exceeded. If you divide fifteen by six it gives two and a-half. You may find 7 per cent. on one occasion, quite sufficient to blow your mine up, and 8 per cent. on another occasion, also sufficient to blow the mine up. On the four other occasions you need find none at all, yet you would get your average on the six occasions of 2½ per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill will take note of the wording, he will see it is to be "in the general body of the air." But whenever is gas found in the general body of the air? It is found in small sections in the higher parts of the mine. That is the scientific truth of the matter. The gas
        1492
        that blows the mine up and sends hundreds of people to their death is found in the top crevices of a mine. I would therefore beg the attention of the Government to the utterly misleading and illusive nature of this Amendment. I repeat you might on one occasion have 6 per cent. of gas. [HON MEMBERS: "NO, no."] The reading of the proposal as that,
        "In any ventilating district in which the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in any part of the district has on not less than six occasions within the previous twelve months been found by an inspector to be 2½ per cent. or upwards."
        You are assuming that a test is being made of the general body of the air.
        Mr. McKENNA: It only means the sample taken.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: And the hon. Member forgets the words "in any part of the district."
        Mr. WALSH: The fact remains it is to be the general body of the air, and anyone here who knows anything about the interior management of a mine must know that the gas is not to be found in the general body of the air. It is always at the top of the working. Where is "the general body of air" in this House? Is it on the left hand side of Mr. Speaker? No, it will be found in the centre of the place but gas, I repeat, is found in the crevices in the higher parts of the mine. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that some of the provisions of this Bill are already being laughed to scorn by miners, and I could give him case after case where competent men are holding up their hands in horror at the proposals of this measure. They look upon some of these Amendments as nonsensical, and I shall most vigorously oppose any further attempt to weaken these provisions by one jot or tittle. I am aware that in Committee, as a matter of compromise, and in order to meet the views of the Scottish miners, it was agreed that if it could be proved that for a long period of years, say for twenty or thirty years, no explosion had occurred, and no gas had been found there should be some exemption, but surely it ought to be sufficient if such a state of affairs can be demonstrated to exist for the Home Secretary to grant the necessary exemption. What more is wanted? If this Bill and the Amendments now foreshadowed had been brought forward last December, the whole country would have risen in

        1493
        condemnation against these proposals. We are striving in every possible way for safety. We do not want to leave a loophole in the form of any reservation. It is no use prating about scientific tests. It is not scientific tests that send men to their grave; it is the presence of gas that has become inflammable and has exploded. We want to see to it that these mines shall be worked with the utmost possible safety. I hope the Home Office will let the House decide this matter for itself. I believe that if it is left to its own good feeling it will vote for safety. This is not an occasion on which the Government Whips should be used. I do not want to blame the Government, but I want by this Bill to secure the maximum of safety, and I venture to suggest that that end cannot be attained if these crippling and injurious Amendments are to be added.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has attacked us with some violence, and has suggested that many of the Clauses in the Bill are nonsensical. I would remind him that this subject was discussed in the Grand Committee, and that not a single Labour Member voted for retaining Clause 32 in the Bill. It was carried by the Government vote, thanks to the influence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield, against the Labour Members. It hardly behoves the hon. Member to attack the Government so violently.
        Mr. WALSH: I spoke against this particular thing myself.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I shall vote for the Amendment as a lesser evil to the Clause in its present form. When doctors differ I can understand hon. Members outside the Labour ranks finding themselves in some dilemma, but I oppose the introduction of safety lamps, because I believe them to be an additional danger to the miner. They certainly increase the hardness and difficulty of his task. They certainly injure his eyesight; they make it more difficult for him to detect danger from other causes than the presence of gas, and—this is my chief reason for taking the opposite side—they lend themselves to the creation of a false sense of security in the mine which actually leads to the great calamities we have to deplore from time to time. Let me illustrate that from the Government inspector's figures. First of all, to show the difficulty there is in getting at the truth in a matter of this kind, let me read the following paragraph on
        1494
        page 109 of the Mines and Quarries General Report, with Statistics, for 1910. The chief inspector gives here Table 69, showing the explosions of fire-damp caused by naked lights, and he adds this note:—
        "Table 69 shows that in 1910, the Scotch and Welsh coalfields, including Monmouthshire, though employing only about 56 per cent. of the number of men employed in the remaining coalfields, and producing only 55 per cent. of the output, had four times as many explosions from the use of naked lights."
        That is four times as many explosions from the use of naked lights as arose where safety lamps were used.
        Mr. H. SMITH: Does he say they were due to the use of naked lights?
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am quoting the statement to show how misleading a general deduction of that kind may be. He says there were four times as many explosions. Turn now to page 106 of the same Report, where, in Table 68, a detailed table is given showing the number of explosions in districts where naked lights are used as compared with those where safety lamps are used. What do we find? In the naked light districts there were eight fatal accidents, causing the death of nine persons, and there were 102 non-fatal accidents, causing injury to 139 persons. That is all the districts in Great Britain in which naked lights were used. The heading of the table is this:—
        "Explosions of fire-damp or coal dust at all mines under the Coal and Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, classified according to kind of mine and cause."
        10.0 P.M.
        Including iron mines and other mines the total for all mines where naked lights are used is eleven fatal accidents, causing thirteen deaths, and 119 non-fatal accidents, causing injuries to 160 persons. Now turn to the list of accidents arising in districts where the safety lamp is used. There were only two explosions, but they were responsible for 480 deaths and for injury to only thirteen persons. I repeat that the effect of using the safety lamp is to create a false sense of security. We who support this Amendment are in favour of every possible step being taken to produce safety in mines where explosive gas is found, but my own position is this, that the introduction of safety lamps is not the best way of doing it, that other steps have been taken, and that experiments of other kinds have been tried in districts which are known to be fiery, with the result that explosions have been rendered practically impossible. There was a case some fourteen or fifteen years ago in Lancashire where Mr. Fletcher introduced a new system of filling

        1495
        up the waste. Just as the coal was taken out he caused débris to be brought down from the surface so as to pack the waste solid, only leaving the main roads and the ventilation ways open. The result was there were no reservoirs in that mine for gas to accumulate, and as the gas was given off the coal, whether in the high or low parts of the mine, the current of air swept it along into the return airway and up the up-cast shaft, and there was consequently no possibility of a serious accident occurring in that mine.
        I frankly admit that the number of smaller accidents from gas is likely to be larger where naked lights are in use than where safety lamps are used, but I dispute entirely—and this is the main point—that the safety lamp leads to reduction of the death rate from explosions in mines. I go still further, and say that if safety lamps were prohibited and mine owners were compelled to make the mines safe, without the use of safety lamps, that the great explosions that now take place would be got rid of, the safety lamp cleared out altogether, and both the comfort and convenience of the working collier would be very much improved as a consequence. I shall therefore vote for this Amendment, not because I want to see safety lamps brought in at all, but because I think it is a lesser evil than the Clause in the Bill as it now stands, and I am certain that the experience of those districts where there are no safety lamps, both in regard to ventilation and to management, will compare favourably with the other districts in the coalfields in which safety lamps have been introduced. The safety lamp is simply an excuse for not taking other and more effective measures, and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment.
        Viscount WOLMER: I think the miners of Lancashire will be rather surprised at the opinion of the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) that safety lamps are a danger to the miners. Surely, where you get a sudden rush of gas—almost at a moment's notice the gas may rise to an extraordinary degree—no amount of ventilation, no amount of absence of dust, can ever give complete security to the workers. To ask our miners to go down into the bowels of the earth with naked lights, as he invites them to do, seems to me, to say the least of it, a terribly dangerous proposal. All parties in the House desire to do all that can be done to ensure the safety of those who have to earn their bread in such a
        1496
        dangerous manner, and on whose labour the whole community is dependent for their welfare. I oppose the Amendment because I believe one explosion in a mine is one too many. It seems to me that this Clause as it stands in the Bill provides ample facilities for dealing with exceptional cases in Scotland or elsewhere. No doubt there is great danger and a terrible amount of deaths caused by falls of roof, but a fall of roof cannot be compared in any degree to the terrible danger of an explosion. A fall of roof will kill two or three, or at most a dozen or a score of men, but in these great explosions that we get in Lancashire two or three hundred poor fellows are immediately sent to their graves, and if the conditions in Scotland and elsewhere are so different, surely the Secretary of State has ample power to exempt them from the operation of this Clause. In the interests of the safety of the miners in Lancashire I oppose this proposal, which, I believe, would be very dangerous to the welfare of those who have to work in such dangerous mines as we get in South-West Lancashire.
        Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I would not have taken part in the Debate but for the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie). I wonder whether he would go down to a mining district and advocate the introduction of candles. I come from a county where we have had the most terrific explosions, and have lost the greatest number of lives, and where the men work with candles. In one of the Clay Cross Company pits, thirty-nine years ago, the men worked with candles, and there was an explosion in which forty-two lives were lost. From that day to this there has never been an application, either from the men or from the employers, to introduce candles again. You have only to witness one accident in a lifetime, and see the devastation that takes place, to tremble at the very idea of a naked light. The second explosion in my county where we had a loss of life was where naked lights were used, and we were supposed to be immune from serious accident. It is something to make some of us tremble to think of it at this time of day, and it has been recognised by the mining leaders that the time has come when men should be prevented from having naked lights whereby they may take the lives of hundreds of men. I hope the Government will stand by the Clause. It gives every facility and every opportunity to meet any emergency which may arise. When the

        1497
        hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) makes a comparison with regard to accidents arising out of explosions as reported, and as collected from that report he takes two cases, the Hutton disaster and the Whitehaven disaster, and the comparison is not fair.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is always given in the table.
        Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I know it is given in the table, but the hon. Member takes an exceptional year, and that is where the unfairness arises. You cannot take a great concern like mining in this country, employing over a million men, and draw a comparison by taking one year. You must take a series of years, and taking a series of years the hon. Member has not a leg to stand on. We do not want platitudes here, we want facts, and we are legislating perhaps for twenty years to come. Speaking directly in the interests of a large body of men, I am fearful as to what may be the outcome of such advice as has been given by the hon. Member.
        Mr. EDGAR JONES: I think my colleague (Mr. Keir Hardie) is giving an opinion of his own which he has held rather strongly for some years, but I assure the House that you could not work a single one of the large coal pits of South Wales with naked lights, and no mine-owner, much less a miners' representative, would say it would be possible to work them at all with naked lights. This is so important that it is my only excuse for mentioning a matter that is somewhat personal. In our own Constituency, just a few weeks ago, there was a lamp taken in what was regarded as the safest part of a very old mine. It had been there for about thirty years. No one had ever found any gas there. An uncle of mine was in charge of the lamp station, where the lights had to be left naked. By some mysterious cause, which no one has been able to explain, after thirty years of absence, the gas came in, my uncle and another man were blown to eternity, and it is only by a miracle that the lives of a thousand men were not involved in disaster.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: But safety lamps were used.
        Mr. EDGAR JONES: The whole point of this painful and, what might have been, terribly overwhelming disaster was this. It was the one part of the mine where
        1498
        there could be a naked light, and it was the men in charge of the naked lights who were blown to eternity. It is these mysterious comings of gas, almost like the Angel of Death, and these terrible things, that the House has to bear in mind when voting on this particular Amendment. I might point out to the Under-Secretary that this Amendment vitiates the principle he has been laying down all along in the matter of mixed lights. If the Amendment was carried you might have different kinds of lights. I earnestly implore the House to reject the Amendment by as emphatic a majority as in the last Division.
        Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask your ruling on a point of Order. The Amendment I have moved provides for the use of safety lamps where the percentage of inflammable gas has been found to be 2½ or upwards. The Government have agreed to accept the Amendment if the percentage is altered to 1¼. I desire to accept that suggestion of the Government by substituting l¼ for 2½. I wish to know whether I can make the substitution now or after the Division.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The question I have to put now is that certain words be omitted. If the House comes to the decision to omit these words, then, the hon. Member having moved other words, I shall have to put the question, "That those words be there inserted." On that it will be in order for any Member to move an Amendment on the words proposed to be inserted.
        Amendment proposed: At end of Subsection (1), to add the words
        "Provided that, subject always to the provisions of this Act and any regulations made thereunder as to the use of electricity in mines, electric lamps, if enclosed in airtight fittings and having the lamp globes hermetically sealed, may be used on main haulage roads within such limits as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "roads," to insert the words "or elsewhere."
        This Amendment does not go quite far enough. While it allows electric lamps on

        1499
        haulage roads, it may be pointed out that there are certain places, such as pumping stations, where they can be used, and the words of my Amendment can be accepted quite well, because, as the main Amendment stands, limits will be fixed to it by regulations. Therefore, there cannot be any possible danger in inserting the words "or elsewhere."
        Mr. MASTERMAN: The use of these electric lamps will be controlled by two factors. One is the fixing of limits by regulations, and the other is that it will be governed by special rules. No difficulty in fixing a regular limit is that we found, directly we began to consult our inspectors on this matter, that what is perfectly satisfactory in one mine, say a hundred or two hundred yards down the fairway, might be perfectly unsatisfactory in another. We therefore decided to throw it back on the regulations of the mine.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: The Under-Secretary has not answered my question.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
        Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
        Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
        Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: As my hon. Friend knows, the dangers of electric lighting—I speak of that in contradistinction to the use of electricity for the purpose of hewing coal—are at the present moment unascertained. We know there are very grave dangers arising from it. I want to briefly state my views on the question, not only from theoretical study but absolute knowledge. There is no doubt that electricity, for mere lighting purposes, can be used with impunity in the main haulage roads of the coal mines where the conditions are not of a particularly dangerous character. Of course, the distance from the pit shaft might vary in different mines, and under the different conditions which obtain in the mines. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has given attention to the conditions in the main haulage way, where there is a great quantity of coal dust, perhaps without any gas whatever, for gas in the main haulage way, except in outbursts, is not so frequently found. The danger is from the dust
        1500
        in a state of suspension and in movement in the velocity with which it may come through the haulage way, and from any imperfection in the electrical apparatus or any accident to it while it is being used. I have here the results of certain, experiments by Professor Thorne, a professor of his university, and a professor of chemistry in the North of England. The result of sixty-three trials with 1 per cent. of gas present—it is supposed to be 2½ per cent. in coal dust constantly exposed in mixture, but I quite agree that there is no absolute scientific certainty about that—showed that there were 18 full ignitions, and in 40 trials with 1½ per cent. of gas present, 13 full ignitions, which amounted to 65 per cent. He points out the extreme danger of using electricity in the main haulage way, where, of course, there is a very large amount of very fine coal dust in suspension.
        I quite agree that if the most careful precautions are taken with regard to the electric plant and with regard to the employment of competent persons to manage it, that it is possible to allow electric light to be used with a tolerably fair amount of safety in the main haulage ways of coal mines; but I observe in the Amendment that what is proposed is that it is to be used "within such limits as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine." Those are the general regulations. I quite agree that it is not perhaps practical to make general regulations where you must have varying conditions. The Amendment also provides,
        "Subject to the provisions of this Act and any regulations made thereunder as to the use of electricity in mines, electric lamps, if enclosed in airtight fittings and having the lamp globes hermetically sealed."
        My hon. Friend knows that that does not cover all. He knows that there is extreme danger in terminals from short circuits. I think the hon. Member for Mid-Durham will bear me out in saying that in one of the most disastrous explosions, although the matter was not definitely settled, there was very great reason to suppose that it was probably through a short circuit the accident happened. I do not object to the terminology of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has been exposed, not improperly, to very strong pressure in this matter. No one wants to interfere with the industry of electric light, which, no doubt, is a great source of safety if properly used, but I think the House is entitled to

        1501
        have from the hon. Gentleman some knowledge as to what the nature of the provisions may be for securing safety, and as to what precautions are to be taken to secure that the regulations of the mines, which mean the regulations of the managers of the mines; are properly checked by competent persons to ensure that electric lighting will not carry anywhere within the zone of danger. The matter is a very grave one, and it is in no spirit of hostility that I rise to ask these questions.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree with almost every word that my hon. and learned Friend has said I read the very interesting report of Professor Thornton and all that will come into consideration in dealing with this question. The regulations have got to be approved by the Home Office, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Home Office will lean to the side of extreme caution in the matter.

        CLAUSE 33.—(Construction of Safety Lamps).
        Wherever safety lamps are required by this Act or the regulations of the mine to be used, no safety lamp shall be used by any person employed in the mine unless it is provided by the owner of the mine, and is of a type for the time being approved, as respects the class of mines to which the mine belongs, by the Secretary of State.
        Amendment made: After the word "shall" ["safety lamp shall"], insert the words "after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen."—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 34.—(Examination of Safety Lamps).
        In any mine or part of a mine in which safety lamps are required by this Act or the regulations of the mine to be used—

        (i.) A safety lamp shall not be used unless it has since last in use been thoroughly examined at the surface by a competent person appointed by the manager for the purpose and found by him in safe working order and securely locked; and a record shall be kept of the men to whom the several lamps are given out:

        (ii.) Such competent person as aforesaid shall also examine every lamp on its being returned, and if on such an examination any lamp is found to be damaged, he shall record the nature
        1502
        of the damage in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and the person to whom the lamp was given out shall be deemed to have wilfully damaged the lamp unless he proves that the damage was due to no fault of his own and that he immediately gave notice of the damage to the fireman, examiner, or deputy:

        (iii.) A safety lamp shall not be unlocked except at an appointed lamp station (which shall not be in a return airway) by a competent person appointed by the manager for the purpose, nor, except in the case of electric hand lamps, shall it be relighted except by such a person at an appointed lamp station alter examination by him, and no person other than such person as aforesaid shall have in his possession any contrivance for relighting or opening the lock of any safety lamp:

        (iv.) No part of a safety lamp shall be removed by any person whilst the lamp is in ordinary use.

        Amendments made: In paragraph (i.), after the word "appointed" ["appointed by the manager"], insert the words "in writing."
        In paragraph (ii.), after the word "and" ["for the purpose, and"] insert the words "the damage shall be deemed to have been due to the neglect or default of."
        Leave out the words "shall be deemed to have wilfully damaged the lamp."
        At the end of the paragraph insert the words "or some other official of the mine appointed in writing by the manager for the purpose."
        In paragraph (iii.), after the word "appointed," insert the words "in writing."
        At the end of paragraph (iv.) insert the words, "(2) Where in any such mine or part of a mine as aforesaid any damage is caused to a lamp through the neglect or default of the person to whom the lamp was given out, that person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 35.—(Prohibition against Possession of Lucifer Matches, etc,).
        (1) In any mine or part of a mine in which safety lamps are required by this Act or the regulations of the mine to be used, no person shall have in his possession any lucifer match nor any apparatus of any kind for producing a light or spark except so far as may be authorised for

        1503
        the purpose of shot firing or relighting lamps by an order under this Act regulating the use of explosives, or any cigar, cigarette, pipe, or contrivance for smoking.
        (2) The manager of a mine in which or in any part of which safety lamps are required by this Act or by the regulations of the mine to be used, shall, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have in their possession any lucifer match or such Apparatus as aforesaid or cigar, cigarette, pipe, or contrivance for smoking, cause either all persons employed underground in the mine, or in the part of the mine, as the case may be, or such of them as may be selected on a system approved by the inspector of the division, to be searched in the prescribed manner after or immediately before entering the mine or that part of the mine.
        (3) No official of a mine shall search any workman employed in a mine unless before such search is made, an opportunity has been given by such official to some two workmen employed in such mine to search himself, and if no lucifer matches, or such apparatus as aforesaid, or any pipe or smoking appliance is found on the person of the said official, the said official shall then have the right to proceed to search such workman or any other workmen employed in such mine.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "ascertaining," insert the words "before the persons employed below ground in the mine, or in the part of the mine, as the case may be, commence work."
        Leave out the words "persons employed underground in the mine, or in the part of the mine, as the case may be," and insert instead thereof the words "those persons."
        At the end of Sub-section (3), insert,
        "(4) Any person who refuses to allow himself to be searched in accordance with the foregoing provision shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall not be allowed to enter the mine, or the part of a mine, as the case may be, and any person who on being searched is found to have in his possession any of the articles prohibited under this Section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, after the words last added to insert the following new Sub-section,
        "(5) Managers, under-managers, and other officials and visitors about to enter
        1504
        the mine shall be subject to the provisions of this Clause in like manner as though they were persons employed underground in the mine."
        Under this Clause miners going down a mine are to be searched to find out whether they have upon them any smoking apparatus, cigar, cigarette, pipe, or contrivance for smoking. I am not going to oppose the Clause as it stands, but I am about to ask that what applies to the collier should also apply to the manager. If the collier is to be searched under suspicion of being about to do a dangerous, foolish, or dishonourable thing, the manager and the visitor about to descend the mine should come within the same provision. I beg to move.
        Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
        The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Hunter): I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment. After all, so far as the manager is concerned, he runs very considerable risk indeed if he is guilty of any contravention of the Act. He is liable to lose his certificate, a much heavier penalty than to which an ordinary miner is liable. So far as visitors are concerned, it is right enough that they should be searched to see that they have not matches or other inflammable material upon their person. If you find them with such material on their persons all you can do is to take it away. You cannot impose upon them a penalty for a contravention of this Act. According to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, he would render all visitors to a mine liable to the penalty that is imposed for breaking the law. His suggestion goes beyond what is reasonable.
        Mr. EDGAR JONES: I beg to support the Amendment. I think there is much more danger from visitors than from the ordinary workman. There ought to be the same responsibility for visitors to be careful when they go into the mine as for the workman. If a visitor goes down the mine with matches in his or her possession then there should be a deterrent provision such as we have here. As to managers and under-managers, there is much more liability of their being a little more careless, not intentionally perhaps, because they spend more time above ground. I hope the Committee will allow these words to go through.
        Mr. BOOTH: I really think this is going a little too far. I think my hon. Friends are well aware that when any of us do take visitors down a mine we are all exceedingly careful not to run any risks. Usually when visitors go down they are attended by the manager and possibly by someone interested in the mine. Anyone who takes personal friends down a mine is very particular in the matter. Scientists go down the mines, and occasionally archbishops. I am proud to say that the Archbishop of York, in whose diocese I reside, loves to go down a mine and chat with the colliers while they are at the coal face. And really the last thing one would like when the archbishop came would be that he should have his pockets turned out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, a word of reminder to the archbishop would be quite sufficient. If you look at the thing in a practical manner you will see that there is no real danger at all, because visitors, distinguished or otherwise, as a rule are attended by the heads of the colliery, and the whole thing is gone about in a very correct manner. The same thing applies to taking a party of ladies down a mine. I have had that gallant duty more than once, and I may have it again on Saturday. I assure the House that there is no danger to be apprehended on these occasions, and you do not need legislation.
        Amendment negatived.
        Shafts and Winding.

        CLAUSE 36.—(Requirements as to Shafts and Outlets.).
        (1) There must be in every mine at least two shafts or outlets, with which every seam for the time being at work in the mine shall have a communication, so that such shafts or outlets shall afford separate means of ingress and egress available to the persons employed in every such seam, whether the shafts or outlets belong to the same mine or to more than one mine.
        (2) Such shafts or outlets must not at any point be nearer to one another than fifteen yards; and there shall be between such two shafts or outlets a communication not less than four feet wide and four feet high.
        (3) Every part of a mine in which ten or more persons are employed at the same time shall be provided with at least two ways affording means of egress to the surface, and so arranged that in the event of either becoming impassable at any point
        1506
        the other will afford means of egress to the surface.
        (4) No person shall be precluded by any agreement from doing such acts as may be necessary for complying with the foregoing provisions of this section, or be liable under any contract to any injunction damages penalty or forfeiture for doing such acts as may be necessary in order to comply therewith.
        (5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply—

        (i) in the case of a new mine or seam being opened—

        (a) to any working for the purpose of making a communication between two or more shafts or outlets; or

        (b) to any working for the purpose of searching for or proving minerals;

        (c) to any drivings or other preparatory work;

        so long as not more than twenty persons are employed below ground at any one time in the whole of the different seams in connection with a single shaft or outlet; nor

        (ii) to any proved mine so long as it is exempted by order of the Secretary of State on the ground either—

        (a) that the quantity of mineral proved is not sufficient to repay the outlay which would be occasioned by sinking or making a second shaft or outlet, or by establishing communication with a second shaft or outlet, in any case where such communication existed and has become unavailable; or

        (b) that the workings in any seam of the mine have reached the boundary of the property or the extremity of the mineral field of which that seam is a part, and that it is expedient to work away the pillars already formed in course of the ordinary working, notwithstanding that one of the shafts or outlets may be cut off by so working away the pillars of that seam;

        and so long as not more than twenty persons are employed below ground at any one time in the whole of the different seams in connexion with a single shaft or outlet; nor

        (iii) to any mine—

        (a) while a shaft is being sunk, or an outlet being made; or

        1507

        (b) one of the shafts or outlets of which has become, by reason of some accident, unavailable for the use of the persons employed in the mine;

        so long as the mine is exempted by order of the Secretary of State, and as the conditions (if any) annexed to the order of exemption are duly observed.

        (6) The foregoing provisions of this section requiring the two shafts or outlets of a mine to be separated by a distance of not less than fifteen yards shall not apply to any mine which is provided with two shafts sunk before the first day of January eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and at that time separated by a distance of less than ten feet, or commenced to be sunk before the first day of January eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, and separated by a distance of ten feet or upwards, but less than fifteen yards.
        (7) The foregoing provisions of this section as to the dimensions of the communications between two shafts or outlets shall not apply to any mine or class of mines for the time being exempted therefrom by order of the Secretary of State by reason of the thinness of the seams or other exigencies affecting that mine or class of mines, and so long as the conditions (if any) annexed to the order of exemption are duly observed.
        Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (i) (e).—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 37.—(Fencing Shafts and Entrances).
        (1) Every entrance to any place below ground in a mine which is not in actual use or course of working and extension shall be kept securely fenced across the whole width of the entrance, so as to prevent persons inadvertently entering the same.
        (2) The top of every shaft which for the time being is out of use, or used only as a ventilating shaft, shall be kept securely fenced.
        (3) The top and all entrances between the top and bottom, including the sump, if any, of every working, ventilating, or pumping shaft shall be properly fenced, but this shall not be taken to forbid the temporary removal of the fence for the purpose of repairs or other operations if proper precautions are used.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "all entrances between the top and."
        Leave out the words "including the sump, if any."
        Leave out the words "shall be properly" and insert instead thereof the words "and all entrances into the workings shall be kept securely."—[Mr. Masterman.]

        CLAUSE 38.—(Securing of Shafts).
        Every working or pumping shaft and every shaft in the course of being sunk shall be securely cased or lined, or otherwise made secure.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "Every," and to insert instead thereof the words "where the natural strata are not safe."
        This Clause very properly provides that all shafts sunk shall be properly secured. If you bore through sound rock it may be the best casing itself, and would not require any other lining. My Amendment provides that where the natural strata is not safe there shall be proper lining or casing.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because I am quite sure all that is required is already covered by the Clause. We do not want to bring in any question whether natural strata is safe or not; all we want is security, and whether the sinking is through hard rock or not we want to see that it is secure. I am advised that Clause 38 provides that the shaft shall be secure, and that is all that is required.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: If that is the interpretation, of course it meets my point.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: When the Grand Committee accepted my Amendment on this point, I gave an instance of a case of sinking through rock in South Wales, where a large number of lives were lost owing to the sides not being properly protected. I understood from the Government that every shaft in the course of being sunk would have to be made secure. It could not be made secure unless it was properly lined after being bored. I hope the Solicitor-General for Scotland will tell us what the real meaning of the words in the Clause is. Is a shaft to be protected in the course of being sunk. The ground

        1509
        may be perfectly hard, but yet small pieces may fall off and kill people. I was down a shaft a short time ago, and I remarked to the manager of the mine that I did not think it wise to have the boring which was going on carried out without lining. He replied they never had an accident so hard was the rock, but only a few hours afterwards a piece of rock chipped off and fell down. That is not an isolated case; there are innumerable cases of that kind, and I think if the words of the Clause mean anything at all they must mean the proper securing of the shaft.
        Mr. HUNTER: The answer to my hon. Friend's question, it seems to me, depends entirely upon the wall you have to protect. The answer, I think, is to be found in the first part of the Clause, "or otherwise made secure."
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 40.—(Provision of Winding Apparatus).
        (1) Proper and separate apparatus for raising, or lowering persons to or from the surface, of such a character as may be prescribed by the regulations of the mine, shall be kept at each of the two shafts or outlets required by the foregoing provisions of this Act, and at any other shaft or outlet for the time being in use for the purpose of ingress or egress, and such apparatus, if not in actual use, shall be constantly available for use, and no person shall, except for the purposes of sinking operations or for the purpose of examining or repairing the shafts or outlets or the machinery or appliances therein, or for the purpose of accompanying animals or bulky material which cannot be raised or lowered in a cage, or where a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division, be raised or lowered otherwise than in a cage constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Section:
        Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any outlet by which persons can walk into or out of the mine otherwise than by ladders.
        (2) Where the winding apparatus ordinarily used for raising or lowering persons to or from the surface is worked by mechanical power, it shall, if the shaft is vertical, be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent over winding. If a detaching hook be used in addition to such automatic contrivance it shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months.
        (3) Guides shall be provided in the case of every working shaft, or shaft in the course of being sunk, over one hundred yards in depth, unless a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division.
        (4) Keps for supporting the cage when at rest shall be provided at the surface level where mineral is usually unloaded, and shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage, but shall not be provided at any intermediate landings in the shaft.
        The foregoing requirements as to the provision of keps shall not apply to a system of winding by means of a single rope where the cages are held by the friction of the rope on the winding sheave.
        (5) Every winding rope shall be recapped at intervals of not more than six months in accordance with general regulations under this Act, and no winding rope which has been in use for more than three and a half years or which has been spliced shall be used for raising or lowering persons.
        (6) Every engine used for raising or lowering persons shall be completely separated by a substantial partition from every other engine used for that purpose at the same time, and from machinery used for any purpose other than for raising or lowering persons, unless a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division.
        (7) Every cage shall be provided with catches or other suitable contrivance to prevent tubs falling out, and if used for lowering or raising persons shall be adequately covered in at the two sides and at the top, and shall be provided with suitable gates and hand bars on both sides of the cage.
        (8) Rods shall not be used for attaching a cage to the winding rope unless connected with the cage through the medium of an efficient spring.
        (9) There shall be on the drum of every winding apparatus used for lowering or raising persons such flanges or horns, and also, if the drum is conical, such other appliances as shall effectively prevent the rope from slipping.
        (10) Where the winding apparatus used for lowering or raising persons is worked by mechanical power, there shall be pro vided one or more brakes of sufficient power by themselves to hold the cage when loaded at any point in the shaft, and a proper indicator (in addition to any mark on the rope) showing to the person who works the machine, on a dial or in some sufficient manner, the position of the

        1511
        cage in the shaft and placed in such a position as to be easily seen by him at the same time as the marks on the rope.
        If the drum is not on the crank shaft, there shall be an adequate brake on the drum shaft.
        (11) No minerals, tubs, timber, or other materials, and no implements or tools other than scientific instruments, shall be raised or lowered whilst persons are being raised or lowered in the same shaft, whether in the same cage or not.
        Provided that—

        (a) this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of men working in the shafts or in the case of men accompanying animals or other bulky materials which cannot be raised or lowered in a cage; and

        (b) where a shaft is divided throughout by a substantial partition each section of the shaft shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Subsection, be deemed to be a separate shaft.

        Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof,
        "(2) Where the winding apparatus is worked by mechanical power it shall be provided with a detaching hook, and if the shaft is more than one hundred yards in depth shall also be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent overwinding."
        I wish to remind the House that the Royal Commission on Mines made a definite recommendation upon this question, and they find in precise terms that a detaching hook should be provided in the case of every winding shaft. An agreement was come to under which it became only necessary to provide a winding gear and not a detaching hook. The men's representatives at the time did not fully appreciate what these winding gears meant and what their effect was. The Royal Commission recommended, "The use of detaching hooks should be made compulsory in every case. The witnesses we examined acquiesced in this recommendation." This was hardly questioned by a single witness who gave evidence, and the reason why it was struck out was on account of Scotland. The Scotch mines, with few exceptions, are not provided with detaching hooks, but practically all over the United Kingdom the overwhelming
        1512
        majority of the mines are provided with these hooks. It is said that if you have an overwinding gear it is not necessary to have a detaching hook. All the inspectors of mines are unanimous on this question.
        It is the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission and of all the witnesses who gave evidence before that Commission. Innumerable accidents have taken place within the last thirty years in mines which have not been fitted with detaching hooks and thousands of lives have been saved owing to the use of these hooks. It is a very simple appliance, and costs only from £20 to £50 or £60 according to the size and it provides for safety in case a man overwinds. A short time ago there was an accident in the case of a very large shaft in the Doncaster district which was fitted with the very best engines that money could buy and it was also fitted with a detaching hook. The overwinding gear failed and the detaching hook failed as well. On the other hand, there are numerous cases where, since automatic appliances have come out preventing overwinding, the automatic appliance has failed, and the detaching hook has acted. Last year on no less than five occasions the detaching hook came into operation at the collieries with which I am associated, and, if it had not been in operation, everyone, or the majority of the men working at the bottom, would have been killed. I feel very strongly in this matter, because when a certain colliery was being sunk some thirty years ago in Derbyshire, although it was in the early days when these hooks came out, there was no hook in use, and the winding engine over-wound, and a large number of men were instantly killed and others made cripples for life. That was an experience I have never forgotten.
        Time after time, where you have had detaching hooks and controllers also at work, the detaching hook has acted and saved lives. The opposition comes from Scotland, and it comes from Scotland for two reasons. First, their headgear is so low they are not able to get the hook in at the place for the hitching; secondly, their headgears are so slender that they would collapse if the load was put on owing to the sudden shock occasioned by overwinding. That is not a reason why this appliance which has saved so many lives in the past should not be made compulsory, and I trust the House and the Government will accept this Amendment, which, after all, is merely putting into the

        1513
        Bill the original proposal of the Government. It was defeated in Committee owing to a misapprehension on the part of the miners' representatives. I said at the time I should ask the House of Commons to reverse the decision, and the Government at that time gave us to understand they would favourably support it.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: I rise to second the Amendment. This was very fully discussed in Grand Committee, and the confusion into which the Committee got will be present to the mind of those who were present. I want to press this Amendment upon the Government because it reverts to the Bill as it originally stood. I venture to say the Bill as it originally stood was better than the Clause at which we arrived in Committee. It provided for a detaching hook in all cases and for some automatic contrivance in shafts more than 100 yards deep. When the Bill left the Committee these conditions were turned about. There was to be an automatic contrivance in every case, and a detaching hook might be used in addition. I entirely agree with what the hon. Baronet has said with regard to the value of the detaching hook. I cannot understand why the Government should not have insisted on this comparatively inexpensive apparatus in every case. I hope they will accept this Amendment. It is true they have procured an automatic contrivance in every case, but that is no substitute for the detaching hook. It is not expensive. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Committee, as well as of the Royal Commission that a detaching hook should be used in every case, and they recommend the use of the automatic contrivance in addition in the deeper mines.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: This was one of the questions on which in the Committee stage I intimated that I did not think we could be bound by the decision of the Committee. It was come to under some confusion and misapprehension as to what hon. Members were voting for, and I suggest, therefore, we have a right to ask the House to reconsider the decision of the Committee. This is the unanimous report of the Royal Commission and also the report of a Special Expert Committee which is endorsed by every one of the Home Office inspectors. The hon. Baronet has told us how this provision has saved persons from injury and death, but he has not told us—what is the truth—that there is a considerable peril of death and accident from overwinding. In the last five
        1514
        years thirty-eight men have been killed and 239 injured in accidents due to overwinding, and as there have been cases where the automatic contrivance has not proved effective against overwinding I think it would be very remiss on my part if I did not advise this House to take advantage of both these safeguards. I think there will have to be some exemptions perhaps in the case of small mines and mines which are nearly worked out and where providing the detaching hook might mean a very considerable expense, and I shall therefore ask the House, if they carry the Amendment, to give us power of exemption for particular purposes.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I ask the Under-Secretary how long he intends to go on to-night?
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to press hon. Members at all, but I think we might go on a little longer. We might rise well before 12 o'clock.
        Mr. RICHARDS: I do not support or oppose the acceptance of the Amendment. I may as well tell the Under-Secretary that it was not due to any misunderstanding or misapprehension that the Labour representatives agreed to the Clause as it stands. It is a matter of speculation and choice as to whether it is better to have an automatic contrivance at every colliery. We are told by the experts that an automatic contrivance is effective in preventing overwinding, and that all kinds of engines can be fitted with it.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: Accidents have happened from overwinding where automatic contrivances have been applied.
        Mr. RICHARDS: We had the choice of accepting an automatic contrivance at every colliery, or an automatic contrivance with a detaching hook at deep collieries. Overwindings are as liable to take place at collieries 100 yards deep as at collieries 300 yards deep. We prefer the Clause as it stands at present, with an automatic contrivance for every colliery, rather than that we should have an automatic contrivance with a detaching hook at the deep collieries.
        Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I rise to support the Amendment. Only yesterday an accident took place in my own division, which I am told would have been prevented if the automatic contrivance with the detaching hook had been in use. An overwinding took place, and two men were killed,

        1515
        while four were mutilated and had to be taken to the infirmary. If this apparatus had been used the lives of these men would have been saved, at least, so I am told by the best expert evidence I can obtain. It will be a double safeguard for the lives of these men. It should be applied to each colliery. I care not what the cost would be. That does not trouble me. With me it is a question of the safety of life and limb. Yesterday we had a revelation of what overwinding means in one of our most advanced collieries. If we had had this automatic contrivance and detaching hook we might have saved these lives.
        Question, "That the words of the Subsection down to the word 'vertical' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
        Question proposed, that the words, "(2) Where the winding apparatus is worked by mechanical power it shall be provided with a detaching hook, and if the shaft is more than one hundred yards in depth shall also be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent overwinding. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any mine which is exempted by the Secretary of State on the ground of the special circumstances of the mine," be there inserted.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. Gentleman has suggested these words in place of those on the Paper. I understand they are to cover special circumstances, such as very small mines where there is a very small number of men employed, and also mines where the life is nearly exhausted; because, of course, it would be really very unnecessary to insist, in the case of a mine with less than five years to run, that this very expensive burden should be borne. In the case of South Staffordshire a very great number of very small mines are opened and closed very rapidly, and if this expensive burden is imposed in every case, it will very seriously interfere with the industry. I only want to have a statement that these special exemptions are to include both sets of circumstances.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I indicated that that was the sort of special case which I contemplated, but every case ought to be judged on its merits. Some very small mines should be exempted, and I certainly think where a mine is nearly worked out there ought to be exemptions there, too.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think there ought to be special inclusions and special exclusions, and if I am in order I will ask leave to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman).
        Mr. SPEAKER: I will put it, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that it does the reverse of what he wishes.
        Question proposed, after the words last inserted to insert the words, "The foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to any mine in which the total number of persons employed below ground does not exceed thirty, unless the inspector of the division, by notice in writing served on the owner or agent, or the manager (if any) of the mine directs that they shall apply."
        Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether on the Report stage one hon. Member can move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member?
        Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, he can move it in his own name, or he can hand in his Amendment in manuscript.
        Sir C. CORY: I had given notice of an Amendment to the Sub-section which has been struck out. Can I move it as an Amendment to the new Sub-section which has taken the place of the other one?
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment was disposed of by the striking out of Sub-section (2).
        Mr. MASTERMAN: There are some mines with under thirty persons where it would not be desirable to insist on this provision. In general we intend to make this one of the particular matters to be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand it is intended by the Home Office to exempt small mines where there are less than thirty people. If that is stated by the Under-Secretary I shall not press the Amendment.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: We do not withdraw from the Amendment on the Paper. We only include it in the general exceptions.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move after the word "winding" to insert the words,

        1517
        "The detaching hook shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months."
        Mr. SPEAKER: The House unanimously decided to strike that out.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: I am not proposing to put in the words that are there now.
        Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. Member that the last words inserted were, "The provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to any mine which is exempted by the Secretary of State on account of the special circumstances of the mine."
        Mr. LEIF JONES: I submit on a point of Order—
        Sir C. CORY: I rise to a point of Order—
        Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to move an Amendment, the least he can do is to put it on paper so that I can see it. He has agreed to strike out Sub-section (2). I understand that he wants to add something to the new Subsection. Let him put the precise words on paper, and bring them up.
        Mr. LEIF JONES: The House, by inadvertence, struck out the words at the end of Sub-section (2), and I propose to add these words, "The detaching hook shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months." Those are not the same words.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is playing with the House. The House has struck those words out. The hon. Member cannot move to take them in again.
        Mr. PARKES: I believe that the intention of the House was to retain those particular words, which are very important.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The House has struck out Sub-section (2) and we cannot go back on it.
        Colonel HICKMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite is a most important one. We should have some provision of this sort. We have got into such a muddle through the manuscript Amendments—
        Mr. SPEAKER: I say again that if the hon. Member will put his Amendment on a piece of paper and let me see it I will see whether it reads.
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think that this would be the place for my Amendment as a new Sub-section. As it stands on the Paper I propose to put in after the word "overwinding"—
        Sir C. CORY: I rise to a point of Order. I understand that if the hon. Member proceeds with his Amendment I am cut out. I am now prepared to put down my Amendment, "The provisions of this Sub-section (2) shall not apply for three years from the coming into operation of this Act, or until such further time as the Secretary of State may prescribe in any case where he is satisfied that it has not been practicable to provide the same."
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In the event of the Amendment I am now submitting being carried, the hon. Baronet will want the same exemption to that. Therefore the proper place for his Amendment is after the one I am moving is disposed of. I beg to move, in the new Sub-section, after the word "over-winding," to insert the word's "an apparatus approved by the Secretary of State to prevent the cage from falling in cases where the winding rope breaks or slips the drum."
        Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member moves is a new Sub-section, and it will not be in order. The proviso proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives applies to the Sub-section we are now discussing.
        Sir C. CORY: I beg to move to add at the end of the Sub-section the words, "The provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply within three years from the coming into operation of this Act, or such further time as the Secretary of State may prescribe in any case where he is satisfied that it has not been practicable to provide the same."
        I think it will be generally acknowledged that immediately the Act comes into operation there will be a rush into the market for new apparatus. People will set their brains to work to see how they can improve the appliances which are necessary, and it seems desirable that some time should be allowed those who seek to make provision of the required apparatus. The report of the Royal Commission recommends that a reasonable time should be allowed to colliery owners to carry these requirements into effect. The Under-Secretary promised that a Clause should be inserted in order to give time for such work as will be rendered

        1519
        necessary, and I suggest that three years is a reasonable time in which to supply these contrivances.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to second the Amendment. I agree with what the hon. Baronet has said as to the necessity for allowing time for this work. I am informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain that in many cases seven years will be required, and therefore three years seems a small period to ask for.
        The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Hunter): The proposal of the hon. Baronet would establish a minimum period of years. That period, in connection with the introduction of provisions for the safety in the mines, might in many cases be excessive. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mansfield, the matter is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it becomes administrative in his hands; he considers the special circumstances of each mine. In one mine it might be advisable that the alteration should be made in a shorter period than in the case of another mine. We think there should not be a hard-and-fast line drawn.
        Sir C. CORY: I do not say at least three years, but before three years, which is not hard and fast.
        Mr. HUNTER: The whole matter is entirely governed by the proviso of the Government, and it is entirely for them to say, dealing with each particular case on its own merits.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think the statement of the Government is quite correct. The special provision is as to particular circumstances under which certain mines may be exempted. It has got nothing to do with the period before which this change is to take place. I think the proposition made by the hon. Baronet is most reasonable, that these extensive changes should not be enforced within a certain time. After all, you should meet people who are controlling big interests in a fair way. They are willing to accept what is a very big change in the provision of automatic winding apparatus and safety rope, and I think you ought to give them time. I cannot agree with the Solicitor-General that the general provision applies to the case of fixing this new apparatus. I think there was general agreement when my
        1520
        hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman) was speaking, as hon. Members shouted "agreed." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They did, and my hon. and gallant Friend discontinued his speech in consequence. I hope the Government will give way upon the question.
        Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I remind the House that in Grand Committee the Under-Secretary distinctly said, "These things are new apparatus; I only know of two effective ones, and time must be given both for the manufacturers of those apparatus and the colliery owners to get them properly in working order." I do not know that three years is absolutely essential, but there ought to be some time fixed. It is not a satisfactory arrangement to leave it to the Government to deal with each case. People ought to know when they have got to do it. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to agree to the Amendment or some modification.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I will promise that in one or other structural alterations which we are making in the Bill we will put in an Amendment in a comparatively short time, and that such time may be extended at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I do not thing that makes any difference in practice to what my hon. and learned Friend said, and if it would meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen I will promise that shall be done in another place.
        Sir C. CORY: I am willing to withdraw after the undertaking of the Home Secretary.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "or" ["or shaft"], and insert instead thereof the words "over fifty yards in depth, and in the case of every."
        In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "and shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage."—[Mr. Master-man.]
        At end of Sub-section (4) insert the words, "The keps provided at the surface level, and also the keps, if any, provided at the bottom of the shaft, shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the

        1521
        words, "Apparatus approved by the Secretary of State to prevent the cage from falling in cases where the winding rope breaks or slips the drum, shall be provided in each mine."
        I know that this is a matter upon which the Royal Commission were far from being agreed. Everybody agrees as to the necessity for some such apparatus, but up to the present nothing has been found entirely satisfactory. But the same thing is true to some degree of detached hooks, and my point is that if the provision of some form of apparatus were made obligatory it would stimulate invention and secure some suitable contrivance all the sooner. I do not desire that the safety of the men should depend upon something to keep the cage from falling when the rope breaks, but that, when everything has been done to keep the rope safe, if it does break the colliers in the cage shall have one more chance of escape. The need is shown in the Mine Inspector's Report, according to which the deaths from overwinding in 1910 were twelve. The position is being materially improved by this Clause, but I want the House to go a step further, and make it as safe as legislation can make it. If it is possible to get a safety appliance to keep a cage loaded with six or ten tons of coal from going down there is no insuperable difficulty in the way of stopping a cage containing men.
        Sir CHARLES HENRY: I beg to Second the Amendment. There was an accident about a year ago in the Constituency that I represent, and it might have been obviated had some such contrivance as has been suggested been in existence. The Home Office might be on the look out for something of the kind.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: It is obvious that with the position taken up by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment everyone will have sympathy. These accidents are some of the most horrible in the mine. The objection is that not only has no apparatus to meet the case been invented, but all the advice of the experts I can get suggests that it would be more dangerous than otherwise. In that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield will bear me out. That was the declaration of the Royal Commission. That is also the result of very careful investigation by the inspectors at the Home Office. When we were making up this Bill the first thing I asked was, "Is there not
        1522
        some apparatus: some sort of automatic clutch, that if the rope breaks, would catch the cage?" The experts were all perfectly convinced that the use of such apparatus would be more dangerous than the present state of things. It would probably come into use inopportunely, when the cage was ascending or descending. If in the course of the progress of scientific invention any such apparatus comes out, if I still have the honour to be at the Home Office, I shall be the first to propose as Amendment of this Act.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "in" ["has been in use"] to insert the word "constant."
        In the Sub-section at present a rope at all in use would have to be scrapped at the end of 3½ years. I am quite sure it was never meant that unused reserve ropes should be scrapped after 3½ years.
        Mr. BAIRD: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. HUNTER: The introduction of the word "constant" would give rise to a considerable amount of difficulty in the application of this Clause. It is perfectly clear where the reference is first in the Clause that it is to ropes in use. That does not mean reserve ropes. It means ropes that have actually been used. If the adjective suggested were put in it would leave it in the power of the owner to say, "The rope has not been used for a day or a week," and so he might be able to avoid this provision. It is not intended that he should have that power.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really think some word is necessary here. It is not merely the case of a reserve rope that is never used. There may be a reserve rope that is used very occasionally. If that is the case, if the Bill stands as it is now, that rope would have to be scrapped in three and a half years when it had only been used on very few occasions. I quite agree that the word "constant" may not be fair, but I suggest the word "regular" would be; it would be less objectionable than "constant."
        Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out that a rope in constant use has a much longer life than a rope only used occasionally.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: In Sub-section (7) leave out the words "adequately covered in at the two sides and at the top" and insert thereof the words "covered in completely at the top and closed in at the two sides in a sufficient manner to prevent persons or things from projecting beyond the sides."
        After the word "gates" ["with suitable gates and"] insert the words "or other rigid fences."
        Leave out the words "hand bars on both sides of" and insert instead thereof the words "with a rigid hand bar fixed in a position where it can be easily reached by all persons in."—[Mr. Masterman.]
        Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
        Mr. BOOTH: On that question may I ask whether we shall be asked to sit late to-morrow. It is a matter of some importance to some of us engaged in this very business.
        Mr. McKENNA: We hope we shall not have to sit very late to-morrow, but we shall endeavour to get the Bill, and I imagine we shall be able to do so in a reasonable time.
        Viscount WOLMER: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a reasonable time?
        Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord knows it is impossible to give any particular hour, because those who might wish to protract the proceedings would find it extremely easy to go on up to that hour. We have a reasonable hope that we may be able to finish to-morrow evening about five or six o'clock.
        Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Surely there ought to be some limit. No one wants to be kept in the House late on a Friday night. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to go on up to eleven o'clock?
        Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no; there is no intention of going on up to any such late hour as that. I hope by five or six, or seven o'clock at latest, we shall conclude the Debate to-morrow evening.
        Debate adjourned accordingly.
        1524
        Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Mr. FORSTER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, three questions with reference to the Insurance Bill: First, when the Chancellor proposes to circulate the statement which he promised showing the financial effects of the Amendments carried in Committee. In the second place, when he will put upon the Paper the Amendments proposed for the Report stage, and which must amount to one or two hundred, I should think; and in the third place, when he will announce the names of the Insurance Commissioners? The House will realise the urgency of the matter when I remind them that unless the Amendments are put on the Paper to-morrow we shall begin the Report stage on Tuesday without having had any notice of the Amendments at all.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As to the putting down of Government Amendments I am glad to be able to say that a large number of them will be put down tomorrow—a hundred or two. With regard to the financial effect of the Amendments carried in Committee, I only received notice of that question shortly before eleven o'clock, and I have not had an opportunity of seeing the actuaries, but I believe they have completed their report on that subject, although I have not seen it. With regard to the names of the Insurance Commissioners, I have not had an opportunity of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is not a question which I can answer without consulting him.
Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Return Refused.
  Return Refused.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  HOME WORKERS.
  HOME WORKERS.
  MEDICAL PANEL.
  MEDICAL PANEL.
  Irish Teachers' Pension Scheme.
  Irish Teachers' Pension Scheme.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  Irish Estates Commission.
  Irish Estates Commission.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish-Speaking National Schools.
  Irish-Speaking National Schools.
  Commissioners of National Education (Ireland).
  Commissioners of National Education (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Boating Accommodation at Rathlin Island.
  Boating Accommodation at Rathlin Island.
  Butter Bill.
  Butter Bill.
  Seamen Pensioner Reserve and Royal Fleet Reserve.
  Seamen Pensioner Reserve and Royal Fleet Reserve.
  Belturbet Barracks.
  Belturbet Barracks.
  Territorial Artillery.
  Territorial Artillery.
  Irish Butter and Pig Consignments.
  Irish Butter and Pig Consignments.
  Birkbeck Bank.
  Birkbeck Bank.
  Telegraph Work (Bristol).
  Telegraph Work (Bristol).
  Postman's Claim.
  Postman's Claim.
  Telegraphing in County Galway.
  Telegraphing in County Galway.
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
  Fishing and Hydrographical Exploration (North Sea).
  Fishing and Hydrographical Exploration (North Sea).
  King Edward VII. Memorial.
  King Edward VII. Memorial.